Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

368HEROES OF “RESERVATION” 136The tenth issue of Nasha Zarya, the magazine of Mr. Potresovand Co., which we have just received, provides strikingexamples of carelessness or, rather, unprinciplednessin the evaluation of Leo Tolstoy, which need to be dealt withat once, if only in brief.Here is an article by V. Bazarov, a new warrior in Potresov’sranks. The editors are not in agreement with “certainpropositions” in this article, without of course mentioningwhich propositions they are. That is so much more convenientfor covering up confusion! As for ourselves, we find itdifficult to point out any propositions in this article thatwould not arouse the indignation of anyone who has the leastbit of regard for Marxism. “Our intelligentsia,” V. Bazarovwrites, “beaten and dispirited, turned into a sort of amorphousmental and moral slough, and now at the extreme limitof spiritual demoralisation, has unanimously accepted Tolstoy—thewhole of Tolstoy—as its conscience.” That is nottrue. It is mere phrase-mongering. Our intelligentsia in general,and particularly that of Nasha Zarya, certainly looksvery “dispirited”, but it neither did nor could display any“unanimity” in its appraisal of Tolstoy, and it never did orcould appraise correctly the whole of Tolstoy. It is preciselythe absence of unanimity that is concealed behind the utterlyhypocritical talk about “conscience”, a catchword fully worthyof Novoye Vremya. Bazarov does not fight the “slough”—he encourages the slough.Bazarov “would like to recall certain instances of injustice[!!] with regard to Tolstoy, of which the Russian intellectualsin general, and we radicals of various persuasionsin particular, are guilty”. The only thing that is true in thisstatement is that Bazarov, Potresov and Co. are indeed