Developed Inés Armand struggling French contemporary of Lenin project at the beginning in 1915 for writing a publication of the workers about relations between men and women have been sent to outline pamphlet Lenin, who responded with two letters are:

***********

First letter: January 15, 1915

My dear friend,

I hope you more detail in Kracetk, and not the many things will remain unspecified.

I would now like to express to you my view on the process of a specific point:
I recommend deleting the third paragraph: "Claim for women free love"
This is not Brolitari requirement, and it Bergoizi!
Why Tksidin so? What can be understood from that?

1-liberation from the material accounts (financial) in love?
2-freedom from financial worries?
3-freedom from religious prejudices?
4-freedom from parental prohibitions?
5-Freedom from the views of "community" Prior?
6-free environment despicable (farming, small bourgeois, educated Albroujoizih)?
7-Freedom from constraints of law and the courts?
8-freedom from giving birth to children?
9-freedom from the consequences of love seriousness?
10-allowing adultery? Etc..

We have listed many of the points (and not all). And you do not Tksidin, this certainly points from 8 to 10, but points from 1 to 7, or something close to the points 1 to 7.

But, for the points from 1 to 7, choose another formula, because love does not reflect accurately the free expression of this kind of concerns.

The audience and the reader inevitably Sifaman pamphlet from the "free love" something of points from 8 to 10, even had Chaei that.

And because most classes gossip and more for news and the more "visible" in the present society understands love free points from 8 to 10, so this requirement is not Berolitari and is Broujoizi.

As for the proletariat, the most important points are the points 1 and 2, then points from 3 to 7, but this is not "free love" per se.
The issue is not what "Tgosainh" self this. , But a question of logic substantive relations class in love.

Asafg shaking hands with a friend!


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

The second message: January 24, 1915

My dear friend,

With regard to the scheme brochure, I found that the requirement of "free love" is inaccurate and it shows, regardless of Aradtk and you want (I referred to that by saying: The question is the issue of substantive relations class and not question your desires self) in the current social conditions as Bourgeois and not Breaulitarya .

You are not consent!

Well, the Nmahs issue again.

I wanted to specifically listed ten possible interpretations (f Mokhtmh in a class conflict) and noted that the interpretations of 1 to 7, would be in my view, or characteristic of the model workers, and that the interpretations of 8 to 10 model for Albroujoiziat. If you Tnfein that you must Tthbti:

1-These interpretations interpretations wrong (and then be replaced by another, or restitution of them wrong).
2 - or incomplete (and then be supplemented).
3 - or they do not fall into interpretations Brolitarih and class.

And you do not'm nothing of this.

And you do not Taatardin points from 1 to 7. Permission Is Taatarvin generally valid? What Tketbinh about "prostitution and female subordination" "impossible to say no" fully consistent with the points from 1 to 7. There is no disagreement whatsoever between us on this issue. You also do not interpret it in the exercises Brolitari. The remaining points from 8 to 10.

You are "not fully Tvhminha" and "Taatardin": "I do not understand how (it your) Standardization??? Free love??? With the point 10.

So clear that I was "single" and you are ready to destructive.

How so?

You Ptkhalik completely from the substantive point of view, class, move to the "attack" on, accusing me that I "sole" free love with the points from 8 to 10.. This wonderful .. Wonderful indeed ...

"Even Love transport and transit relations" "more poetic and purity" from "kisses without Love" mutual usually between spouses. This is you. This Tnuin Kracetk in writing. Electrifying.

Is this logical opposition? The love of bare kisses exchanged by the couple usually Weldensae. OK. Fbm Trdin opposition? Bqubl full of love, it seems? No, you Tardinha b "Love" (did not say love), "transit" (no transport?). The result is logical that these kisses, whose love (as long as it transboundary) incompatible with the love of bare kisses exchanged by the couple.

Strange indeed! Is it not better, in a single popular opposition to the marriage dirty and despicable not based on love (Look Point 6 or 5 in) Proletarianization marriage based on love (that include, if you why you are determined to, the relationship of passion can be dirty or clean ).

I do not want to engage in debate. And had I not write this letter and to wait Mkabltna. But I want to be a good brochure, P j only able to quote from any other human phrases you embarrassed them (that total one enough times to be like little pill).

Are not you friendly French socialism? Torgomi it (as if you Ttorgomin English) points from 1 to 10, your love on "transit", etc. ..


Asafg,
Wishing you hide embodied by Asaddaa Cape and recover quickly