Second Congress of the RSDLP (2)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Second Congress of the RSDLP was held from July 17 (30) to August 10 (23), 1903. The first 13 sittings were held in Brussels, after which, because of police persecution, the Congress moved to London.

It was prepared by Iskra, which under Lenin’s guidance put in a tremendous effort to unite Social-Democrats in Russia round the principles of revolutionary Marxism. Iskra’s Editorial Board worked out and proposed for discussion at the Congress a draft Party programme (published in Iskra No. 21 on June 1, 1902). Several documents for the Congress were written by Lenin: draft Rules of the RSDLP, several draft resolutions and a plan for the report on Iskra’s activity. Lenin also worked out in detail the agenda and the standing orders of the Congress. The draft Rules and the draft agenda of the Congress were communicated beforehand to the members of Iskra’s Editorial Board and then to the delegates.

The Congress was attended by 43 delegates with vote, representing 26 organisations. Some delegates had two votes each so that the total of votes at the Congress came to 51. The composition of the Congress was not homogeneous. It was attended not only by supporters of Iskra, but also by its opponents, and by unstable and wavering elements. There were 20 items on the agenda of the Congress.

Lenin delivered the report on the Party Rules and spoke in the debate on most of the items of the agenda.

Approval of the Programme and the Rules of the Party and the election of the Party governing centres were the most important questions before the Congress. Lenin and his supporters launched a resolute struggle against the opportunists. The Congress gave a rebuff to the opportunists and approved the Party Programme almost unanimously (with one abstention). It contained a formulation of the immediate tasks of the proletariat in the coming bourgeois-democratic revolution (minimum programme) and the tasks designed for the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat (maximum programme). For the first time in the international labour movement since the death of Marx and Engels, a revolutionary programme was adopted, which stated, on Lenin’s insistence, that the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat was the principal task of the working-class party.

In the debate on the Party Rules there was an acute struggle over the Party’s organisational principles. Lenin and his supporters wanted to set up a militant revolutionary party of the working class, which is why the wording of the first paragraph of the Rules proposed by Lenin stated that a member must not only accept the Party’s Programme and give it financial support, but personally participate in the work of one of its organisations. Martov motioned his own wording of the first paragraph, which stated that a member need only accept the Programme and give the Party financial support, and also give regular personal assistance to the Party under the guidance of one of its organisations. Martov’s wording, which facilitated access to the Party for unstable elements, was adopted by a small majority. Otherwise the Congress approved the Rules as worked out by Lenin. The Congress also adopted a number of resolutions on tactical questions.

At the Congress, a split developed between those who consistently supported Lenin’s Iskra and the “soft” Iskrists, the supporters of Martov. The former received a majority in the election to the Party’s central bodies and accordingly took the name of Bolsheviks, while the latter, the opportunists, received a minority and were called Mensheviks.

The Congress was of tremendous importance for the development of the working-class movement in Russia. Lenin wrote: “As a current of political thought and as a political party, Bolshevism has existed since 1903” (see present edition, Vol. 31, p. 24). The Second Congress of the RSDLP was a turning-point in the international working-class movement, because it set up a new type of proletarian party, which became a model for revolutionary Marxists throughout the world. For more information about the Second Congress see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 467–508. p. 78

This is a detailed elaboration of the standing orders and agenda for the Congress. Section A was taken as a basis for the standing orders adopted by the Congress. Section B was the draft agenda (Tagesordnung) supplied with the commentaries, which, Lenin said, “was known t o a l l the “Iskra”-ists long before the Congress and to all the delegates at the Congress (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 31).

The initial text of the document was supplemented by Lenin on the strength of remarks received from Martov and possibly other Iskra supporters as well who had studied it. The text is here given in full with subsequent addenda and amendments. p. 78

The first speech is in reply to M. I. Lieber’s question: “How are we to understand the point about the national question? Why is it separated out from the point about the draft programme? What is the meaning of the national question being a question of tactics? Why is this question not regarded as a cardinal one?”

The second speech is in reply to another of Lieber’s questions: “How are we to understand the point about national organisations? This question appears to be raised independently of the question of the Bund’s status in the Party” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, pp. 17–18).

The first point, mentioned by Lenin, in the list of questions subject to debate at the Congress (“On the Bund’s Status in the RSDLP”) was second on the agenda adopted by the Congress, and point six (“Regional and National Organisations”) was seventh. p. 85

Lenin spoke twice on the question of the Organising Committee’s actions in calling the Second Congress of the RSDLP For his first speech see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 484 and Note 136. The Congress adopted the following resolution:

“With the election of the committee, whose task is to determine the composition of the Congress, the Organising Committee has lost its right as a collegium to exert an influence on the composition of the Congress, and its activity, as a collegium, is deemed to have ceased on this point” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, pp. 37–38). p. 85

The question of the representatives of the S.D.K.P. and L. attending the Second Congress of the RSDLP was first raised on the initiative of the Iskra Editorial Board in a letter sent by the Organising Committee for the Convocation of the Second Congress of the RSDLP to the S.D.K.P. and L. Committee Abroad on February 7, 1903.

The terms on which the Polish Social-Democrats could be united with the RSDLP were discussed at the Fourth Congress of the S.D.K.P. and L. which was held from July 11 to 16 (24–29), 1903. The Congress formulated a number of terms for a possible merger, one of them being the demand for a change in the formulation of the RSDLP’s Programme clause on the right of nations to self-determination.

When the Second Congress of the RSDLP opened, its delegates had no knowledge of this decision. The committee to deter mine the composition of the Congress end verify mandates, in its report to the Congress on July 18 (31), read out a letter from the Polish Social-Democrat A. Warski (A. S. Warszawski), which it had at its disposal. But the letter did not clarify the relations the Polish Social-Democrats wanted to establish with the RSDLP The committee decided to invite the Polish Social-Democrats to attend the Congress with voice only. A. Warski and J. Hanecki arrived at the Congress on July 22 (August 4) and Warski announced the decision of the Fourth Congress of the S.D.K.P. and L. concerning the terms for unification with the RSDLP A special committee was elected to examine these terms.

The point on the right of nations to self-determination, raised by the Polish Social-Democrats, was discussed in the Programme Committee. No minutes were taken, but the notes made at the third sitting of the committee by Lenin (see Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works, Vol. 7, pp. 423–24) show that the Polish Social-Democrats objected to the point on the right of nations to self-determination and proposed that the programme should contain a demand for the establishment of institutions ing complete freedom of cultural development for all nations within a state. As Lenin later pointed out: “instead of self-determination they practically proposed the notorious ‘cultural-national autonomy’, only under another name” (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 444). The committee rejected the proposals of the Polish Social-Democrats. Realising that they would be unable to maintain these proposals at the Congress, they left it after making a statement setting out their standpoint. Their statement was read out at the Congress on July 29 (August 11). On August 6 (19), in connection with the report by the committee, which had examined the terms for a merger of the S.D.K.P. and L. with the RSDLP, as proposed by the Polish Social-Democrats, the Congress adopted a resolution expressing regret over the fact that the withdrawal of the Polish Social-Democrats from the Congress deprived it of the possibility of completing the discussion of the S.D.K.P. and L.’s joining the RSDLP, and instructed the Central Committee to continue the negotiations.

The speech reported here is Lenin’s second. The first was given in Vol. 6 of the present edition, p. 485. p. 36

The draft proposals here published were tabled by Lenin at a sitting of the Programme Committee during the second discussion of the wording of § 7 of the general political demands of the Party Programme (§ 6 of the Iskra draft).

In the Iskra draft programme this paragraph contained a demand for the abolition of the social estates and lull equality of rights for all citizens, regardless of sex, creed or race. During the initial discussion, the end of the paragraph had been reworded as follows: “Creed, race, nationality and language”, and was so tabled at the 16th sitting of the Congress on July 30 (August 12). During its discussion at the Congress, the Bundists demanded the inclusion in the Party Programme of a special point on the “equality of languages”. They succeeded in winning over a section of the vacillating Iskra supporters and there was a split when the proposal was put to the vote.

The wording of § 7 was again referred to the Programme Committee. Lenin’s proposals with slight stylistic changes were adopted by the committee and on its behalf tabled at the 21st sitting of the Congress on August 1 (14). The Congress rejected the first point of the proposals and adopted the second with some amendments (§ 8 in the Programme adopted by the Congress); point three was adopted without alteration.

Paragraph 11, of which Lenin spoke in point 3 of his proposals, had the following wording in the Iskra draft: “Free and compulsory general and vocational education for all children of either sex up to the age of 16. Provision of poor children with food, clothing and study aids at the expense of the state.” The Programme Committee initially adopted this paragraph without amendment (§ 14), but during its discussion at the 18th sitting of the Congress on July 31 (August 13) the following addendum was adopted: “Instruction in the native language, on the demand of the population” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 198). This addendum became superfluous with the adoption of a separate point on the question of language. p. 87

Following the approval by the Congress of § 13 of the Rules, recognising the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad as the RSDLP only organisation abroad, delegates of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, Martynov and Akimov, informed the Bureau of the Congress that they would not take part in the voting and would attend the Congress only to hear the minutes of earlier sittings and to discuss the manner of their publication. Their statement was read out at the 27th sitting of the Congress on August 5 (18). The Congress invited Akimov and Martynov to withdraw their statement, but they rejected the proposal and walked out.

Lenin did not move the draft resolution at the Congress. In the original the draft is crossed out. The reason may have been that the Bureau of the Congress had decided to refer the question for discussion at the Congress. p. 93

The Congress adopted two resolutions on the question of the attitude to the liberals: the first was motioned by Potresov (Starover), the second, by Lenin, Plekhanov and 13 other delegates (for Plekhanov’s draft with Lenin’s amendment see Lenin Miscellany VI, pp. 177–78).

Lenin subsequently wrote: “The views of the old Iskra were much better expressed in Plekhanov’s resolution, which emphasised the anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian character of the liberal Osvobozhdeniye, than in the confused resolution tabled by Starover, which, on the one hand, aimed (quite inopportunely) at an ‘agreement’ with the liberals, and, on the other, stipulated for it conditions that were manifestly unreal, being altogether impossible for the liberals to fulfil” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 500). p. 96

JULY 17 (30)–AUGUST 10 (23), 1908

1. PROGRAMME OF THE RSDLP REGULAR SECOND CONGRESS

Written in the second half of June and the first half of July 1903

First published in 1927 in Lenin Miscellany VI

A. Standing orders of the Congress and its constitution.

B. List and priority of questions to be discussed and decided at the Congress.

A. S t a n d i n g O r d e r s o f t h e C o n g r e s s.

1. The comrade duly authorised by the Organis- ing Committee is to open the Congress.	{ { In brackets are d e s i r a b l e addenda, explanations, advice and other remarks of a particular character.
2. The Congress is to elect a chairman, two assistants (and deputies) of the chairman, and 9 secretaries. These 9 constitute the bureau and have their seats at the same table. Organising Committee’s report.
3. Election of a committee to verify delegates’ credentials and examine any applications, complaints and protests relating to the constitution of the Congress.	(This committee is also to receive the Organising Committee’s statement concerning the persons, as listed, whom it has invited to attend the Congress with voice but no vote.)
4. Decision on admitting the Polish Social-Democrats.	!
to 3
5. Order of the Congress sittings: twice a day from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p. m. (roughly).
6. Limitation on delegates’ speeches: rapporteurs not more than 30 minutes per speech; the rest, not more than 10 minutes. No one is entitled to speak more than twice on any question. On points of order, not more than two speakers for and two against every proposal.
7. The minutes of the Con gress are to be kept by the secretaries with the partici pation of the chairman or one of his assistants. Each sitting of the Congress is to start with the approval of the minutes of the preceding sitting. Every speaker is to submit to the bureau of the Congress a summary of each of his speeches within two hours after the sitting.
8. The voting on all the questions except the elec tion of functionaries is to be by a show of hands. On the demand of ten votes, roll-call vote’s are to be taken with a record of all votes cast entered in the minutes.	(To accelerate roll-call voting and avoid mistakes, the bureau of the Congress should give ballot papers on each question to every member of the Congress with the right of vote. On each ballot paper, the delegate writes his name (see = § 8 )
	and his vote (yes, no, abstain) and also the question to which his vote applies. The questions may be designated by abbreviations or even by a figure, letter, etc. The bureau of the Congress keeps these ballot papers separate ly for each question until the end of the Congress.)
9. Secret designation of each delegate’s name (or with out name: first and second delegate from such and such a Party organisation, etc.).
10. The chairman’s state ment that the Congress has been finally constituted as the Regular Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and that, consequent ly’ the decisions of this Congress shall invalidate all earlier contradictory de cisions adopted by the Regular First and sectional congresses—that, consequently, the decisions of this Congress shall be absolutely binding on all the Russian S.D.L. Party.	(It is undesirable to touch upon the question of the Bund in connection with this point: it is better directly to put it first in, the list of questions before the Conress.)
11. Discussion of list and priority of questions.
B. L i s t a n d P r i o r i t y o f Q u e s t i o n s.
1. The Bund’s status in the Russian S.D.L.P. (Does the Russian S.D.L.P. accept the federal principle of	(It is necessary to write a draft resolution on this ques- tion beforehand, and it is desirable to put it through.)
Party organisation put for ward by the Bund?)	NB: The reasons why this question is brought up into first place: formal (the Bund’s statements, the composition of the Congress, subordination to majority), and moral (complete elimination of split and confusion on basic issue).
2. Approval of the text of p r o g r a m m e of the Russian S.D.L.P. ||||| First reading: adoption as a whole of one of the available drafts as a basis for detailed discussion.Second reading: adoption of each point and clause of the progrpmme.	(α. How many draft programmes shall be deemed subject to examination by the Congress? [Iskra’s, Borba’s, Zhizn’s?] β. Shall all the drafts be examined or one taken as a basis? Or otherwise: shall one of the proposed drafts be adopted in the first reading?)
3. Creation of the Party’s Central Organ (newspaper) or confirmation of one. α) Does the Congress want to set up a new organ? β) If it does not, which of the existing organs does the Congress want to transform into the Party’s Cen tral Organ?	(Necessity of having this question as a separate item: end the struggle of trends within Social-Democracy.)
4. Reports by the committees (including the report by the Organising Committee through one of its members) and other Party	α) How many reports are there? β) Are all the reports to be read or referred, to the committee?
organisations and individual members.	γ) Are all the reports to be discussed separately or together? (better separately) δ) Order of reading the reports.
5. Party organisation. Approval of general organisational Rules of the Russian S.D.L.P.
First reading: selection of one of the drafts as a whole. Second reading: discussion of one of the drafts point by point.
6. Regional and national organisations. (Recognition or non-recognition of each of them separately in a specified composition and with (perhaps) such and such exemptions from the Party’s general Rules.)
7. Separate groups in the Party. { BorbaZhiznVolyaE m a n c i p a t i o n o f L a b o u r g r o u p{ { Iskra’s organisation in RussiaYuzhny Rabochy, etc. } }	{ It is necessary to have a draft resolution on each separate group and separate organisation.
Final (or preliminary, that is, with the Central Committee authorised to make the
necessary inquiries and lay down the final decision ) approval of the list of all Party committees, organisations, groups, etc.
8. National question.	It is necessary to have a resolution on the national question in general (explanation of “self-determination” and tactical conclusions from our explanation). (( Perhaps also a special resolution against the P.P.S.? ))
9. Economic struggle and the trade union movement.	(I t i s n e c e s s a r y to have a resolution both on the principles and on the pressing tasks facing the Party.)
10. Celebration of May Day.	Ditto.
11. International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam in 1904.	D i t t o.
12. Demonstrations and uprising.	D i t t o.
13. Terrorism.	D i t t o.
21. Attitude of the Russian S.D.L.P. to the Socialist-Revolutionaries. [and to the revolutionary socialists?? etc.??] 22. Attitude of the Russian S.D.L.P. to Russian liberal trends.	D i t t o. } insert these two questions after No. 7 D i t t o.
14. Internal questions of Party work: organisation of propaganda. 15. ” ” agitation. 16. ” ” Party literature. 17. ” ” work among the peasantry. 18. ” ” in the army. 19. ” ” among students. 20. ” ” among sectarians.	} Resolutions desirable.
24. Elections to the Central Committee and Editorial Board of the Party CO.	The Congress is to elect three persons to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and three to the Central Committee. These 6 persons t o g e t h e r shall, if necessary, co-opt by a two-thirds majority additional || members to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee and duly report to the Congress. Following the approval of this report by the Congress, subsequent co-op tation is to be carried out separately by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee.
[ 24. Election of the Party Council. ]
25. The order governing the publication of decisions and minutes of the Congress and also the order governing the entry upon the exercise of theit duties by elected functionaries and institutions.

2. SPEECHES DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE LIST OF QUESTIONS SUBJECT TO DEBATE AT THE CONGRESS

Vtoroi echerednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov (The Regular Second Congress of the RSDLP Full Text of the Minutes), Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 17 (30)

1

In the plan, the question of the programme is In the second place. The national question is a part of the programme and is to be dealt with when the latter is discussed. The question of regional and national organisations in general is an organisatlonal one. But the question of attitude to the nationalities, in particular, is a tactical question and is an application of our general principles to practical activity.

2

The first item on the list relates specially to the Bund organisation. The sixth relates to the Party organisation. Upon the establishment of general rules for local, regional, national and other organisations, this special question is raised: which organisations and on what terms shall be recruited to the Party?

3. SPEECH ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, central Committee publication. Geneva, 1904

JULY 18 (31)

The Organising Committee may meet, but not as a colle gium exerting an influence on the business of the Congress. The Organising Committee’s practical activity does not cease, but there is an end to its influence oh the Congress, apart from the commission.

4. SPEECH ON THE ATTENDANCE OF THE POLISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS AT THE = CONGRESS

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 18 (31)

I do not see any weighty arguments against an invitation. The Organising Committee has taken the first step in bringing the Polish comrades closer to the Russian. By inviting them to our Congress we shall take a second step in the same direction. I do not see this producing any complications.

5. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 29 (AUGUST 11)

This insertion makes it worse. It creates the impression that Consciousness grows spontaneously. Yet, there is no conscious activity of workers in international Social-Democracy outside the Social-Democrats’ sphere of influence.

6. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 30 (AUGUST 12)

1

L e n i n finds Strakhov’s amendment unsatisfactory, because the committee’s formulation specifically emphasises the people’s will.

2

L e n i n opposes the word “regional”, because it is very vague and may be interpreted in the sense that the Social-Democrats want the whole state split up into small regions.

3

L e n i n finds the addition of the words “and to every foreigner” superfluous, because it is implicit that the Social-Democratic Party will insist that the paragraph in question shall apply to foreigners as well.

7. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 31 (AUGUST 13)

The word “militia” does not say anything new and makes for confusion. The words “universal arming of the people” are clear and quite Russian. I find Comrade Lieber’s amendment superfluous.

8. PROPOSALS ON VARIOUS POINTS OF THE GENERAL POLITICAL DEMANDS OF THE PARTY = PROGRAMME

Written between July 30 and August 1 (August 12 and 14), 1905

First published in 1959 in Vol. 7 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works

1) Let “and language” stand at the end of § 6.

2) Insert new point:

“The right of the population to receive education in the native language, the right of each citizen to use the native language at meetings and in public and state institutions”.

3) In § 11 delete the sentence about language.

9. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAMME RELATING TO LABOUR PROTECTION

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov. Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

JULY 31 (AUGUST 13)

1

L e n i n does not object to a 42-hour rest but, addressing Lieber, remarks that the programme speaks of supervision over all industries. An indication of the actual size will merely restrict the sense. When our programme is a bill we shall write in the details.

2

I object to Comrade Lyadov’s = amendment. His first two amendments are superfluous, because in our programme we demand labour protection for all the branches of the economy and, consequently, for agriculture as well. As for the third, it applies entirely to the agrarian section and we shall return to it when debating our draft agrarian programme.

10. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 1 (14)

1

L e n i n tables this amendment: instead of “will work for” insert “demands above all”. The reports during the debates pointed out that the draft deliberately says “will work for” in order to emphasise that we do net intend to do this now but in the future. I motion this amendment to avoid giving ground for such misunderstandings. By the words “above all” I mean that we have other demands, apart from the agrarian programme.

2

I object to Comrade Lyadov’s proposal. We are not drafting a law, but are merely giving general indications. There are those among the townsfolk who also belong to the poll-tax paying estates; in addition, there are the small tradesmen in the suburbs and others, and if we were to write all this into our programme we should have to use the idiom of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

3

I find Martynov’s question superfluous. Instead of putting forward general principles we are being forced into particulars. If we were to do so, we should never come to the end of the Congress. The principle is quite definite: every peasant has the right to dispose of his land, whether belonging to the commune or held as private property. That is nothing but the demand of the peasant’s right to dispose of his land. We insist that there should be no special laws for the peasant; we want more than the right of withdrawing from the commune. We are unable just now to decide on all the particulars that may crop up in implementing this. I am against Comrade Lange’s addendum; we cannot demand the abolition of all the laws governing tenure. That is going too far.

4

Martynov must be labouring under a misunderstanding. What we want is uniform application of general legislation, the one now accepted in all the bourgeois states, namely, that which is based on the principles of Roman law and which recognises both personal and common property. We should like to regard communal land-holdings as common property.

5

We are engaged in the drafting of addenda to § 4 in respect of the Caucasus. These addenda should be inserted after point a). There are two draft resolutions. If we adopt Comrade Karsky’s amendment, the point will lose heavily in concreteness. In the Urals, for instance, there is a host of survivals; over there, there is a veritable reservation of serfdom. Concerning the Latvians we could say that they fit the formula: “and in other regions of the state”. I support Comrade Kostrov’s proposal, namely: we must insert a demand for the transfer of land titles to the khizani, the temporarily bound and others.

6

Paragraph 5 is connected with paragraph 16 of the labour programme: this does imply courts consisting equally of workers and employers; we must demand special representation for the farm labourers and the poor peasantry.

7

I believe this to be unnecessary, since it would extend the competence of the courts out of all proportion. Our aim is to secure a reduction of rents, but the establishment of tariffs would enable the landowners to argue their case by referring to definite facts. The reduction of rent-prices rules out any idea of their increase. Kautsky, speaking of Ireland, said that some results were obtained there by the introduction of industrial courts.

11. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 2 (15)

L e n i n insists on the inclusion of the words about material support, since everyone accepts that the Party must exist on the funds of its members. On the question of setting up a political party, there should be no references to moral considerations.

12. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 4 (17)

1

L e n i n finds the first formulation unsuitable because it lends the Council an arbitral character. The Council, however, must be not only an arbitral institution, but also one co-ordinating the activity of the CC and the Central Organ. He also speaks out in favour of the Congress appointing a fifth member. It may well happen that the four members of the Council will be unable to elect a fifth; we shall then find ourselves without a necessary institution.

2

L e n i n finds Comrade Zasulich’s arguments unsatisfactory. The case she described already implies struggle; in that case the Rules will be of no help. By leaving the election of the fifth member to the four members of the Council, we introduce struggle into the Rules. He considers it necessary to note that the Council is more than a reconciliation body. Thus, for instance, under the Rules, two members of the Council have the right to convene it.

3

L e n i n favours the retention of this phrase; no one should be barred from taking his appeal to the centre. That is a necessary condition of = centralisation.

4

There are two questions here. The first is about the qualified majority, and I object to the proposal to reduce it from four-fifths down to two-thirds. Introduction of a motivated protest would show lack of foresight and I object to it. The second question is immensely more important—the right of mutual control over co-optation by the CC and the Central Organ. The mutual accord of the two centres is a necessary condition of harmony. This is a question of a break between the two centres. Those who do not want a split must see to it that there is harmony. We know from the life of the Party that there have been people who introduced splits. This is a question of principle; it is an important question and the whole of the Party’s future may depend on it.

5

The Rules may have been lame in one leg, now Comrade Yegorov makes them lame in both. The Council is to co-opt only in exceptional cases. Complete confidence is necessary for both sides, for both centres, just because this is a complex mechanism. There can be no successful work together without full mutual trust. And the entire question of correct functioning together is closely bound up with the right of co-optation. Comrade Deutsch is wrong in exaggerating the technical difficulties.

13. ADDENDUM TO PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE DRAFT PARTY RULES

Motioned on August 5 (18)

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

The Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ shall co-opt members only with the consent of all the members of the Party Council.

14. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 5 (18)

1

Let me reply briefly to both objections. Comrade Martov says that I propose the unanimity of the two collegiums in co-opting members; that is not right. The Congress has decided not to give the right of veto to each member of two, possibly rather extensive, collegiums, but that does not mean that we cannot vest this authority in the institution co-ordinating all the joint work of the two centres. The joint work of the two centres demands complete unanimity and even personal unity, and that is possible only if co-optation is unanimous. After all, if two members find co-optation necessary, they are entitled to convene the Council.

2

Martov’s amendment contradicts the already adopted point on the unanimous co-optation to the CC and the CO.

3

Comrade Martov’s interpretation is wrong, because the exemption contradicts unanimity. I appeal to the Congress and request it to decide whether Comrade Martov’s amendment should be put to the vote.

4

I should not argue with Comrades Glebov and Deutsch in substance, but I considered it necessary to mention the League in the Rules, first, because everyone knew of the League’s existence, second, to make note of the League’s representation in the Party under the old rules, and third, because all other organisations have the status of commit tees, whereas the League is introduced to bring out its special status.

15. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE STATEMENT BY MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV

Written on August 5 (18), 1903

First published in 1927 in Lenin Miscellany VI

Recognising the statement made by Comrades Martynov and Akimov as contradicting our concept of members of the Congress and even members of the Party, the Congress invites Comrades Akimov and Martynov either to withdraw their statement or to make a definite statement of their withdrawal from the Party. As for the minutes, the Congress in any case offers them the opportunity to attend the special sitting to approve the minutes.

16. SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE STATEMENT BY MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 5 (15)

1

The bureau has discussed the statement by Comrades Martynov and Akimov which they filed at the morning sitting. I shall not go into the motivation, although it is wrong and extremely strange. No one has ever declared the Union closed and Comrades Martynov and Akimov made an incorrect inference from the Congress decision on the League. But even the closure of the Union could not deprive delegates of the right to participate in the work of the Congress. Similarly, the Congress cannot allow any refusal to take part in the voting. A member of the Congress is not free merely to approve the minutes without taking part in the rest of its work. For the time being, the bureau does not propose any resolution and refers this question for debate at the Congress. The statement by Martynov and Akimov is extremely abnormal and contradicts the status of member of the Congress.

2

What an absurd and abnormal situation we now have. On the one hand, we are told that the decisions of the Congress are being accepted, and on the other, there is the intention to withdraw over a decision on the Rules. By arriving here as a delegate of an organisation recognised by the Organising Committee, each one of us has become a member of the Congress. This title is not abolished by the dissolution of an organisation. What are we, the bureau, to do during the voting? We cannot simply omit those who have left, because the Congress has already approved its constitution. There is one logical conclusion that suggests itself: withdrawal from the ranks of the Party altogether. The minutes may be approved with comrades of the Union being specially invited to attend, although the Congress is entitled to approve its minutes even without them.

17. ADDENDUM TO MARTOV’S RESOLUTION ON THE BUND’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RSDLP

Written on August 5 (18), 1903

First published in 1959 in Vol. 7 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works

The Congress resolves that all measures be taken to restore the unity of the Jewish and non-Jewish labour movement and to explain to the possibly broadest masses of the Jewish workers the attitude of the Russian Social-Democrats to the national question.

18. SPEECH DURING THE ELECTION OF THE PARTY’S CENTRAL COMMITTEE

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 7 (20)

We were reproached for the existence of a compact majority. That is not a bad thing in itself. Since a compact majority has been formed here, the question of whether the elected Central Committee will prove to be capable of functioning has already been weighed. There is no question of chance. There is a full . The election cannot be postponed. Very little time remains. Comrade Martov’s proposal to postpone the election is groundless. I support Comrade Rusov’s = proposal.

19. SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION OF POTRESOV (STAROVER) ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS

Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904

AUGUST 10 (23)

Starover’s resolution will be misconstrued: the student movement and Osvobozhdeniye are not the same thing at all. It would be harmful to take the same attitude to both. Struve’s name is too Well known and the Workers also know him. Comrade Starover thinks that a definite directive should be issued; I believe we need to define a principled and tactical attitude.