Letter to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP

From Marxists-en
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Author(s) Lenin
Written 15 December 1910


MIA-bannière.gif
Written not later than December 15 (28), 1910
Published: First published in 1941 in Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya, No. 1. Published according to a typewritten copy.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1974, Moscow, Volume 17, pages 17-22.
Collection(s): Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya
Keywords : Letter, RSDLP, Russia

The Russian Collegium of the Central Committee (“narrow circle of the CC”, “the acting CC in Russia”), confirmed by the Plenary Meeting of the CC of the RSDLP in August 1908, existed until 1910. It consisted originally of one representative each from the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Polish Social-Democrats, Latvian Social-Democrats and the Bund.

According to the CC Rules adopted at the Plenary Meeting in January 1910, the composition of the Russian Collegium of the CC was to be enlarged to seven to include the four members of the CC elected at the Fifth (London) Congress and three representatives of national (non-Russian) organisations. However, owing to the refusal of the Menshevik-liquidators to co-operate, it was impossible to organise the work of the Russian Collegium of the CC after the January Plenary Meeting. Lenin suggested bringing into the Russian Collegium pro-Party Mensheviks to replace the liquidators, but the conciliator members of the CC (Nogin, Goldenberg, Leiteisen, and others) did not carry this out.

In the course of 1910 and early in 1911 all Bolshevik members of the CC working in Russia were arrested.

This letter is published according to a copy found in the files of the Police Department. The heading to the document has been provided by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U

Recent events in the life of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party abroad clearly show that the “unity crisis” of the Party is coming to a head. I, therefore, consider it my duty, solely by way of information, to let you know the significance of recent happenings, the denouement that may be expected (according to this course of events) and the position adopted by orthodox Bolsheviks.

In Golos, No. 23,[1] Martov in his article “Where Have We Landed?” gibes at the Plenary Meeting,[2] at the fact that the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee has not met once during the year, and that nothing has been done to carry out the decisions. He, of course, “forgets” to add that it is precisely the liquidator group of Potresovs that has sabotaged the work of the Russian Central Committee; we know of the non-recognition of the Central Committee by Mikhail, Roman, and Yuri,[3] and their statement that its very existence is harmful. The CC in Russia has been wrecked. Martov rejoices at this. It stands to reason that the Vperyod group[4] also rejoices, and this is reflected in the Vperyod symposium, No. 1. In his glee, Martov has blurted out his views prematurely. He screams with delight that “legality will finish them” (the Bolsheviks or the “Polish Bolshevik bloc”). By this he means that thanks to the obstruction of the Central Committee’s work by the liquidators, there is no way out of the present situation that would be legal[5] from the Party point of view. Obviously, nothing pleases the liquidators more than a hopeless situation for the Party.

But Martov was in too much of a hurry. The Bolsheviks still have at their disposal an archi-legal means of emerging from this situation as foreseen by the Plenary Meeting and published in its name in No. 11 of the Central Organ.[6] This is the demand for the return of the funds, because the Golos and Vperyod groups obviously have not abided by the terms agreed on—to eliminate factions and to struggle against the liquidators and the otzovists.[7] It was precisely on these conditions, clearly agreed to, that the Bolsheviks handed over their property to the Central Committee.

Then, on the 5th December, 1910 (New Style), the Bolsheviks, having signed the conditions at the Plenary Meeting[8] applied for the return of the funds. According to legal procedure this demand must lead to the convening of a plenary meeting. The decision of the Plenary Meeting states that “should it prove impossible” (literally!) for a plenary meeting to take place within three months from the date of the application, then a commission of five members of the CC—three from the national, non-Russian, parties, one Bolshevik and one Menshevik—is to be set up.

Immediately, the Golos supporters revealed themselves in their true colours. The Golos, supporter Igor,[9] a member of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad,[10] conscious of the policy of the Russian liquidators, handed in a statement that he was against holding a plenary meeting, but was in favour of a commission. The violation of legality by the Golos group is thus apparent, since a plenary meeting may be convened before the conclusion of the three-month period. Once such a request has been made it is not even permissible to raise the question of a commission.

The liquidator Igor, true servant of the Party traitors, Messrs. Potresov and Co., calculates quite simply that the plenary meeting is a sovereign body and consequently its session would open the door to a solution of the whole Party crisis. A commission, however, is not a sovereign body and has no rights apart from the investigation into the claim put forward in the application. (Three Germans are now considering this claim.) Hence, having obstructed the Russian Central Committee, the liquidators (and their lackeys abroad, the Golos group) are now trying to prevent anything in the nature of a Central Committee from working. We shall yet see whether this attempt succeeds. The Poles in the Central Committee Bureau Abroad[11] are voting for the plenary meeting. It now all depends on the Latvians and the Bund members,[12] from whom so far no reply has been received. Our representative in the Bureau Abroad has submitted and distributed a firm protest against Igor. (Copies of Igor’s statement and this protest are attached here with.)

It has become clear that the struggle for the plenary meeting is a struggle for a legal way out, a struggle for the Party. The fight of the Golos group against the plenary meeting is a fight against a way out of the Party crisis, is a fight against legality.

Plekhanov and his friends,[13] whom we kept informed of every step, are in complete agreement with us on the necessity for a plenary meeting. They, too, are in favour of it; the draft of our joint statement on this matter is now being considered, and in the near future we shall either come for ward with a statement together with Plekhanov’s group, or we shall publish an article on the question in the Central Organ.

Further, on the 26th November (N.S.), 1910, Trotsky carried through a resolution in the so-called Vienna Party Club (a circle of Trotskyites, exiles who are pawns in the hands of Trotsky) which he published as a separate leaflet. I append this leaflet.

In this resolution, open war is declared on Rabochaya Gazeta,[14] the organ of the Bolsheviks and Plekhanov’s group. The arguments are not new. The statement that there are now “no essential grounds” for a struggle against the Golos and Vperyod groups is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy. Everybody knows that the Golos and Vperyod people had no intention of dispersing their factions and that the former in reality support the liquidators, Potresov and Co., that the Vperyod group organised the factional school abroad[15] (using funds of well-known origin), where they teach Machism, where they teach that otzovism is a “legal shade of opinion” (taken literally from their platform), etc., etc.

Trotsky;s call for “friendly” collaboration by the Party with the Golos and Vperyod groups is disgusting hypocrisy and phrase-mongering. Everybody is aware that for the whole year since the Plenary Meeting the Golos and Vperyod groups have worked in a “friendly” manner against the Party (and were secretly supported by Trotsky). Actually, it is only the Bolsheviks and Plekhanov’s group who have for a whole year carried out friendly Party work in the Central Organ, in Rabochaya Gazeta, and at Copenhagen,[16] as well as in the Russian legal press.

Trotsky’s attacks on the bloc of Bolsheviks and Plekhanov’s group are not new; what is new is the outcome of his resolution: the Vienna Club (read: “Trotsky”) has organised a “general Party fund for the purpose of preparing and convening a conference of the RSDLP”.

This indeed is new. It is a direct step towards a split. It is a clear violation of Party legality and the start of an adventure in which Trotsky will come to grief. This is obviously a split. Trotsky’s action, his “fund”, is supported only by the Color and Vperyod groups. There can be no question of participation by the Bolsheviks and Plekhanov ’s group. That the liquidators (of Color) in Zurich have already supported Trotsky is comprehensible. It is quite possible and probable that “certain” Vperyod “funds” will be made available to Trotsky. You will appreciate that this will only stress the adventurist character of his undertaking.

It is clear that this undertaking violates Party legality, since not a word is said about the Central Committee, which alone can call the conference. In addition, Trotsky, having ousted the CC representative on Pravda[17] in August 191O, himself lost all trace of legality, converting Pravda from an organ supported by the representative of the CC into a purely factional organ.

Thus, the whole matter has taken on definite shape, the situation has clarified itself. The Vperyod group collected “certain funds” for struggle against the Party, for support of the “legal shade of opinion” (otzovism). Trotsky in the last number of Pravda (and in his lecture in Zurich) goes all out to flirt with Vperyod. The liquidators in Russia sabotaged the work of the Russian Central Committee. The liquidators abroad want to prevent a plenary meeting abroad—in other words, sabotage anything like a Central Committee. Taking advantage of this “violation of legality”, Trotsky seeks an organisational split, creating “his own” fund for “his own” conference.

The roles have been assigned. The Golos group defend Potresov and Co., as a “legal shade of opinion”, the Vperyod group defend otzovism, as a “legal shade of opinion”. Trotsky seeks to defend both camps in a “popular fashion”, and to call his conference (possibly on funds supplied by Vperyod). The Triple Alliance (Potresov+Trotsky+Maximov) against the Dual Alliance (Bolsheviks+Plekhanov’s group). The deployment of forces has been completed and battle joined.

You will understand why I call Trotsky’s move an adventure; it is an adventure in every respect.

It is an adventure in the ideological sense. Trotsky groups all the enemies of Marxism, he unites Potresov and Maximov, who detest the “Lenin-Plekhanov” bloc, as they like to call it. Trotsky unites all to whom ideological decay is dear, all who are not concerned with the defence of Marxism; all philistines who do not understand the reasons for the struggle and who do not wish to learn, think, and discover the ideological roots of the divergence of views. At this time of confusion, disintegration, and wavering it is easy for Trotsky to become the “hero of the hour” and gather all the shabby elements around himself, The more openly this attempt is made, the more spectacular will be the defeat.

It is an adventure in the party-political sense. At present everything goes to show that the real unity of the Social-Democratic Party is possible only on the basis of a sincere and unswerving repudiation of liquidationism and otzovism. It is clear that Potresov (together with Golos) and the Vperyod group have renounced neither the one nor the other. Trotsky unites them, basely deceiving himself, deceiving the Party, and deceiving the proletariat. In reality, Trotsky will achieve nothing more than the strengthening of Potresov’s and Maximov’s anti-Party groups. The collapse of this adventure is inevitable.

Finally, it is an organisational adventure. A conference held with Trotsky’s “funds”, without the Central Committee, is a split. Let the initiative remain with Trotsky. Let his be the responsibility.

Three slogans bring out the essence of the present situation within the Party:

1. Strengthen and support the unification and rallying of Plekhanov’s supporters and the Bolsheviks for the defence of Marxism, for a rebuff to ideological confusion, and for the battle against liquidationism and otzovism.

2. Struggle for a plenary meeting—for a legal solution to the Party crisis.

3. Struggle against the splitting tactics and the unprincipled adventurism of Trotsky in handing Potresov and Maximov against Social-Democracy.

  1. ↑ Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (Voice of the Social-Democrat)—a Menshevik-liquidator organ published in Geneva, and later in Paris, from February 1908 to December 1911.
    For Lenin’s appraisal of Golos Sotsial-Demokrata see his article “Golos (Voice) of the Liquidators Against the Party” (see present edition, Vol. 16).
  2. ↑ The Plenary Meeting of the CC of the RSDLP, commonly known as the “Unity” Meeting, was held from January 2 to 23 (January 15–February 5), 1910, in Paris. The Meeting was convened despite Lenin’s wishes with the assistance of Trotsky’s secret allies, Zinovyev, Kamenev, and Rykov. In addition to the Bolsheviks, representatives of all the factions and factional groups and representatives of the non-Russian Social-Democratic organisatons were present. Lenin’s plan for closer relations with the pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov’s group) in the struggle against the liquidators was opposed by the conciliators, who were secret Trotskyites. They demanded the disbandment of all factions, and the amalgamation of the Bolsheviks with the liquidators and Trotskyites. The conciliators were in the majority at the Meeting. The Bolsheviks were in the minority. It was only due to Lenin’s insistence that the Plenary Meeting adopted a resolution condemning liquidationism and otzovism. Notwithstanding Lenin’s attitude, the Meeting adopted decisions to abolish the Bolshevik organ Proletary, disband the Bolshevik Centre and hand over its property to the CC, and the available funds to the representatives of the international Social-Democratic movement (the “trustees”) Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, and Karl Kautsky. Lenin succeeded in getting conditions for the simultaneous liquidation of the Golos and Vperyod factional centres included in the resolution of the Plenary Meeting. The Meeting carried a resolution to the effect that financial assistance be given to Trotsky’s Vienna Pravda, which his agents, Zinovyev and Kamenev, tried to convert into the organ of the Central Committee.
    Despite Lenin’s protest, Menshevik-liquidators were elected to the central bodies. For Lenin’s struggle at the Plenary Meeting against the liquidators, Trotskyites and conciliators see his article “Notes of a Publicist”
  3. ↑ Mikhail (I. A. Isuv), Roman (K. M. Yermolayev) and Yuri (P. A. Bronstein)—Menshevik-liquidators, candidate members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, elected at the Fifth (London) Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.
  4. ↑ Vperyod (Forward) group—an anti-Party group of otzovists, ultimatumists, god-builders and empirio-monists (sup porters of the reactionary, idealistic philosophy of Mach and Avenarius). The group was formed in December 1909 on the initiative of A. Bogdanov and G. Alexinsky. It had its own organ called Vperyod. In 1912 the Vperyod group, together with the Menshevik-liquidators, united in a general anti-Party bloc (the August bloc) organised by Trotsky against the Bolsheviks.
    Since it had no support among the workers the group actually began to disintegrate as early as 1913, and its final, formal dissolution took place in 4947, after the February Revolution.
  5. ↑ See footnote to p. 29.—Tr.
  6. ↑ Central Organ of the RSDLP—Sotsial-Demokrat (The Social Democrat)—an illegal newspaper published from February 1908 to January 1917; in all there were 58 issues. The first number was published in Russia, later it was published abroad, first in Paris, then in Geneva in accordance with the decision of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, the Editorial Board of the Central Organ was made up of representatives of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Polish Social-Democrats. More than 80 articles and notes by Lenin appeared in Sotsial-Demokrat. Within the Editorial Board Lenin campaigned for a consistent Bolshevik line. Some of the editors (Kamenev and Zinovyev) adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the liquidators, and tried to prevent the implementation of the Leninist line. The Menshevik members, Martov and Dan, sabotaged the work of the Editorial Board of the paper and at the same time openly defended liquidationism in Golos Sotsial-Demokrata. Lenin’s uncompromising struggle against the liquidators led to Martov and Dan leaving the Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat in June 1911. From December 1911 it was edited by Lenin.
  7. ↑ Liquidationism—an opportunist trend that spread among the Menshevik Social-Democrats after the defeat of the 1905–07 Revolution.
    The liquidators demanded the dissolution of the illegal party of the working class. Summoning the workers to give up the struggle against tsarism, they intended calling a non-Party “labour congress” to establish an opportunist “broad” labour party which, abandoning revolutionary slogans, would engage only in the legal activity permitted by the tsarist government. Lenin and other Bolsheviks ceaselessly exposed this betrayal of the revolution by the liquidators. The policy of the liquidators was not sup ported by the workers. The Prague Conference of the RSDLP which took place in January 1912 expelled them from the Party.
    Otzovism (from the Russian word otozvat—to recall)—an opportunist trend represented by a small section of the Bolsheviks which arose after the defeat of the 1905–07 Revolution.
    The otzovists demanded the recall of the Social-Democratic deputies from the State Duma, and the rejection of work in the trade unions and other mass legal and semi-legal organisations. Under cover of “revolutionary” phrases, the otzovists would actually have deprived the Party of the possibility of employing legal methods of struggle, isolated it from the workers and placed it in danger of attacks by the reactionary forces. Lenin sharply criticised the otzovists and called them “liquidators of a new type” and “Mensheviks turned inside-out”.
  8. ↑ Lenin is referring to the conditions (“agreement”) of the Bolsheviks which were signed and made known at the “Unity” Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in January 1910 (see pp. 365–67 of this volume).
  9. ↑ Igor (Igorev, Gorev)—the Menshevik-liquidator B. I. Goldman.
  10. ↑ The Central Committee Bureau Abroad was set up by the Plenary Meeting of the CC, RSDLP in August 1908 as a general Party representative body abroad, subordinate and responsible to the Russian Collegium of the CC Shortly after the January Plenary Meeting of the CC in 1910, the liquidators were in the majority, and the Bureau Abroad became the centre of the anti Party forces. Its liquidationist tactics compelled the Leninist Bolsheviks to recall their representative Alexandrov (N. A. Semashko) in May 1911. Some time later the Polish and Latvian Social-Democrat representatives were also recalled. In January 1912 the Bureau Abroad was disbanded.
  11. ↑ This refers to the representatives of the Polish Social-Democrats in the Central Committee Bureau Abroad.
    The Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania—a revolutionary party of the Polish working class, arose in 1893, first as the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland, and from August 1900, after the Congress of the Social-Democratic organisations of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania at which the Polish and part of the Lithuanian Social-Democratic parties merged, it began to call itself the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (S.D.P.P. & L.). Its merit was in guiding the Polish working class towards unity with the Russian working-class movement and in fighting against nationalism.
    During the 1905–07 Revolution, the S.D.P.P. & L. conducted its struggle under slogans very similar to those of the Bolshevik Party, and adopted an uncompromising attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie. At the same time the S.D.P.P. & L. committed a number of errors; it did not understand Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, did not appreciate the leading role of the Party in the democratic revolution, underestimated the role of the peasantry as an ally of the working class, and the significance of the national-liberation movement. Lenin criticised the mistaken views of the S.D.P.P. & L. but at the same time drew attention to its services to the revolutionary movement in Poland. He noted that the Polish Social-Democrats “for the first time formed a purely proletarian p arty in Poland, and proclaimed the vitally important principle of the closest alliance between Polish and Russian workers in their class struggle” At the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the RSDLP in 1906 the S.D.P.P. & L. was accepted into the RSDLP as a territorial organisation.
    The S.D.P.P. & L. welcomed the Great October Socialist Revolution and launched a struggle for the victory of the proletarian revolution in Poland. In December 1918, at the Unity Congress of the S.D.P.P. & L. and the Left wing of the P.P.S., these parties united and formed the Communist Workers’ Party of Poland.
  12. ↑ This refers to the representatives of the Social-Democratic Part of the Latvian Region and the Bund.
    The Social-Democratic Party of the Latvian Region (until 1906 the Latvian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party) was formed in June 1904 at the First Congress of the Party, and its programme was adopted at its Second Congress in June 1905. In 1905–07 the Latvian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (L.S.D.W.P.) led the revolutionary action of the workers. Lenin pointed out that “during the Revolution the Latvian proletariat and Latvian Social-Democratic Party occupied one of the first and most important places in the struggle against the autocracy and all the forces of the old order” (see present edition, Vol. 16, “The Jubilee Number of Zihna”).
    The L.S.D.W.P. joined the RSDLP at the Fourth (Unity) Congress as a territorial organisation and became known as the Social-Democratic Party of the Latvian Region.
    The Bund—the General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, was organised in 1897 at an inaugural Congress of Jewish Social Democratic groups in Wilno; it united in the main the semi-proletarian elements, Jewish artisans, in the Western regions of Russia. At the First Congress of the RSDLP (1898) the Bund joined it “as an autonomous organisation, independent only in regard to questions specially concerning the Jewish proletariat”.
    The Bund was the vehicle of nationalism and separatism in the Russian working-class movement. The Fourth Congress of the Bund, held in April 1901, voted to change the organisational relations with the RSDLP which had been established by the First Congress of the RSDLP In its resolution the Congress stated that it regarded the RSDLP as a federated association of national organisations which the Bund joins as a federal unit.
    After the Second Congress of the RSDLP had rejected its demand to be recognised as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat, the Bund left the Party. It rejoined in 1906 on the basis of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the RSDLP
    Within the RSDLP the Bundists constantly supported the opportunist wing (Economists, Mensheviks, liquidators) and waged a struggle against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. They opposed the Bolshevik programmatic demand for the right of nations to self-determination and called for national cultural autonomy. During the years of Stolypin reaction the Bund adopted a liquidationist position and played an active part in forming the anti-Party August bloc. During the First World War, the Bundists took a social-chauvinistic stand. In 1917 the Bund support ed the bourgeois Provisional Government, and fought on the side of the enemies of the October Socialist Revolution. During the years of foreign military intervention and civil war, the Bund leadership joined the forces of counter-revolution. At the same time there was evidence of a change among the rank-and-file members of the Bund in favour of co-operation with Soviet power. In March 1921 the Bund dissolved itself, and part of its members were accepted into the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on the conditions as laid down in the Rules.
  13. ↑ This refers to the p re-Party Mensheviks who, led by G. V. Plekhanov, opposed the liquidators during the years of reaction. In December 1908, Plekhanov left the Editorial Board of the liquidation 1st newspaper Golos Sotsial-Demokrata and in 1909 resumed publication of The Diary of a Social-Democrat in order to struggle against the liquidators. While maintaining a Menshevik position, Plekhanov’s group stood at the same time for the preservation and strengthening of the illegal Party organisation, and with this aim in view supported a bloc with the Bolsheviks. In 1909 groups of pro-Party Mensheviks were formed in Paris, Geneva, San Remo, Nice and other towns. In St. Petersburg, Moscow, Ekaterinoslav, Kharkov, Kiev, and Baku, many pro-Party Mensheviks opposed the liquidators and supported the revival of the illegal RSDLP
    Lenin, calling on the Bolsheviks to draw closer to the pro-Party Mensheviks, showed that agreement with them was possible on the basis of a struggle for the Party, against liquidationism, “with out any ideological compromises, without any glossing over of tactical and other differences of opinion within the limits of the Party line” The pro-Party Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks worked together in the local Party committees, contributed to the Bolshevik publications Rabochaya Gazeta, Zvezda, and the Central Organ of the Party, Sotsial-Demokrat. Lenin’s tactics of collaboration with Plekhanov’s group, which was supported by the majority of the worker Mensheviks in Russia, assisted the extension of Bolshevik influence in the legal workers’ organisations, and the ousting of the liquidators from them.
    At the end of 1911 Plekhanov dissolved the bloc with the Bolsheviks. Under the guise of struggle against “factionalism” and against the split in the RSDLP he tried to reconcile the Bolsheviks and the opportunists. In 1912, Plekhanov’s group, together with the Trotskyites, Bundists and liquidators, opposed the decisions of the Prague Conference of the RSDLP
  14. ↑ Rabochaya Gazeta (Workers’ Gazette)—the popular organ of the Bolsheviks, to which the pro-Party Mensheviks also contributed, published in Paris from October 30 (November 12), 1910, to July 30 (August 12), 1912. In all, nine issues appeared. Lenin was the founder and leading editor of Rabochaya Gazeta, and it published about a dozen of his articles.
    The Prague Conference of the RSDLP (January 1912) noted that Rabochaya Gazeta was a determined and consistent defender of the Party and Party principles and pronounced it the official organ of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks).
  15. ↑ Factional school abroad—the factional centre of the otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders, who united for struggle against the Bolsheviks. It was organised in 1909 by A. Bogdanov (Maximov), G. Alexinsky and A. Lunacharsky on the Isle of Capri with the participation of Maxim Gorky. Using the Party as a screen Bogdanov’s supporters persuaded a number of local Social-Democratic organisations to send thirteen students to the school, which lasted nearly four months (August-December 1909). A split took place amongst the students in November and a group headed by the worker N. Y. Vilonov definitely dissociated themselves from Bogdanov’s group. The Leninist students sent a protest to the Editorial Board of the newspaper Proletary against the anti-Party behaviour of the lecturers and, as a result, were expelled from the school. At the end of November 1909 at Lenin’s invitation they went to Paris and attended a course of lectures including his lectures on “The Present Situation and Our Tasks” and the “Agrarian Policy of Stolypin”. Those students who remained at Capri together with the lecturers formed the anti-Party Vperyod group in December 1909.
    A meeting of the enlarged Editorial Board of Proletary condemned the Capri school as a “new centre of the faction breaking away from the Bolsheviks”.
  16. ↑ Lenin is referring to the joint work of the Bolsheviks with G. V. Plekhanov in the RSDLP delegation to the International Socialist Congress in Copenhagen which was held from August 28 to September 3 (N. S.), 1910. During the Congress, V. I. Lenin and G. V. Plekhanov sent a protest to the Executive Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party against the publication, in Vorwärts, the central organ of German Social-Democrats, of an anonymous, scurrilous article by Trotsky on the internal situation in the Russian Social-Democratic Party.
  17. ↑ Pravda (Vienna)—a Menshevik-liquidator newspaper, Trotsky’s factional organ, published during 1908–12 in Vienna. Posing as “non-factional”, the newspaper adopted a liquidationist position on all basic questions, and also supported the otzovists and ultimatumists. In 1912 Trotsky with the help of his paper organised the anti-Party August bloc.
Retrieved from "https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/w/index.php?title=Letter_to_the_Russian_Collegium_of_the_Central_Committee_of_the_RSDLP&oldid=70491"