Sessions in London

From Marxists-en
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fourteenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 10 [The comrades from the Polish Social-Democratic Party were not present. Comrade Glebov, who had been invited by the OC before the congress opened, was present.] with consultative voice)

On behalf of the credentials commission Comrade Lenin proposed that two comrades be invited to attend with consultative voice.

The congress adopted this proposal unanimously. The statement by the Polish comrades was read.[See Appendix IX. § See Appendix XI.]

It was decided to discuss this statement in conjunction with the report from the commission for negotiations with the Polish comrades, which was deferred to the 8th item of the agenda.

A proposal by Comrade Popov to proceed immediately to discuss the organisational rules was approved.

Lenin (the rapporteur) gave an explanation of the draft rules submitted by him. § The basic idea of the rules, he said, was that of a division of functions. Hence, for example, the division into two central bodies was not due to their geographical separation (one in Russia, the other abroad) but was a logical consequence of a division of functions. The function of the Central Committee was to provide practical leadership, that of the Central Organ to exercise ideological leadership. To co-ordinate the activities of these two centres, to preclude disparity between them, and, to some extent, to settle disputes, a Council was needed, which should not in the least be a mere arbitration board. The paragraphs in the rules dealing with relations between the Central Committee and the local committees and defining the Central Committee’s sphere of competence could not and should not enumerate all the points falling within that sphere. Such an enumeration was impossible and inappropriate, for it was inconceivable for all possible cases to be foreseen, and, moreover, points not enumerated might appear to be outside the competence of the Central Committee. The Central Committee must be allowed to determine for itself the sphere of its own competence, since any local matter might affect the interests of the Party as a whole, and the Central Committee should be in a position to intervene in local affairs, even, perhaps, going against local interests, if such action was in the interests of the Party as a whole.

Popov: In presenting his report, Comrade Lenin twice referred to the draft rules which I drew up. I am not presenting this draft to the congress because it was composed in too great a hurry, and also because I cannot see any need to compose a special draft of the rules as a whole. The changes I want to propose relate almost entirely to the central point in the rules, namely, the question of the organisation of the Party’s central institutions. In private conversation with some members of the congress I have advocated complete merging in a single centre of the editorial board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee. I have given as reasons for this merger (1) that the division of the Party leadership between ‘practical’ and ‘spiritual’ is artificial, that leadership is essentially one, and that unity in leadership can be achieved only when it proceeds from a single centre, and (2) that participation by the editorial board in the work of the Central Committee will ensure that the latter body is able to carry out the duties entrusted to it. As you see, I want a merger between the Central Organ and the Central Committee not so that the CC may take part in the work of the editorial board, but the other way round.

I draw your attention to this point because Comrade Akimov has several times at this congress declared himself in favour of ‘the strictest centralisation’. The centralisation that Comrade Akimov will defend is of a quite special sort. By certain remarks he has made known that it is to be combined with the principle of democratic election to the local committees. Over there, in Russia, Comrade Akimov will defend the principle of election, so as to weaken the influence of the Central Committee; here, at the Party’s summit, he will defend ‘the strictest centralisation’, so as to weaken the influence of the Central Organ, and in this lies the whole significance of the system he advocates. Not only do I not favour that sort of centralisation, but I am ready to combat it in every way, because it is the banner of opportunism. But, as before, I insist that if we want unity in the leadership of the Party, we must establish a single directing centre. If we cannot merge the editorial board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee in a single institution—whether because this is unattainable in practice, since the editorial board has to be abroad whereas the CC has to be in Russia, or because we fear a barbarian incursion into the editorial board: if, I repeat, we cannot completely merge the Central Organ and the Central Committee in a single institution, then we must nevertheless ensure in some way or other that the leadership of our Party proceeds from a single centre. The draft seeks to achieve this unity by creating a third centre, but the role of this centre is defined in the draft in an extremely unclear and imprecise way. In the first place, the Party Council is described as the ‘supreme’ institution. ‘Supreme’ means the same as ‘sovereign’, in other words, answerable to nobody. Only a congress can be that. There cannot be two supreme, that is, sovereign organs, and therefore the Council must be answerable to the congress, unless we confine the activity of the Council to merely judicial functions. Again, it seems to me—and the draft appears to concur on this point—the Council ought, besides functioning as a chamber of conciliation, to have the right to give instructions to the Central Committee, and also, perhaps, to the editors of the Central Organ. And, once we have given the Council the right to give guiding instructions to the CC, we must then give it also the right to see that these instructions are carried out. We must make the CC responsible to the Council, and along with this must give the Council the right to overrule decisions by the CC. Thus, we assign to the Council the functions of the Central Committee, and reduce the latter to the role of an Executive Committee. I have nothing against that: I merely want to see it expressed quite clearly in the Party rules.

In this way leadership in the Party will be exercised from a single centre. If it seems to you that by doing this we jeopardise the inviolability of the editorial board, then let three members of this single centre be drawn from the editorial board, and two from the CC. This is a secondary matter: what is important is that the leadership, the supreme leadership of the Party, shall proceed from a single source. The tasks before the Central Committee are enormous. Complete chaos still reigns in the organisation, and the CC will need to begin by getting itself organised, creating the machinery through which it will exercise its functions. Comrade Trotsky has said in private conversation that life itself has given rise to two centres—the editorial board abroad, and, inside Russia, if not a Central Committee, then at least an Organising Committee. I always agree with Comrade Trotsky fifty per cent. Life has created one centre only—the editorial board—because the OC has not given leadership to anybody: its role has been that of a commission for convening the congress and that of organising the purely technical side of things. Now we are setting up a Central Committee. It will be confronted with a tremendous task. It would be naive to suppose that it will carry out this task without making any mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable, and we can to some extent even foresee what they will be. It seems to me that we can fear, in the first place, that the CC will lose perspective in the Party’s work, getting absorbed in trivialities and forgetting the overall plan. This is quite natural when there is no machinery for general organisation, when every little detail has to be organised. Participation by the editorial board in the general leadership of the Party could undoubtedly pre-vent this from happening. Another method that would be of great benefit to the CC would be for the congress to give instructions regarding the CC’s function. This is why I propose that the paragraph dealing with the responsibilities of the CC should contain a more precise indication of its field of work. I have tried to formulate the relation between the highest institutions of the Party, and their tasks, in eight paragraphs, which I am submitting to the commission together with some other amendments.

Yegorov: In amending his draft, Comrade Lenin took a step towards Comrade Popov’s draft, but it was a very little step. If Comrade Lenin wanted to be thoroughly consistent he ought to have admitted that, in his draft, both the Central Committee and the Central Organ are merely executive organs, while the overall leading organ, which governs and directs, is the Council. In view of the important and responsible role which has been given to the Council, it is necessary that the Central Organ and the Central Committee be represented in it on an absolutely equal footing. Therefore, the fifth member of the Council must be drawn from elsewhere than the editorial board and the Central Committee. The essential defect of Comrade Lenin’s draft is that it recognises some organisations which are nowhere actually enumerated. Suppose, for example, that the congress recognises it as desirable that a popular organ be established but then, perhaps, the editors of this organ are not given the right to take part in the congress? I think that the rules should be drawn up in more general terms. I think that Comrade Lenin is wrong in his view that the limits of the competence of the CC ought not to be precisely defined. This view results from confusion between two questions, centralisation and interference. In practice the lack of definition of the sphere of competence of the CC will lead to many conflicts.

Lieber: Comrade Lenin has told us, in connection with his rules, that he has bent the stick in the other direction. That is true, but one can say that a stick has never been bent so vigorously. To use Comrade Trotsky’s expression, one could say that Comrade Lenin’s draft rules constitute ‘organised distrust’. And indeed the central organs are set up in such a way as though nothing had existed previously, as though no centres had grown out of the work of the comrades in Russia, but these centres were being created by the rules. The second characteristic feature of this proposed draft of rules for a centralised party is its decentralising tendency. There can be no doubt that there are two centres in the draft, and not one, as some people have supposed, and this is the biggest defect in it. The Council should be called the CC, while what Comrade Lenin called the CC and the Central Organ are transformed into executive groups of the Party. The Central Committee ought to direct all the general affairs of the Party, just as the Central Committee of the Bund does. One can only be amazed that Comrade Lenin can propose a division between the functions of ideological and practical leadership, when he knows well what harm results from separation between practical workers and theoreticians. And from the example of Iskra, which Comrade Lenin uses to prove the need for separation between these two functions, we see, on the contrary, that this separation is inconceivable, for Iskra has been not only an ideological centre but also a practical one. Assigning the function of practical leadership as the sphere of activity of the Central Committee, while depriving it of other functions, would reduce its role to that of a salesman.

Akimov asked how local committees were to be formed. Would they, for example, be appointed by the CC?

Lenin explained that it was quite unnecessary to include a special point dealing with this matter, since we already had a number of committees, and so there could be no question of creating them.

Martov added that Comrade Akimov’s question was relevant to another item in the agenda—confirmation of the list of Party organisations. As for subsequent changes in the composition of Party organisations, this was something that should be entrusted to the CC. While agreeing with Comrade Lieber’s views on general organisational questions, I cannot agree with the conclusions which he draws from them; on the contrary, I associate myself with Comrade Lenin’s conclusions. Only on two points do I disagree with him. On the first of these, the method of constituting the Council, it would be much better to elect two persons from each centre, who would then jointly choose the fifth member, drawn from the CC or the Central Organ. It is quite impossible to seek this fifth member from somewhere outside the two centres, as Comrade Yegorov proposes. In the first place, shall we find such a person outside the centres in which our best forces are concentrated? And in the second place, if we do find him, will he be independent enough? The second question on which I do not agree with Comrade Lenin is that I am opposed to unanimous co-option. I consider that we could lay it down that four-fifths, or, even better, two-thirds of the votes should suffice.

Akimov: I regard the present draft as unsatisfactory in two respects. First, no points have been formulated at all regarding the organisation of local committees and their sphere of competence. On the latter point there is even conscious and deliberate silence. According to the draft, the local committees are to be nothing but agents for the Central Committee, which can always replace them. The Central Committee is given the right to alter the composition of local committees, and that right is sufficient for it not to need any other rights. This plan will certainly lead to some organisations finding themselves outside the Party. For example, suppose the elected Petersburg Committee is replaced by a new one which is not in conformity with the wishes of the majority in that organisation. A split will result. The only acceptable plan, which I propose, is to allow the committees themselves the right to modify their composition. In proposing this I am quite sure beforehand that it will not be adopted, and that it will receive, maybe, no more than two or three votes. It seems to Comrade Popov that to propose a draft which will certainly not be adopted is to behave like Dobchinsky, who wanted all Russia to hear of him, and he cannot explain such conduct otherwise than by base motives. I am surprised that Comrade Popov cannot appreciate that there could be other motives. The second point on which I find the draft unsatisfactory is the matter of the Council. Under the draft, the Central Organ is ensured predominance on the council if only because the composition of the editorial board is constant whereas that of the Central Committee is changeable. Thanks to this circumstance, it could happen that the Central Organ might differ in its views from those of the comrades in Russia, which could lead to a split.

Popov: Comrade Akimov said that I ascribed base motives to him. That is not true: I merely remarked that he was behaving like a Dobchinsky. Having made that observation, I pass to the substance of the matter. It has become clear from the discussion that there are two trends where the question of organisation is concerned. All are agreed that to merge the Central Organ and the CC in a single centre is impossible and that therefore we need the institution of a Council, but we differ on the question of the Council’s role. According to the draft presented by Comrades Yegorov and Martov the Council should be merely an arbitration board, but according to Lenin’s draft it should be the directing body. I propose that it be regarded as the directing centre of the Party, in which case it will be entirely unimportant whether there are more representatives on the Council from the Central Organ or from the Central Committee.

Trotsky: Comrade Akimov asked about the relations between the local committees and the CC and the latter’s sphere of competence. The rules, he said, do not define the jurisdiction of the CC with sufficient precision. I cannot agree with him. On the contrary, this definition is precise and means that, inasmuch as the Party is a single entity, it must he ensured control over the local committees. Comrade Lieber said, borrowing my expression, that the rules were ‘organised distrust’. That is true. But I used this expression in reference to the rules proposed by the Bund spokesmen, which represented organised distrust on the part of a section of the Party towards the whole Party. Our rules, on the other hand, represent the organised distrust of the Party towards all its sections, that is, control over all local, district, national and other organisations, the CC would be reduced when the Council came into being. He forgot that in the Council there will not only be strangers but also members of the CC and also that, in general, the influence exercised by the CC cannot be established by rules. It depends entirely on the CC’s own activity, and is only safeguarded by the rules.

Akimov: I again direct your attention to the question of the local committees. They should be allowed greater freedom of action, and no decision taken by the CC, the Central Organ or the Council should be allowed to go into effect otherwise than through the local committees. The local committees should be elected by the active workers in their localities, just as the CC is elected by the representatives of all the active organisations in Russia. And if even this cannot be allowed, then let the number of members that the CC may appoint to local committees be limited—all other members to be co-opted by the committees themselves. Otherwise the Central Committee could entirely annihilate a local committee—say, the Voronezh Committee. But, even so, it would not achieve its aim by doing this, since, although such committees had been disbanded and were only a minor-ity in the Party as a whole, in the area where they were active they would continue to express the views of the majority of comrades who elected them.

It was proposed that the list of speakers be closed.

Goldblatt and Lieber said that the question of the Bund came into the matter that was under discussion, as the congress had decided, and the list of speakers ought not to be closed until this question had been discussed. To do so would mean violating the congress’s own decision.

Martov: The question of the Bund has to be discussed separately. The rules provide general indication and do not deal with detailed relationships. The comrades from the Bund are wrong in getting so worked up about this matter, as though the congress were laying a trap for them.

Glebov: There is no need to list the functions of the Central Committee in the rules, which should be drawn up in general terms. Local organisations should be given the right to appeal to the Council when they are disbanded. Comrade Lieber was afraid that the influence of

The proposal that the list of speakers be closed was adopted.

Yegorov: I note that the closing of the list of speakers was a formal violation by the congress of its own decision regarding the second item of the agenda.

The representative of the Bund made the following statement: ‘We ask that it be recorded in the minutes that the decision of the congress to transfer the question of the Bund to the sixth item of the agenda remained unfulfilled, as the general debate was terminated before this question had been brought up for discussion.’ Signed: Lieber, Yudin, Goldblatt, Hofman, Abramson.

The session was closed.

Fifteenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12[1] persons with consultative voice.)

Karsky: The misunderstanding with regard to the Council, it seems to me, is removed by the fact that each of the central institutions is to choose two men, and they are jointly to choose the fifth. This being so, the Central Committee is not reduced to the role of a salesman, as Comrade Akimov is so afraid might happen. His proposal regarding the local committees would raise a Chinese wall between the CC and the local committees, and is therefore absolutely unacceptable. As to the local associations, I think that they cannot be put on a par with local committees, and their number of votes should be more than two.

Lange: It is appropriate to touch on the question of a popular organ in the draft rules. This is a separate question from that of Party publications, and ought to be taken up in connection with the question of the Central Organ.

Goldblatt: It would be quite mistaken to reduce the disputes to which the proposed rules have given rise to differences between defenders and opponents of centralisation. We in the Bund have applied centralisation with complete consistency, we are all convinced supporters of it, and yet I unhesitatingly call Comrade Lenin’s proposal monstrous. The centralist principle presupposes control by the higher organs of the Party over the lower ones, with observation and guidance of the latter, but in no case can it or ought it to lead to their destruction. Control can be combined with the continued existence of the institutions subject to it provided that some limits are laid down for the exercise of this control and that there is some definition of the competence of the organisations which are subject to it. Control by the central organs must consist only of checking that Party organisations do not violate congress decisions, and do not act counter to the Party’s programme and fundamental principles. Given certain temporary or local conditions the power of the centre may be somewhat widened, but this is what must be the basic principle, at least. The principle upon which Lenin’s draft is based is quite different, however. It is permeated through and through with the desire to give the centre unrestricted powers and the unrestricted right to interfere in everything that any particular organisation may be doing. It sets absolutely no limits to this interference and destroys any and every competence so far as the various subordinate organisations are concerned, subverting their very capacity to exist. No organisation can exist if it be allowed only one right—to submit without a murmur to orders from above. The centre proposed by the draft would find itself in a vacuum, it would have no peripheral organisations around it, but only an amorphous mass in which its executive agents would move. No organisation can survive on such principles as that. I can only express amazement that not a single delegate from a committee has protested against such a monstrous proposal. However, that is their business: it is not for me to take on the role of advocate for committees which have not found it necessary or possible to safeguard their own raison d’étre.

I turn now in particular to the question-of the position in the Party which the proposed rules would assign to the Bund. Comrade Martov tried to show that adoption of these rules would not predetermine the question of the rights of the Bund. Comrade Lenin refuted this view quite clearly. He explained to us that he wants his draft rules adopted in advance merely so that points may then be devised, defining the position of the Bund, which will be based on these rules, as conclusions drawn directly from the principles expressed in these rules. In view of this explanation given by Comrade Lenin I think it necessary to say that adoption of these rules excludes beforehand any possibility that the points which we have put forward may be adopted, despite the fact that this way of pre-determining the question is being followed without any discussion of the points at issue. There can be no doubt that Comrade Lenin’s rules exclude adoption of these points, since his rules leave wholly unprotected the very existence of the Bund, which could at any moment be dissolved at the discretion of the Central Committee, and also the Bund’s freedom to dispose of the affairs of its own organisation, in which the Central Committee could, as Comrade Lenin has explained, interfere without any restriction, and so on. I should like to know the view on this matter held by the author of the draft, and I put the following questions to Comrade Lenin. Does he not agree that his rules make it impossible to adopt the points put forward by the delegates from the Bund? Does he not agree that his rules clearly imply that the Central Committee of the Party has the right to change the composition of the Central Committee of the Bund, to dissolve it, to overrule decisions by congresses of the Bund, and so on and so forth? I await a definite answer to these questions.

In conclusion I draw the attention of those who want to make it impossible for our proposals to be adopted, without having discussed them, to the extreme seriousness of this moment. If our proposals, representing the minimum conditions for the Bund’s existence, are rejected, this will thereby decide the question of the Bund’s departure from the Party. I say this in my personal capacity, and the entire Bundist delegation will say the same.

Lieber: I hear many comrades uttering cries of indignation and astonishment at what my co-delegate Goldblatt has said, but this is quite pointless. Already when I introduced our ‘draft’ I made a similar statement, saying that our draft includes positions of principle with-out the adoption of which the Bund cannot remain in the Party. After this brief explanation, I turn to deal with the substance of the matter. We have said again and again that the way the question of the Bund is dealt with in Comrade Lenin’s proposed organisational rules predetermines the question of the Bund, and it is useless for Comrade Martov to deny this. When I suggested to Comrade Lenin that the words ‘national organisations’ be deleted from the relevant point in the rules, he refused, as he considered that everything he had said in this point must apply to that kind of organisation as well. Thus, without having yet discussed the question of national organisations, they present us, in Comrade Lenin’s draft, with an already predetermined answer to this question, and this is done, of course, quite deliberately.

We are told that the Bund will be treated as an exception. But we do not want this, we do not want a principle to be adopted according to which the Party’s Central Committee could at any moment dissolve the Central Committee of the Bund, or even completely abolish it. It may be, of course, that they will not attempt to do this immediately—nevertheless, here a certain procedure is being indicated, here a certain way is being defined, which could lead to the suppression of the Bund, that ‘historical abnormality’, as Comrade Martov called it.

And here indignation is expressed about our ‘ultimatums’. Let us leave aside, however, the question whether or not there has been any ‘ultimatum’ in this case. Would not any organisation at all, without any question of ultimatums, break away if principles were adopted at the congress, against its own opinion, which contradicted the very foundations of its existence? Would not the editors of Iskra, for instance, break away, if their organisational principle were to be rejected, and what has been called ‘democratisation’ adopted? They are not going to do that here, of course, because they have a very large majority on their side. But we are not so placed. What does Comrade Lenin offer us? He has drawn up a death sentence on us, but he defers the execution of it for a certain period, the decision as to the time for execution of this death sentence being left to the Central Committee. But are you so naive, comrades, as to suppose for one moment that if such rules are adopted we shall remain in the Party? That we shall willingly sign our own death warrant? No, this will never happen. We are not yet ready to die: on the contrary, we feel a fresh access of strength! And we are sure that if our comrades are capable of seeing matters from the standpoint of the real interests of the Russian Social-Democratic movement, and not of some phantom organisation of generals without an army, they will approve our conduct and our attitude to the rules that have been presented to us.

Lenin: I will make my concluding speech after the commission has done its work on the rules.

Elected to the commission were: Lenin, Martov, Yegorov, Popov and Glebov.

* * *

The congress proceeded to discuss the Programme, beginning with discussion of the general part, taken point by point.

The commission had left the first paragraph as it stood (see the Iskra-Zarya draft).

Martynov proposed that the first paragraph be formulated thus: ‘the close ties between the capitalist countries of the civilised world, and the common interests of the proletariat, had to make, and did make, the movement international,’ and so on.

Akimov: When I began to study the draft programme which we are now discussing, I wrote out each of its separate theses on separate sheets of paper. Then I set myself to find the corresponding theses in the Gotha and Erfurt, Hainfeld and Vienna, Guesdist, Belgian, Italian and Swedish programmes, and the Rules of the International. I found that on almost every point this draft differed from all the other programmes, sometimes markedly, sometimes only in the expressions used. Comparing all these variations, I noticed that they all presented one and the same aspect and were permeated with one and the same tendency, namely: denial that the proletariat exercises any creative power in the development of Social-Democracy, minimisation of the active role of the proletariat.

Sometimes these variations—as, for example, in the case we are now considering—are not particularly important, but they nevertheless ought to be put right, because they manifest a tendency, and this tendency is a mistaken one.

In the first point of the draft the causes of the international character of our movement are described. This international character is due to two causes. In the first place, the uniformity of interests and of conditions of life among the proletarians of different countries, regardless of the different political forms under which they have to struggle. In the second place, the mutual dependence in economic life between all the capitalist countries.

The ties between different localities were regarded by Marx as merely the final factor giving unity to a struggle which was homogeneous even without them. He writes inter alia, in the Manifesto, of ‘the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one, national struggle between classes.’ Later, Marx generalises this idea, passing from the national to the international movement: ‘National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.’

Accordingly, in the Rules of the International, Marx stresses the unity of interests of those nations in which a labour movement has arisen: ‘The emancipation of labour is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists.’

In exactly the same way the Erfurt Programme says: ‘The interests of the working class are identical in all countries where capitalist production exists.’ The Vienna Programme says: ‘The fight against oppression must be international, like the oppression itself : that is, in countries where the same form of oppression, namely, capitalism, prevails, the movement likewise arises as a uniform, international movement. This passage in the programme was already present in the Hainfeld text.

In the Iskra draft only one factor is mentioned, namely, the link established between peoples by exchange. The other factor, namely, that which is alone mentioned in the other programmes, is not to be found in this draft.

This one-sided explanation of the international character of our movement is typical of the whole draft. Completely omitted from it are those factors which create the distinctive, sharply defined psychology of the proletariat and stimulate the latter’s class-consciousness. The first point in the draft should therefore be corrected.

Rusov: I suggest that we take all Comrade Akimov’s amendments together, since they essentially belong together, differing in principle from the Iskra programme.

Akimov (on a point of order): It was physically impossible for me to defend my amendments in the commission, as I was restricted to five minutes, and I am not presenting all of them now. I could, indeed, set forth the whole lot here, but that would take me two or two-and-a-half hours.

Martov: I speak as a delegate concerned for the success of our congress. Why could Comrade Akimov not have set out his counterdraft in the Russian press in the course of the year? I do not know what the solution is, but I do point out the great inconvenience of turning the congress into an academic session.

Chairman: Comrade Akimov quite correctly observed that these are important questions. And for that reason we must take a practical step so as not to waste time. And this practical step is the congress standing orders, which must be strictly obeyed. In the standing orders it is laid down that everyone has the right to speak for ten minutes. I interpret this as meaning that a delegate can speak for ten minutes about the whole programme.

Akimov asked that the standing order in question be read out, and, receiving no answer, made the following declaration: ‘I request that it be recorded in the minutes that the Chairman, when putting to the vote his interpretation of a standing order, refused my request that the text of the standing order be read out. The Chairman invited me to apply to the secretary.’

Martov: I propose that delegates be allowed to speak once, for five minutes, on each point.

Martov’s proposal was adopted.

The first paragraph of the programme was voted on and adopted, with 42 votes (see the Iskra-Zarya draft programme).

Akimov: I regard it as quite impossible to discuss the programme point by point under such restrictions. It is not possible to develop one’s idea in five minutes, and it is useless to formulate it if one is not to be allowed to speak a second time in order to answer objections. What Plekhanov said about the numerousness of the amendments I have put forward is without foundation. I did indeed submit 21 amendments to the commission, but I want to defend before the congress only five or six of these, which are of especially great importance on grounds of principle.

According to the standing order, I have the right to speak three times, for ten minutes, on each amendment, that is, for half an hour altogether. Six amendments would take three hours altogether, if I made full use of my rights in connection with each amendment. Very few amendments have been moved apart from mine, and most of them, as their authors testify, are not concerned with matters of principle. It is therefore possible for the congress to listen to my explanations of my amendments. Martov’s statement that I ought to have set forth my views earlier, in the press, is also pointless. I was bound by organisational discipline: now I am able and wish to defend my views.

Akimov then made the following declaration: ‘According to the standing orders of the Congress, every member has the right to speak three times on each question which is to be voted on, and to speak for ten minutes on each occasion.

‘When, during the general discussion of the programme, a proposal was made that the list of speakers be closed, the chairman stated, at Comrade Makhov’s request,[2] that, after the draft had been discussed in commission, and when it was being discussed point-by-point, speakers would again be allowed to express their views, about the programme generally.

‘The congress majority is now depriving the minority of the possibility of defending its amendments by restricting to five minutes, contrary to standing orders and to the chairman’s previous statements, the time allowed for speakers to defend their amendments—that is, to a period of time in which it is not physically possible to set forth any substantial arguments in favour of the amendments being moved.

‘Taking account of the fact that the congress majority has coerced the minority by refusing to hear its arguments against the draft, I decline to move my amendments to the draft, since I have been deprived of my right to defend these amendments.’

The second paragraph of the programme was approved, with 44 votes, but with the words ‘their Party’ changed to ‘themselves’.

As regards the third paragraph, the commission proposed that the first sentence be separated off as a paragraph on its own, and that after the words ‘nature of’ the words ‘present-day’ be inserted. In this form the third paragraph was adopted with 43 votes.

The remaining part of the third paragraph (now 3a) was adopted unanimously.

Martynov moved an amendment to the fourth paragraph, to replace the last sentence by the following phrase: ‘standing in direct or indirect dependence upon capital’.

The amendment was rejected and the fourth paragraph adopted with 39 votes.

The fifth paragraph was adopted unanimously.

In the sixth paragraph the commission proposed that the words ‘or even’ be replaced by: ‘and sometimes also’.[3]

The sixth paragraph, as amended by the commission, was adopted by 27 votes to 11.

The seventh paragraph was adopted, with 41 votes.

The commission amended (by two votes to one) the eighth paragraph by inserting, after the words: ‘numbers and cohesion’, the word ‘consciousness’ .

Lenin: This insertion is a change for the worse. It gives the impression that consciousness grows spontaneously. In international

Social-Democracy there is no conscious activity of the workers independent of the influence of the Social-Democrats.

Gorin: I consider this insertion inappropriate, as what is being spoken of here is a process of spontaneous growth, which must be distinguished from a particular process—the acceleration of a natural process.

Martov: Comrade Gorin is quite right. Theoretically we cannot isolate spontaneous growth from conscious influence (the activity of the midwife), but in the programme of the Party’s activity we have to distinguish between them. If consciousness is not given a socialist character, then what is produced is a muddle, methodologically incorrect and architecturally inconsistent. If consciousness is treated as something spontaneous, this is theoretically incorrect, because that is not consciousness.

Lieber: ‘Discontent’, if this is understood as something unconscious, does not grow but declines. As a conscious process, however, it grows.

Martynov: This thesis is formulated so unclearly that even those who wrote it interpret it in different ways. But every passage in the programme must be capable of only a single, definite and clear-cut interpretation. Here we need to conceive the entire process as a whole, including the activity of Social-Democracy as well, and by do ing so we do not in any way belittle the active role of Social-Democracy.

A vote was taken. The amendment was rejected and the original drafting approved by a majority.

The ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth paragraphs were approved with-out alteration.

In the thirteenth paragraph, atMartov’s suggestion, the words: ‘at every step survivals are still encountered’ was replaced by: ‘there are still very many survivals’. The word ‘social’ before ‘order’, was deleted.[4]

Paragraph 14 was adopted in its original form. In Paragraph 19, at the suggestion of Lieber and Plekhanov, the word ‘democratic’ was inserted before ‘republic’, and the phrase at the end was altered to read: ‘the constitution of which would ensure …’

The session was closed.

Sixteenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 91 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice)

Discussion of the general political part of the Party programme.

Article 1 of the commission’s draft read: Sovereignty of the people, that is, concentration of supreme state power wholly in the hands of a legislative assembly forming a single chamber and composed of representatives of the people.’

Trotsky proposed a stylistic amendment, namely, that the last part of this article should read: ‘in the hands of a legislative assembly consisting of representatives of the people and forming a single chamber.’

Lyadov proposed that the commission’s formulation be retained, but with the words ‘single and undivided’ inserted before legislative assembly’.

Strakhov proposed that the words ‘sovereignty of the people’ be replaced by ‘supremacy of the people’, because the latter expression defined better the idea which had to be expressed in this instance. What was meant here, of course, was the sovereignty of parliament, or, more correctly, the supremacy of the people exercised through the sovereignty of parliament. Consequently, the expression ‘sovereignty of the people’ was unfortunate, and juridically incorrect in the given context.

Gusev supported Comrade Strakhov’s amendment, but for other reasons. In all our proclamations we cry: ‘Down with autocracy!’ [The Russian word usually translated, as here, by autocracy’, is also the word used in the draft programme for sovereignty’—Trans.] and by doing so we seek to make the very word ‘autocracy’ hateful to the people.

Lenin considered Strakhov’s amendment infelicitous, since what the commission’s formulation stressed was the will of the people.

Gorin proposed that Article I be worded like this: ‘Sovereignty … in the hands of a single-chambered assembly … of the people.’

Martov objected to Comrade Gusev’s argument, saying that, on the contrary, it was of agitational significance to counterpose the sovereignty of the people to the autocracy [or: sovereignty—Trans.] of the Tsar.

Voting on the amendments went as follows:

1) Comrade Lyadov’s: rejected by a big majority.

2) Comrade Trotsky’s: adopted by 20 to 7.

3) Comrade Gorin’s: rejected by a majority, with only one vote cast for it.

4) Comrade Strakhov’s: rejected by 29 to 8.

The whole paragraph, as drafted by the commission, but with Trotsky’s amendment, was approved.

The rapporteur of the commission, Yegorov, read Article 2: ‘Universal, equal and direct suffrage in elections both to the legislative assembly and to all local organs of self-government, for all citizens and citizenesses who have attained the age of 20; secret ballot at elections; the right of every voter to be elected to any representative institution; proportional representation; payment of the people’s representatives.’

Martov proposed that the point about proportional representation be deleted.

Muravyov thought that citizens and citizenesses’ would read better as ‘citizens of either sex’.

Koltsov proposed that the words: ‘biennial parliaments’ be inserted, as this would provide opportunities for frequent agitation.

Karsky proposed to add, after the word ‘citizenesses’, ‘without distinction of nation or religion’.

Yegorov supported retention of the point about proportional representation, as this would give the most accurate expression of the relation between social forces. As regards biennial parliaments, it seemed to him impossible to demonstrate on grounds of principle the expediency of precisely this periodisation. Circumstances might arise in which it would be awkward for the Party to have bound itself to a biennial parliament.

Popov supported Comrade Koltsov’s proposal, mentioning that in Europe the Social-Democrats fought to shorten the period between parliamentary elections, so as the better to ensure the responsibility of deputies to the people.

Trotsky: I support Martov’s proposal that the demand for proportional representation be deleted, because this demand has no basis in principle. Cases may occur, with uniform electoral areas, when we shall not demand proportional representation, since this would ensure that every shade of political tendency could secure representation, which would reinforce a policy of groups and nuances, preventing the formation of large political parties..

Starover thought that Social-Democrats should fight for short parliaments, but that it was inexpedient to prescribe a particular duration.

Fomin: I cannot agree with Comrade Trotsky’s objection to proportional representation. The experience of those countries where it exists does not in the least confirm the fears which he expressed. Thus, in Belgium, where there is a system of proportional representation (even though distorted by plural voting) we see an almost complete absence of petty political groups and factions, whereas in Germany, where proportional representation does not obtain, such factions are numerous.

Gusev said that in Belgium the existence of the plural vote greatly obscured the significance of proportional representation. The example of Belgium was therefore not happily chosen, and proved nothing.

Posadovsky: The statements which have been made here for and against the amendments seem to me to represent not a dispute about details but a serious difference. There can be no doubt that we do not agree on the following basic question: should we subordinate our future Policy to certain fundamental democratic principles and attribute absolute value to them, or should all democratic principles be exclusively subordinated to the interests of our Party? I am decidedly in favour of the latter. There is not a single one among the principles of democracy which we °light not to subordinate to the interests of our Party. [Exclamations: ‘Not inviolability of the person?’] No, not inviolability of the person!

As a revolutionary party striving to achieve our ultimate aim, the social revolution, we must consider democratic principles exclusively from the standpoint of the most rapid achievement of that aim, from the standpoint of the interests of our Party. If any particular demand is against our interests, we must not include it.

Consequently, I oppose the amendments which have been proposed, as being capable of restricting our freedom of action in the future.

Plekhanov: I fully associate myself with what Comrade Posadovsky has said. Every particular democratic principle must be considered not in itself, abstractly, but in its relation to that principle which can be called the basic principle of democracy, namely, the principle called: salus populi suprema lex. Translated into the language of the revolutionary, this means that the success of the revolution is the highest law. And if, for the sake of the revolution’s success, we need temporarily to restrict the functioning of a particular democratic principle, then it would be criminal to refrain from imposing that restriction. My personal view is that even the principle of universal suffrage must be looked at from the standpoint of what I have called the basic principle of democracy. Hypothetically, a case is conceivable where we Social-Democrats would oppose universal suffrage. There was a time when the bourgeoisie of the Italian republics deprived members of the nobility of political rights. The revolutionary proletariat may restrict the political rights of the upper classes in the same way as the upper classes used to restrict its political rights. The appropriateness of such a measure can be decided only from the standpoint of the rule: salus revolutiae suprema lex.[5] And we must take the same attitude where the question of the length of parliaments is concerned. If, in an outburst of revolutionary enthusiasm, the people should elect a very good parliament—a sort of Chambre Introuvable[6]—it would suit us to try and make that a Long Parliament; but if the elections turned out badly for us, we should have to try to disperse the resulting parliament not after two years but, if possible, after two weeks.

Applause. From some benches, hissing. Voices: ‘You should not hiss!’

Plekhanov: Why not? I strongly request the comrades not to restrain themselves.

Yegorov rises and says: Since such speeches call forth applause, I am obliged to hiss.

Yegorov: Comrade Plekhanov did not pay heed to the fact that the laws of war are one thing and constitutional laws are another. We are writing our programme with a constitution in mind.

Goldblatt saw in Comrade Plekhanov’s words an imitation of bourgeois tactics. To be logical we ought, on the basis of what Plekhanov said, to strike the demand for universal suffrage out of our programme.

Voting on the amendments was as follows:

1) Muravyov’s: rejected by a big majority.

2) Martov’s: adopted by 16 to 10.

3) Koltsov’s: adopted by 22 to 14.

Article 2, as amended by Martov and Koltsov, was approved by a big majority.

Article 3, as edited by the commission, read: ‘Extensive local and regional self-government.’

Lenin opposed the word ‘regional’, as it was very vague and might be interpreted to mean that the Social-Democrats wanted to split the whole state up into small regions.

Lieber supported the word ‘regional’, since the words local self-government’ meant self-government for towns and villages: a region was a union of towns and villages.

Martov disagreed with Comrade Lieber’s argument, as it had nothing in common with Social-Democratic reasoning. We cannot be in favour of unauthorised unions of communes. But the huge extent of Russia, and experience of our centralised administration, gives us grounds for regarding as necessary and appropriate the existence of regional self-government for such large entities as Finland, Poland, Lithuania and Caucasia. Martov therefore moved an amendment to the resolution, proposing that Articie 3 should read, as a whole: ‘Extensive local self-government; regional self-government for those border districts which in respect of conditions of life and make-up of Population differ from the strictly-Russian localities.’

Kostrov supported Comrade Martov’s proposal and considered that to include it in the Party programme would possess extensive agitational significance and attract new forces to the Party. In some places, including their own Caucasia, the idea of regional self-government was very popular.

Karsky considered that regional self-government was needed precisely because some localities were very distinctive in their conditions of life and could develop only if granted autonomy.

Rusov: I support Comrade Martov’s proposal to insert a demand for regional self-government, and the need for special mention to be made of our border districts. The variety in conditions of life and make-up of population creates a situation in these border districts such that local institutions are needed to correspond to these conditions. That the central districts and the border districts cannot be brought under one heading has been recognised even by the Russian autocracy, though it implements this recognition in a distorted way. The Polish comrades supported their demand for Polish autonomy by the need for extensive self-government, in order to safeguard the possibility of cultural development, and so this point will give them full satisfaction. This demand will also answer the nationalists who think that the problem of the border districts can be solved only by their political isolation. Finally, this decision, which does not run counter to our basic principles, provides us with a weapon for the fight against the nationalist organisations which have recently appeared—Gruziya,[7] for example. By calling for autonomy for Georgia in order to ensure the development of national culture they want to organise all classes of society under the national flag. If we were to declare once more that the safeguarding of national culture is not contrary to the interests of the entire proletariat of Russia, that would powerfully insure the workers against the influence of such elements. While having principled significance in the sense of providing a solution to the problem of the border districts, inclusion of this additional point in the programme would also bring the practical results I have mentioned. I therefore direct the comrades’ attention specially to this proposal.

Trotsky: I am against Comrade Martov’s amendment. In so far as it is of purely technical significance, it is superfluous: local self-government can embrace ‘regions’ as well—the expression does not predetermine the limits of the area concerned. In so far as it possesses significance on the plane of principle it is covered by Point 7 of the political programme.

Martynov considered that the word ‘self-determination’ could not be given a wide interpretation: it meant merely the right for a nation to secede and form a separate political entity, and not at all regional self-government.

Strakhov proposed that the word ‘regional’ be deleted as superfluous in this article, and as only introducing confusion into the concept of extensive local self-government.

The discussion on Article 3 ended and votes were taken:

1) The Lenin-Strakhov amendment, for Article 3 to read: ‘extensive local self-government’, was rejected by 26 to 14.

2) The commission’s proposal was rejected by 29 to 17.

3) Comrade Martov’s proposal was adopted by 28 to a small number of votes.

The commission’s version of Article4 was read: ‘Inviolability of person and domicile.’

This was adopted unanimously, without discussion. Article 9 coincided with Article 4 of the old draft.

Lieber proposed that after the words ‘of publication’ the words ‘and of language’ be added. [Laughter.] Even though this arouses mirth I regard it as important from the standpoint of principle. In the commission Comrade Lenin proposed that this mention of language’ be shifted to Article 6. Such a transfer was considered inappropriate, since it is not the case that a citizen is victimised for using a language but that the very right to use a language is subjected to discrimination, and the freedom of any citizen to speak his own language, should this differ from the state language, in any institution, is inhibited. Thus, for example, Poles enjoy equality of civil rights in Germany and yet at the same time their language is discriminated against.

Martov considered the expression ‘freedom of language’ unclear, owing to its double meaning. Equality of rights for all citizens implied freedom to speak whatever language they wished. The speaker said that in Germany, in Silesia, what the Poles demanded was ‘equal rights’.

Karsky did not agree with Martov’s argument and considered that the right to speak one’s native language was a very necessary and important right, and not a trifling matter. It was especially important in legal proceedings and in local institutions.

A vote was taken on Comrade Lieber’s amendment, and it was rejected by a big majority.

Article 9 was voted on as a whole, and approved by a big majority.

Article 6, as edited by the commission, was identical with Article 9 of the old draft. This article was adopted unanimously without discussion.

Article 7, as edited by the commission, read: ‘Abolition of social estates and complete equality of rights for all citizens, regardless of sex, religion, race, nationality or language.’

Lieber thought it absurd to include the word language’ in this paragraph and demanded that it be made the subject of a separate article: it was not that the citizen was victimised for using a language, but that his very right to speak his own language was subjected to discrimination.

Lensky proposed to add to Article 7: ‘the right of every citizen to express himself in his own language in any place: in state institutions and in schools.’

Goldblatt supported Comrade Lieber in calling for the language question to be accorded a separate article.

Yegorov agreed that to add the words ‘of language’ to the commission’s formulation would say nothing about equality of languages. Since in Poland, in Little Russia and elsewhere people were forbidden to use their mother-tongue at meetings, in court and in postal institutions, we ought to include a clear and positive demand for equality of languages.

A proposal was made for the discussion to be terminated, but this was rejected. A proposal that the list of speakers be closed was adopted.

Martov regarded it as fetishism when speakers insisted that nationalities enjoyed equality, and transferred inequality to the sphere of language, whereas the question should be examined from just the opposite angle: inequality of nationalities exists, and one of its manifestations is that people belonging to certain nations are deprived of the right to use their mother-tongue.

Lvov considered that the question of the suppression of languages which had been raised by the border districts was a very serious one. It was important to include a point on language in our programme and thus obviate any possibility of the Social-Democrats being accused of Russifying tendencies.

Kostich considered that restrictions on language encroached upon the equality of citizens in the use of their constitutional rights, and that it was not merely a question of restricted right to use a language.

Lieber proposed that the words ‘and of language’ be deleted from Article 7 of the commission’s draft and that a new paragraph, on equality of languages, be included in Article 7.

Trotsky (on a point of order) asked that a vote be taken first of all on whether a special point about equality of languages was desired.

The voting was 23 for and 23 against. A roll-call vote produced the same result. [Those who voted in favour were: Rusov (2 votes), Bekov (2 votes), Karsky (2 votes), Makhov (2 votes), Lvov (2 votes), Medvedev, Posadovsky, Lensky, Popov, Yegorov, Gorsky, Brouckère, Martynov, Hofman, Goldblatt, Yudin, Lieber, Abramson. Against were: Gusev, Osipov, Kostich, Pavlovich, Panin (2 votes), Sorokin, Byelov, Lyadov, Gorin, Fomin, Muravyov, Lange, Dyedov, Trotsky, Orlov, Plekhanov, Lenin (2 votes), Martov (2 votes), Hertz, Braun. Abstentions: Tsaryov, Stepanov, Deutsch. Absent: Ivanov, Akimov.]

Trotsky asked if the result of the vote could be taken as recording a negative, since a quite new proposal was being voted on and an equal number of votes had been cast for and against.

Lieber protested against this interpretation and demanded equal treatment for both sides.

The amendments were then voted on.

1) Comrade Lieber’s (see above): 17 for, 23 against, rejected.

2) Comrade Lensky’s: ‘the right of every citizen to express himself in his own language everywhere: in state institutions, schools …’ Rejected by a big majority.

3) Comrade Yegorov’s: ‘equality of languages in all schools, institutions and meetings’. 24 for, 24 against. When a roll-call vote was taken, Kostrov’s proposal was passed by 24 votes to 23. [Those who voted in favour were: Rusov (2 votes), Bekov (2 votes), Karsky (2 votes), Makhov (2 votes), Lvov (2 votes), Medvedev, Byelov, Posadovsky, Lensky, Popov, Yegorov, Brouckère, Martynov, Deutsch, Hofman, Goldblatt, Yudin, Lieber, Abramson. Against : Gusev, Osipov, Kostich, Pavlovich, Stepanov, Panin (2 votes), Sorokin, Lyadov, Gorin, Fomin, Muravyov, Lange, Dyedov, Trotsky, Orlov, Plekhanov, Lenin (2 votes), Martov (2 votes), Hertz, Braun.]

The session was closed.

Abstentions: Tsaryov, Gorsky. Absent: Ivanov, Akimov.

Seventeenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 91 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

The minutes of the seventh and eighth sessions were read and approved.

The congress then proceeded to further discussion of Article 7 of the programme.

Goldblatt moved an amendment to delete from Article 7, as edited by the commission, the words: ‘and of language’.

The amendment was passed by 24 to 14.

Article 7, as amended by Comrade Kostrov, was then voted on as a whole. The first vote taken gave 22 for and 20 against, and a second vote gave 24 for and 24 against.

The question of what to do about Article 7 then arose.

Lenin proposed that Article 7 be referred to the commission once more, and, if it proved unable to satisfy both sides, that the question be held over to the next congress.

Lieber protested against reference to the commission. Since certain parts of the article had been adopted, the whole article had thereby been adopted.

The Chairman explained that after voting on separate sections, each of the articles was to be voted on en bloc.

Karsky opposed reference of the article to the commission and proposed that the whole article be deleted.

Goldblatt also opposed reference of the article to the commission, in view of the fact that this would merely result in the artificial formation of a majority, which did not as yet exist, for rejecting the entire article. He called for a further vote to be taken immediately.

Popov proposed reference of the article to the commission so that a happier formulation might be found, as it was impossible to reject the entire article for the sake of a few words.

Panin called for an end to the discussion of this question and for the congress to proceed to next business.

Martov considered the whole amendment unfortunate, not only from the stylistic standpoint but also from that of logic.

Plekhanov proposed that the article about abolishing social estates and establishing equality of civil rights be left in the programme, while the language question should be held over for a future congress. In his view it was clear that this question had not yet reached a state where it could be decided, and it required clarification in the Party press.

Yegorov: Comrade Plekhanov’s proposal runs counter to the wish of the congress. Since the congress has already discussed and adopted an amendment on language it has thereby acknowledged its competence to deal with this question.

Karsky considered insulting the mere proposition that such a burning question as that of language could be regarded as unready for decision and beyond the power of the congress to settle.

Martynov proposed that the amendment be referred to the commission for stylistic improvement.

Popov called for a fresh vote to be taken.

The congress voted. Comrade Lenin’s proposal was rejected by 26 to 24 and Comrade Plekhanov’s by 28 to 17. Comrade Popov’s proposal was adopted with 28 votes.

Article 7, as amended by Comrade Kostrov, was voted on once more, and rejected by 29 to 24.

Trotsky and Panin proposed that the addition to Article 7 be referred to the commission.

Lieber proposed that a commission to work out a formulation for Article 7 be elected at once.

Martynov urged that his proposal be put to the vote. A proposal to close the discussion was moved and adopted.

Comrade Lieber proposed that the congress answer three questions: (a) should the article in question be again sent back to the commission? (b) if so, should it be entrusted to the old commission or should a new one be elected? and (c) for what purpose was the article to be referred to the commission?

Proposal (a), that the article be referred to the commission, was adopted unanimously. On the question of the purpose of doing this, two proposals were presented: (1) by Comrade Lenin, that the article be referred to the commission without any particular instruction, and (2) by Comrade Martynov, that it be referred for editing and reconciling of the separate sections.

29 votes were cast for Comrade Lenin’s proposal and 26 (by roll-call vote) for Comrade Martynov’s. [When a roll-call vote was taken, the following voted for Comrade Lenin’s proposal: Gusev, Osipov, Pavlovich, Stepanov, Panin (2 votes), Sorokin, Lyadov, Gorin, Fomin, Muravyov, Lange, Dyedov, Trotsky, Lensky, Orlov, Gorsky, Plekhanov, Deutsch, Lenin (2 votes), Martov (2 votes), Hertz and Braun. For Comrade Martynov’s proposal there voted: Rusov (2 votes), Bekov (2 votes), Karsky (2 votes), Makhov (2 votes), Lvov (2 votes), Tsaryov, Kostich, Ivanov, Medvedev, Byelov, Posadovsky, Popov, Yegorov, Brouckère, Akimov, Martynov, Lieber, Goldblatt, Abramson, Yudin, Hofman.] The latter was therefore adopted.

By 27 votes to 24 it was decided to refer the article to the old programme commission.

The congress passed to discussion of Article 8 of the general political part of the programme which, as edited by the commission, read: ‘The right of self-determination for all nations included within the bounds of the state.’

Goldblatt: It is impossible to object to the ‘right of self determination’. If any nation fights for its independence we cannot oppose it. If Po land does not want to enter into lawful wedlock with Russia, then its wishes must not be obstructed, as Plekhanov put it. I agree with this view, within these limits. But the ‘right of self-determination’ does not prevent certain frictions and clashes which may arise. We are told that those points in our programme which ensure a democratic constitution are all that is needed. I think this is not so. A democratic constitution merely unties people’s hands so that they can fight, and therefore we need to have special demands to safeguard the rights of a national minority. In the article about regional self-government the congress recognised the need to adapt the structure of the state to special local conditions. But the concept ‘regional self-government’ does not coincide with what Article 8 is about, for a nation does not always coincide with territory. Regional self-government may therefore only ensure self-government for every nation which lives in a particular territory, while not ensuring the free development of a national minority. I consider it necessary to set up special institutions to ensure freedom of cultural development for the nationalities, and so I move that we add to Article 8: ‘and the establishment of institutions ensuring their full freedom of cultural development’.

Martynov said that common institutions must be organised in such a way as to look after particular interests as well. It was not possible to establish any special institutions for ensuring freedom of cultural development for a nationality.

Yegorov: Where the question of nationality is concerned we can adopt only negative propositions—i.e., we are against any constraint being exercised upon a nationality. But, as Social-Democrats, it is of no concern to us whether a particular nationality develops as such. That is a matter for a spontaneous process.

Koltsov: The delegates from the Bund always take offence when their nationalism is talked about. And yet the amendment which the comrade from the Bund has moved is of a purely nationalist character. They want us to take offensive measures in support of nationalities which are dying out.

Lieber: Since the bogy of nationalism has appeared on the scene, we must, instead of taking fright at it, ask ourselves these questions. Does national oppression exist? Must we get rid of it? Or are we going to allow some nationalities to be ousted? Naturally, if some nationality considers it is unable to go on living within the frontiers of Russia, the Party will not stand in its way. But there are in Russia a number of nationalities which do not want to leave the country, but which do suffer from oppression. How could the Russian proletariat have developed if the intellectual classes of Russian society had not given it something of their culture? Yet the Jewish proletariat receives no benefits from its own oppressed intelligentsia. Consequently, for the sake of the proletariat we should guarantee to every nationality the right to cultural development within the bounds of the state: otherwise it will want to escape from those bounds.

A proposal to close the list of speakers was adopted.

Martov: Comrade Lieber would like to see included in our democratic constitution a guarantee of freedom of national development. But such guarantees are not provided by a mere phrase, and Comrade Lieber did not show concretely what institutions ought to be set up in order to guarantee these rights.

Kostich: Every nation must have such institutions, says Comrade Lieber, and these institutions are closely bound up with the organisation plan put forward by the Bund.

The congress voted. Goldblatt’s amendment was rejected by the majority, with 3 votes for. Lieber’s proposal that Article 8 be worded thus: ‘Recognition, for all nations forming part of the state, of the right of self-determination and the right to freedom of cultural development’ was rejected by the majority, with 4 votes for.

Artide 8 as edited by the commission was adopted by an overwhelming majority, with a few abstentions.

Article 9, as edited by the commission, coincided with Article 8 of the old draft.

Fomin proposed an amendment: after the word ‘citizen’, to insert: ‘and also foreigner’.

Lenin considered the addition of the word ‘foreigner’ unnecessary, since it was self-evident that a Social-Democratic Party would stand for extending the application of this article to foreigners as well.

Lieber: Comrade Lenin says that it is ‘self-evident’ that Social-Democrats will stand for a law by which any foreigner can prosecute officials. No, this is not ‘self-evident’, as can be seen, for example, from the fact that when Russian revolutionaries have been arrested in Germany and put in irons, and so on, our German comrades have protested only against particular cases, and have never introduced into parliament a bill for a law of this kind.

Trotsky: I request that Comrade Lieber’s words be recorded in the minutes.

Martov: Since Comrade Lieber’s words are to be recorded in the minutes and will perhaps be published and become known abroad, I think it necessary to protest against the implication contained in them that our German comrades take up an attitude of indifference to the fate of Russian Social-Democrats. It is not a question of the German comrades’ unwillingness but of the German constitution. I protest against Comrade Lieber’s statement, which I regard as a chauvinist boutade.

Tsaryov proposed that Article 9 be formulated as follows: ‘Direct accountability before juries to apply to all officials against whom any person lodges a complaint.’

Plekhanov proposed that the word ‘citizen’ in the commission’s version be replaced by: ‘victim’.

Strakhov wished the entire article to be worded thus: ‘The right of any person to prosecute any official before a jury, through the usual channels.’

Hertz offered a different formulation: ‘Granting of the right to everyone to prosecute any official before a jury without complaining to the authorities.’

When votes were taken, Fomin’s proposal received 3 votes, Tsaryov’s 12, Plekhanov’s 8, Strakhov’s 30, and Hertz’s 13. Strakhov’s formulation was consequently adopted.

The commission then proposed that Article 11 should read: ‘Judges to be elected by the people.’

Brouckère proposed these additions: (a) abolition of special courts; (b) all persons to be subject to the jurisdiction of the general courts in the normal way; (c) abolition of the death penalty; (d) free legal aid.

Lieber supported the point about abolishing special courts. He referred to the example of France, where the Socialists were fighting against special courts-martial.

Trotsky considered this point superfluous, since by calling for the election of judges we were thereby calling for the abolition of all special courts.

Martov: We call for the abolition of the standing army. When there is no army there will be no courts-martial, just as when social estates have been abolished there will be no nobles’ courts. There is no need to include petty demands for the abolition of courts-martial, since we are against militarism.

Plekhanov explained that the introduction of the militia system did not entail abolition of courts-martial, as could be seen from the example of Switzerland.

Makhov: Election of judges is not enough. We need to define the actual nature of the courts. From the example of England we know that even elected judges may be bourgeois.

Lyadov was against any special points being added after adoption of the point about the election of judges.

Gorin proposed that the words ‘by the people’ be deleted from the commission’s version.

Koltsov proposed that the words ‘and juries’ be added to this version.

The congress voted. Brouckère’s proposal was taken in four parts: (a) was rejected by 24 to 17; (b) was rejected by the majority, with 1 vote in favour; (c) was rejected by the majority with 10 votes in favour [a delegate shouted: ‘And what about Nicholas II?]; (d) was rejected by the majority, with 1 vote in favour. Gorin’s amendment was rejected by the majority, with 9 votes in favour, and Koltsov’s likewise, with 10 votes in favour.

Article 11 was adopted unanimously in the form prepared by the commission.

Lieber (as a personal observation): I consider it necessary to make the following statement. The interpretation given to my words by Comrade Marlov, and his description of what I said as a ‘chauvinist boutade ’, I can only describe as being itself a demagogic boutade, and, moreover, one uttered with the basest motives. [The chairman checked the speaker, but Martov asked that ‘the speaker be allowed freedom of language’.] I note that my words have caused excitement in our Bureau. Wrongly, it failed to react like that to the insult hurled at me by Comrade Martov. Then, it remained calm. Of course, if Comrade Martov will say he spoke those words only out of irritation, then I will, in turn, withdraw what I have said. But if Comrade Martov says that he used the expression ‘a chauvinist boutade ’ quite deliberately, then I repeat that I cannot describe his conduct in this case otherwise than as a demagogic boutade, uttered, moreover, with the basest motives.

Martov (as a personal observation): The explanation given by Comrade Lieber regarding his remarks about the German Social-Democrats has not altered the interpretation I put upon those remarks. He called what I said a demagogic boutade. I do not altogether understand where the ‘people’ are, before whom I engaged in this demagogy. Given his attempt to characterise my remark in this way, I cannot withdraw it.[8]

The session was closed.

Eighteenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Article 12 of the general political section of the programme was read. In the Commission’s version this corresponded to Article 9 of the old draft (pre-pared by Iskra and Zarya).

Lieber: We do not have the term ‘militia’ here. Universal arming of the people and militia are not the same thing. Universal arming of the people may be the normal situation, or it may be proclaimed during wartime, but it is not what prevails in Switzerland. I propose that the words ‘universal arming of the people’ be replaced by ‘militia’, with the first-mentioned words given afterwards, in brackets.

Lenin: The word ‘militia’ contributes nothing new, and makes for confusion. The words ‘universal arming of the people’ are clear, and fully Russian. I regard Comrade Lieber’s amendment as unnecessary.

Lieber’s amendment was rejected by a majority, and Article 12 adopted as edited by the commission.

Article 13 corresponding to Article 10 of the old draft, was then adopted without discussion.

The rapporteur of the commission read Article 14, corresponding to Article 11 of the old draft, and said that the amendments to this which had been submitted to the commission had not been approved by the majority of its members.

Lieber: I propose that the second paragraph of this article be deleted. Textbooks are automatically included in the concept of free, compulsory education, since it is impossible to learn without them. Besides, it is offensive to divide children into rich and poor, as Posse has correctly shown.[9]

Lyadov: I agree with Lieber, but for different reasons. I consider that this going into detail is not in accord with the spirit of our programme.

Yegorov: I presented this same amendment to the commission. Delegates have often referred to matters being ‘self-evident’. If we introduce universal education in a democratic state, we try to ensure that everyone gets an education. It is not possible to ensure this if the means are lacking. This is self-evident. We are not including, for instance, a point about free legal aid.

Martov: I should advise greater care in agreeing with the windbag Posse, otherwise one may easily fall into bad company. For a socialist and revolutionary it cannot be offensive to recognise that rich and poor exist. It is a fact that only has to be slurred over for tearful democrats. The children of poor workers know they are poor, even so. The socialist parties of the West, which have included this point in their programmes, were not afraid of mentioning that there are rich and poor, nor did they regard this as a mere detail. The question of popular education is an especially important one for Social-Democrats. We need to keep these details in the programme, like the details about factory legislation. I merely propose that we make one addition to this point: ‘in their mother-tongue’. This will facilitate the work of the commission. The school question brings up again the question of ‘equality’ of languages, but this is very important. Teaching suffers if the children do not understand the language in which they are being taught at school.

Plekhanov: Following Martov, all I want to add is that if it is offensive to mention that there are poor people, then we ought to refrain from introducing income tax. Universal education does not in the least presuppose that textbooks are issued free of charge, as may be seen from the example of Switzerland. This is one of the contradictions inherent in capitalist society. I have lived in Switzerland. Lack of free textbooks causes much humiliation to the poor in that country. As regards food, I can point to the testimony of the Swiss inspector Schuler. He says that the children of poor parents often come to school hungry. I regard the question of education as fundamental; it is a guarantee of the rights of the proletariat.

Karsky: After Plekhanov’s remarks I have nothing to add, except this, that everything that is implied here is carried out by bourgeois governments. I am opposed to adding the words ‘in the mother-tongue’. I consider this addition unnecessary, since it rules out our having a special article on the subject. We should have a separate paragraph on this. Comrade Martov’s remark about bad company was out of place.

The Chairman asked Comrade Karsky to refrain from expressions of this sort.

Yegorov: I am categorically opposed to Martov’s addition. It would mean reducing a serious question to a triviality, and there would be difficulty in reconciling Article 7 with this addition. I see here a clearly expressed desire to rally the majority of the congress.

The Chairman asked Comrade Yegorov to withdraw his last words.

Yegorov: I withdraw them, but I make this point, that everyone introducing an amendment should think carefully.

Chairman: That applies generally.

Martov: Since Yegorov has been allowed to speak a second time, I too must object that the addition I proposed did not have that significance.

Trotsky considered Martov’s proposal appropriate and supported it.

Martov: In presenting my proposal I carried out the commission’s instructions. I thought for a long time how to find a formulation that would satisfy all requirements. I came to the conclusion that for logical reasons one could introduce this point here. It is worded in a clear-cut and well-defined way. I did not expect at all that my concern to satisfy the other side would be interpreted as a political manoeuvre. I put it to Comrade Yegorov that by being excessively suspicious and diplomatic one can make a fool of oneself.

Goldblatt: We cannot agree with this amendment. A part of the general section has been taken out and inserted here. Thereby all the rest is annulled. From what Martov and Trotsky said it emerged that the majority must be satisfied regarding language’ in the school. A proposal such as this tends to break the article up and throw out a large part of what is essential.

Lenin: I am against Martov’s proposal. It would be more convenient to move amendments to different points after the commission has done its work.

Rusov: Yesterday we talked about equality of languages, having in mind not the schools but all local public institutions. To talk about equality of languages in the school is nonsense, since in each school one language must prevail, otherwise it won’t be a school but the devil only knows what! A convenient expression of this point would be recognition of the need for teaching in the mother-tongue. As for equality of languages, this must be recognised in all local governmental institutions, that is the population must be given the right to transact business in local government and public institutions in their own languages, along with the state language. For this reason I think Martov’s amendment does not rule out the possibility of recognising equality of languages.

Popov: Implied in the general formulation is teaching in the mother-tongue not only in the primary school but also in the university. I regret that mere trifles have given rise to such an atmosphere. It is desirable that this should cease.

Starover said, in connection with Comrade Goldblatt’s statement, that, as a member of the programme commission, he could affirm that Martov’s proposal, which had been gone into in the commission, was in no way intended to mean scrapping the question of equality of languages.

Trotsky proposed to add this article: ‘Teaching to be given in the mother-tongue at the request of the population’.

A vote being taken, Lieber’s proposal (‘to delete the second paragraph’) was rejected and Trotsky’s adopted by 30 to 9. Article 14, as amended by Trotsky, was approved unanimously.

The paragraph on abolition of indirect taxes, etc., was then approved.

Next, the congress discussed the section of the programme dealing with the protection of labour.

The first subject for debate was the introduction and Articles 1 and 2.

Lyadov called for a continuous rest period of 42 hours, as a 36-hour rest-period now existed in many factories.

Yegorov: This was rejected in the commission. In some works, by way of exception, there is a six-hour day, but our demand is for an eight-hour day.

Lieber remarked that nothing was said in the programme about inspection of the conditions prevailing in small-scale production.

Yegorov: In the commission it was said that the programme should be couched in very broad terms, owing to the variety of conditions existing. What is to be done about workshops in which the workers are not wage-workers but members of the family?

Lenin was not against the proposal for a 42-hour rest period, but pointed out to Lieber that the programme spoke of inspection of all workplaces. If the size of these were to be mentioned that would merely restrict the application. When our programme becomes a bill, that will be the time to insert details.

Lieber proposed adding the words: ‘regardless of the size of the workplace’.

Trotsky proposed that the Sunday rest-period be extended to 42 hours.

Makhov: In Nikolayev there is already a 40-hour rest period.

Tsaryov: In the engineering works in the South the rest-period is longer than 36 hours.

Kostrov: In Batum the rest-period is 37 hours.

Muravyov proposed that to Article 2 be added the words: ‘in all branches of the economy’.

The congress voted. The introduction and Article 1 were approved. Lieber’s amendment to Article 2 was rejected, and Muravyov’s also, and Lyadov’s amendment for a 42-hour rest-period was adopted. Article 2, with Lyadov’s amendment, was approved as a whole.

Approved also were Articles 3 and 4 (with an amendment substituting ‘6 a.m.’ for ‘5’.).

Article 5 was discussed.

Glebov proposed that the employment of children of school age be banned. This demand was of interest to cultured sections of the Population.

Koltsov favoured also a ban on exploitation of children by their parents. At the Zurich Congress (1897) the clericals were against interference with work in the home, but the Social-Democrats opposed them, demanding that inspection apply also to this.

Makhov supported Koltsov, but considered that some parents, too, were employers, and an inspectorate for such families should be set up. It was impossible to ban the nursing of children. The word ‘hired’ should be deleted.

Lyadov and Tsaryov called for a six-hour day for adolescents, not a four-hour day, as the latter would increase the power of parents.

Goldblatt replied to Comrade Glebov that it was impossible to fool the Zemsky Sobor,[10] the Liberals would notice. They would agree provisionally, then, when the time came to lay down concretely what the school age should be, they would restrict it.

Yegorov: I am not against Comrade Glebov’s proposal, but I don’t agree with his reasons. The concept ‘school age’ shows that the figures are not arbitrary.

The congress voted. Makhov’s amendment (to delete the word ‘hired’) was adopted. Koltrov’s (to delete the words ‘employers’ and ‘hired’) was rejected. Popov’s (a six-hour working day for adolescents) was adopted. Kostrov’s (‘complete prohibition of night work for persons of either sex under the age of 18’) was rejected. Article 5, as amended, was approved.

Article 6 had been altered by the commission, the words ‘women recently confined’ being replaced by ‘women’, the words ‘two weeks before and four weeks after childbirth’ replaced by ‘four weeks before and six weeks after childbirth’, and this addition made: ‘with payment of wages at the usual rate throughout this period’.

Article 6, with all these amendments, was approved.

A delegate: The commission decided to insert between Articles 7 and 8 a paragraph about creches for babies and small children, and feeding arrangements for them. I opposed this detail. I think that this point predetermines the compulsory establishment of factory hospitals, and extended employment of female labour, thereby playing into the hands of the manufacturers. Besides, this is a question that needs discussion, and therefore it should be referred to the commission andheld over to a future congress. As a doctor, I consider that infant mortality is not increased by the cessation of breast feeding. This is a disputed question, and some people’s thinking about it is affected by a passion for ‘naturalness’.

Lieber considered that hygienic conditions would not be observed in creches established in connection with factories. In Switzerland, for instance, creches were set up in specially hygienic conditions. I propose that this point be deleted.

Another delegate: I explained to the commission the reasons which led me to propose the point which we are now discussing. Here I will reply to the objections which comrades have made. They amount to this. First, it is said that this is a detail. I emphatically disagree. What is involved is a whole numerous stratum of the proletariat, all children in babyhood and infancy. Our programme, which sets out in such detail all our demands in the interests of protecting adult and adolescent workers, completely ignores the children of the proletariat of that age and yet it is in that period of their lives that this very numerous stratum of the proletariat is most in need of protection. The dreadfully high rate of infant mortality has long since attracted the attention of scientists, and statistical research undertaken to discover the causes of this mortality has shown that the principal cause is incorrect feeding. A comrade who spoke against my proposal based his objection on the findings of medical science and I am obliged to follow him into the realm of medicine. I declare that the comrade is completely mistaken when he says that it has not yet been proved that the most suitable food for a child is its mother’s milk. I declare that this is already a well-established medical fact, and not fetishism in favour of naturalness, as the comrade supposes, but a fact established by statistics and observation and in full conformity with our medical knowledge. The professors have long been teaching, in all schools of medicine, that every mother should breast-feed her child, because a woman’s milk is the best nourishment a child can have. The substitutes so generously offered by technology can never replace women’s milk. And this is so, even given the pedantic precision which is necessary when artificial feeding is resorted to, and which, of course, can be observed only in comparatively well-to-do homes, but not in those of proletarians. The professors forgot, in their lectures, about those women whom poverty takes away from their families, tears from their children, and drives into factory work. If the professors have forgotten them, the workers’ party ought not to forget them. And this is all the more important because the demand for female labour in production increases every year: every year a larger number of women are thrust into the factories and a larger number of children are deprived thereby of their natural food. I regard it as necessary, therefore, that in our programme a place be found for the following demand: that no mother be deprived of the possibility of breast-feeding her child. On these grounds I propose that the conditions of work of women who are breast-feeding their children be subjected to regulation.

Comrade Lieber said that, in stipulating in my draft that ‘creches be established in connection with factories’ I was placing creches in unhygienic locations, since, he says, it is well-known that good hygienic conditions do not obtain in factories. But when I said ‘in connection with factories’ I did not have in mind a topographical definition, I meant that, wherever women are employed, the measures indicated should be taken. The actual place where a creche is to be established should, of course, be chosen so as to meet the requirements of hygiene.

This is why I continue to urge that the point I have proposed be included in the programme.

Lyadov confirmed the correctness of what the previous speaker said about infant mortality. But, in view of the fact that the question had not been sufficiently worked out, he proposed that it be referred to the commission and held over to a future congress.

Brouckère: It is a well known fact that creches reduce mortality.

Yegorov: I propose that the question of creches be left for the next congress to decide.

The first proposal was rejected. The point about creches was adopted and included in the programme as Article 7.

Articles 7 and 9 of the Iskra-Zarya draft had been merged into one by the commission (see Article 8 of the programme).

Posadovsky: Both in the earlier draft and in this version it seems to me that the whole of this seventh point is ill-conceived and quite fails to correspond to the attitude our Party ought to take up regarding the responsibility of employers for accidents to workers and workers’ disablement, partial or complete. Above all, there is no mention here of the principle of criminal responsibility on the part of an employer for a worker’s disablement. The worker suffers not only as a producer of value but also as an individual, and his life and health ought to be safeguarded. Point 14 of the draft, providing for criminal responsibility of the employer in cases of failure to observe the laws for the protection of labour, seems to me to quite fail to embrace all those other cases not foreseen by the law, and where an employer has not taken safety precautions, although he could have done, he ought to be subject to criminal responsibility. As regards the question: ‘when is the employer liable to civil responsibility?’ the draft and the commission’s formulation provide an incorrect and, in any case, imprecise answer. I think that it is beyond doubt that the employer should always bear civil responsibility. What does it matter to the workers whether his employer is guilty or not? The given enterprise ought to pay for all injury caused in the process of production. In only one instance is the employer to be free of civil responsibility, namely, if a worker consciously and deliberately causes injury to himself. Then it is for society as a whole to take responsibility.

If we take these two principles as our basis and determine by proceeding from them our attitude to the question at issue, we shall divide all cases of loss of ability to work into three categories:

1. The worker loses ability to work, his employer not having taken all the safety precautions he could have taken (and not only those laid down by law). In this case the employer bears both criminal and civil responsibility.

2. The worker loses ability to work, his employer having taken all possible safety precautions. The employer is free of criminal responsibility but bears civil responsibility.

3. The worker consciously and deliberately injures himself. The employer is free from all responsibility, criminal or civil. But the worker receives a pension from the state.

Taking all the foregoing into consideration, and assuming as an indispensable condition that the onus probandi must always rest on the employer, I move that the accompanying draft be included in this Point of the programme.

Yegorov: I am opposed to Posadovsky’s proposal. In the first place, criminal responsibility is a requirement in the most backward of legal systems, including the Russian: if a worker falls off the scaffolding, his boss prosecutes the architect. Secondly, I consider that detailed treatment of this question is not required. I think the problem does not result from the will of the employer, and it is impossible to bring in individual responsibility: the capitalists as a whole should pay. Every time an accident occurred, the victim would have to submit a complaint, which would be very burdensome. The matter should be settled by means of a general fund and inspectorate. The question needs to be treated less subjectively: the injured workers must be compensated, whether the capitalist is guilty or not, and the whole capitalist class must be answerable. An enterprise in which work is carried on under dangerous conditions should have a heavy tax imposed on it.

Martov: There is no point in combining civil and criminal responsibility, although the latter frightens the factory-owners and obliges them to make concessions. Factories have directors ‘for unpleasantnesses’, whose special function it is to go to prison. Consequently, criminal responsibility produces no results. Therefore, I am in favour of state insurance.

Gorin advocated personal responsibility, for the same reasons as had already been given.

Lyadov: I am not for personal responsibility. The boss goes bankrupt and the workers lose their life pensions. Therefore, I favour a general tax on factory-owners.

Lvov: I am for state insurance and I propose that we add: ‘compulsory application of all technical improvements which safeguard work-ers against accidents (especially in mines).’

Orlov: I am for criminal responsibility. It provides a stimulus to the development of technical means of protecting workers. A fine is soon paid—it is cheaper than installing an expensive machine.

Yegorov proposed to add: ‘by means of a special tax on the employer, increasing progressively in proportion to the dangerousness of the given enterprise’.

Martynov proposed that after the word ‘dangerousness’ in Comrade Yegorov’s amendment the word ‘disorderliness’ be added.

Posadovsky proposed that the whole paragraph be formulated as follows:

‘Establishment of a law on civil and criminal responsibility of employers for partial or complete loss of ability to work resulting from accidents or harmful working conditions.’

Note: ‘The employer to be freed from criminal responsibility only if it be proved that he could not have foreseen the worker’s loss of ability to work. The employer to be freed from civil responsibility only if it be proved that the worker deliberately caused injury to himself, causing his loss of ability to work.’

When votes were taken, Posadovsky’s proposal and all the amendments were rejected. Article 8 as edited by the commission was adopted as a whole.

Artide 9, coinciding with paragraph 8 of the old draft, was adopted with the following amendments: after the word ‘payment’ the words ‘in cash’ to be added, and before the word ‘agreement’, the words ‘without exception’ to be added.

Comrade Lyadov’s proposal that Artide 15 of the previous draft be placed after Artide 9 was adopted.

Article 15 (now 10) was adopted.

Then Artide 11 (partially coinciding with the old Artide 10) was adopted.

The session was closed.

Nineteenth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

When the session began, Article 11 of the draft programme (the Iskra-Zarya draft) was read, i.e., Article 12 of the programme as adopted.

Lyadov proposed that the following three points be inserted:

1. Establishment of an agrarian inspectorate to check on all agricultural enterprises in which wage-workers were employed.

2. Points 1-13 to be applicable to all agricultural enterprises employing hired labour.

3. Tenants leasing land as sharecroppers or on condition that they work the landlord’s land to be regarded as wage-workers and, as such, brought within the competence of the agrarian inspectorate.

I think these points need to be inserted. Although agricultural enterprises ought, as has been said, to be brought under the factory inspectorate, this needs emphasising. Furthermore, I think it is necessary to set up a special agrarian inspectorate. This third point shows that we regard tenant-farmers as proletarians. Our agrarian programme as a whole does not relate to the proletariat, but in this point we single out the proletarians.

Lenin: I am against Comrade Lyadov’s amendment. His first two points are superfluous since in our programme we cal) for protection of labour in all branches of the economy, and so in agriculture as well. As for the third, this entirely relates to the agrarian section, and we shall deal with it when we discuss the draft of our agrarian programme.

Chairman: At Lyadov’s request we shall vote on his amendment point by point.

The two first points were rejected by all against one, and Lyadov withdrew the third. Article 12 was then voted on as a whole, and adopted unanimously.

Article 13 was read.

Gusev: It is not clear whether the health inspectorate is to be set up at the expense of the employers or whether this applies only to medical aid. I propose that the word ‘and’ after ‘labour’ be deleted, and replaced by a semi-colon.

The amendment was voted on and adopted by 18 to 3.

Makhov: The thing is that, however strange this may be in present circumstances, when free medical aid is adopted in the factories, the workers will remain on the payroll throughout their illness. In the programme of our demands we say nothing about this, and yet the point cannot be overlooked.

Yegorov: There is nothing to be said against such an amendment, except that the period during which the worker must go on being paid should be laid down. He might be ill for ten years.

Posadovsky moved an amendment, to add to this point: ‘the entire medico-sanitary organisation to be wholly independent of the employers’.

Makhov’s amendment (‘with continuance of pay during illness’) was passed by 20 to 3.

Makhov: I support Posadovsky’s amendment, since if the medical personnel are dependent on the employers it can lead to many abuses.

Posadovsky’s amendment was voted on and adopted by 25 to 4.

Article 13 was voted on as a whole and adopted unanimously.

Article 14 was read.

Makhov: Criminal responsibility of employers is laid down in all bodies of law. What we need to put in paragraph 14 is not that, but the right of every person to prosecute an employer for breaking the law for the protection of labour.

Kostich: I regard the amendment as unnecessary. At present the employers are subject to no responsibility.

Makhov withdrew his amendment.

Article 14, as a whole, was voted on and adopted unanimously.

Article 15 was read.

Lieber: What is meant by ‘industrial tribunals’? Are they composed according to branches of labour?

Lenin: Yes, of course.

Article 15 as a whole was read and adopted unanimously.

Article 16 was read.

Kostrov: Labour exchanges are of great importance for the workers and should therefore consist exclusively of workers.

Lieber: I propose an amendment: employment agencies in all branches of production to be administered by representatives of workers’ organisations’.

Martov: I want to say a few words in explanation of why this version was adopted. We wanted to provide for the setting up of such labour exchanges for agricultural workers as well. Since the latter are a more backward element, and nomadic into the bargain, it was not possible to propose that they should manage the labour exchanges, and so we adopted this form of words. I hope that we shall on every occasion fight for more active participation by the workers in the labour exchanges.

Yegorov: I agree with that observation. After all, a labour exchange is an employment agency, the responsibility of whose members is to put people in touch with each other. No law can assign this responsibility to particular workers’ organisations.

Plekhanov: I think Comrade Yegorov has not understood Comrade Lieber. One cannot object to this amendment from the standpoint of its feasibility. In Switzerland, for instance, the labour exchanges are already run by the workers. Martov, rather, has the right idea.

Makhov: When centres for the hiring of agricultural labourers are organised, the rule is to give the latter something to eat. The unemployed are included, despite the protests of the Zemstvo members. But we, in our programme, have forgotten the unemployed.

Muravyov: I therefore propose this amendment: ‘Establishment of medical and feeding centres in places where temporary (seasonal) concentrations of workers occur.’

Lieber’s amendment—after the word ‘ production’ to insert: ‘Under the administration of workers’ organisations’—was voted on, and rejected by 19 to 10.

Muravyov’s amendment was voted on and rejected by all against one. Kostrov’s amendment —‘and labour exchanges for industrial workers to be wholly managed by the latter’—was voted on and rejected by a majority, with one vote for.

Article 16 was voted on and adopted by a majority.

The introductory part of the agrarian programme was read.

Lieber: We thought there would be a report.

Lenin: It must be said that we have not produced a report. The commission proved unable to cope with this question.

In answer to a question from Yegorov the chairman said that in discussing the agrarian programme they would revert to the general procedure for debate, that is, the standing orders adopted at the beginning of the congress.

Lenin: I propose an amendment: instead of ‘will aim at’, we should say ‘demands first and foremost’.

Yegorov: I don’t know how we can debate these five lines. The question of our agrarian programme has not been clarified. I propose that we at least read the whole programme through and then have a general debate. These five lines show what the author’s idea is, but how they are connected with the programme as a whole remains unexplained.

This proposal was voted on and adopted.

The agrarian programme was read.

Martynov: Underlying the agrarian programme which has been presented to us is a perfectly sound principle. We are on the eve of a revolution which must finally liquidate the obsolete system of social estates and serfdom and give place to a bourgeois-democratic system. This revolution can and must settle accounts in revolutionary fashion—that is, without considering historically acquired rights—with all the relations that have arisen on the basis of the old order. This revolution will not touch the foundations of the new order, the time for liquidating which has not yet come. The present revolution is, essentially, the historical task of the bourgeoisie. But the party of the proletariat has to take upon itself also the fulfilment of those revolutionary tasks which the bourgeoisie ought to have performed but did not. This is the fundamental principle of our programme. But it is not hard to discover that certain essential points in this programme do not proceed at all from that principle.

I have in mind two points: the return to the peasants of the redemption payments taken from them since 1861 and the return to the peasants of the lands which were cut off from their holdings in 1861. It seems to me that these two points have the purpose not of abolishing those semi-serf relations which have survived into our day, but merely to redress an historical injustice. This is obvious where the first point is concerned. But it is also true of the second point. First, it has not been established that at the time of the emancipation of the peasants those lands were cut off mainly so as to preserve relations of bondage. Secondly, in the period that has elapsed, the countryside has undergone a profound economic evolution. Many of the ‘cut-off lands’ which once had that significance have now lost it: on the other hand, many lands which were not cut off have since then acquired significance as means of enserfment. Finally, present-day bondage relations between tenants and landowners do not belong to the old ‘estates’ setting of opposition between peasant and noble landlord. Therefore, return of the cut-off lands will not achieve the purpose which the compilers of the programme set themselves, and the purpose which these measures actually will achieve is not one that we can set ourselves. We cannot arbitrarily demand the redressment of this particular historical injustice if we thereby indirectly, so to speak, sanctify other historical injustices. We cannot demand that the peasants should have restored to them precisely those lands which they were cultivating in 1861, because we do not recognise in principle the landlords’ right to those lands which they had seized before 1861. If we now bring forward the demand that all land be nationalised, we are guided in this by considerations that have nothing to do with the question of rights. If we want to apply consistently the principle which is embodied in the programme, we must define those lands and their appendages which serve the big landowners today as means of keeping the surrounding population in semi-serflike dependence and expropriate them regardless of when or how these lands becomes theirs.

Gorin: The fourth article of the agrarian programme is defended by the consideration that free small-scale ownership means a social revolution as compared with the semi-serflike leasing of the cut-off lands. But free small-scale tenancy is not inferior, in this connection, to free small-scale ownership. This free leasing of the cut-off lands can be organised, instead of the small-scale ownership which is proposed, either through a land-survey or through standardisation of tenancy. This standardisation should be (1) qualitative, in the sense of replacement of rent in kind (in labour and produce) by money rent, and (2) quantitative, in the sense of fixing the amount of money to be paid. But the free small-scale tenancy of the cut-off lands established in this way also has an advantage over free small-scale ownership, an economic advantage, in that small-scale tenancy, being, so far as the technical means of production are concerned (i.e., all the means of production apart from the land) also small-scale ownership, is an economic form which is closer to the proletarian form, since here part of the property, namely, the land, has already been expropriated. Furthermore the small tenant is less attached to the land and therefore can sooner be freed from rural idiocy. Finally, given that a section of the peasantry are in a semi-proletarian position and can take up the standpoint of the proletariat, hope of getting back the cut-off lands perforce strengthens the anti-proletarian ideology in the atmosphere. It must also be mentioned that, essentially, return of the cut-off lands changes nothing in the matter of abolishing semi-serfdom relations. Semi-serfdom relations on the basis of the cut-off lands are created through the extreme over-population of the countryside, which the backward state of production cannot absorb. But this same backwardness of production will, even after the cut-off lands have been restored, compel, as a result of the inevitable parcellisation of the land, the ploughing-up of these cut-off lands, so depriving them of their specific function as auxiliary lands. The peasants will again be obliged to ask the neighbouring landowners for auxiliary lands and will again fall into semi-serfdom. It can rightly be said that the present moment is too exceptional, as a moment when we stand on the brink of a revolution. At this moment we cannot refrain from staking everything on a small thing since thereby great possibilities are created for giving the revolution an amplitude that will put it in a level with the Great French Revolution—this is an idea of Comrade Akselrod’s which he expressed to me in private conversation. Having acknowledged this, of course, we shall not proceed quantitatively beyond the point at which quantity becomes quality, and after which We could be reproached for engaging in professional demagogy in the style of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. But this being so, we must recognise that the fourth point has purely agitational significance.

Akselrod: I must remind Comrade Gorin that those words of mine to which he referred apply to the programme as a whole. I added that we must have in mind the agitational significance of the cut-off lands for hastening the process and sharpening the relations which bring us nearer to the ultimate upheaval.

Yegorov: Our discussion is made considerably more difficult through the absence of a preliminary report. The Social-Democratic programme as a whole is not new to us, but the agrarian part of this programme has been less clarified than any other. True, it has been discussed in our publications, but even so it would have been desirable to have it briefly summed up and justified. The significance of this programme is not clear to me. Is it a programme for ourselves, that is, does it define our demands, or do we want to make it popular? The agrarian question is one of the most essential questions. The impending revolution in Russia, so far as the peasantry are concerned, if not completely analogous to the Great French Revolution, has much in common with it. The peasant question will be settled first, and the peasantry will take part in settling it. The peasants will, of course, put forward a number of demands, which will be satisfied to some extent. Therefore the Social-Democrats will, perhaps, make clear in their programme, first and foremost, what the economic process can give to the peasantry when the revolution comes. It may be that this was what the authors of the programme had in mind. And I agree with them that this is extremely important. But if what they intended was to draw the peasants into the work of liquidation, to sound a slogan of action for them, then in that case their programme is insolvent, for in this matter the Socialist-Revolutionaries will break the record sooner than we can, by advancing the slogan of dividing up the land, which will be a much more stirring slogan than the cut-off lands can provide. Passing to points of detail, I would ask whether it has even been proved statistically that the peasants live worse where there are cut-off lands, whether it can be said with conviction that the poverty of the peasants in a given locality is due to the cut-off lands? Can it be proved that the situation is worse where the cut-off lands are larger?

Lieber: I would like to make the same points as Comrade Yegorov. It is, of course, a great deal easier to say what should not be in the programme than to say what should be in it. But I would like to mention a general feature that distinguishes the agrarian part of our programme from the rest, namely, the meagreness of the demands made. Whereas in the other parts of the programme we put forward our maximum demands, here only one demand is presented, namely, the need to eliminate the survivals of feudal relations. But if life in Russia has taken such a course that a number of survivals of serfdom have been preserved there within the bourgeois order, our programme ought to include not only a negative attitude to these survivals but also a positive part, namely, radical reforms for the peasantry or for certain elements among them.

Moreover, is it enough that there should be one agrarian programme for the whole of the RSDLP? When we were talking about our maximum demands it was understood that these concerned the entire proletariat. But when we come to the minimum demands of our agrarian programme we have to pay attention to the special conditions of work in particular localities. Agrarian relations in Poland, for example, have been shaped in different historical circumstances from those of Russia. Certain points in the Party’s agrarian programme may prove not to fit conditions in certain parts of Russia. For an example, one may point to the PPS, which, despite the absence, where the Polish peasantry are concerned, of such survivals of serfdom as might unite all strata of the peasantry for struggle against them, and despite the fact that differentiation has proceeded very far among those peasants, nevertheless, in their agitation among the peasantry (as we see from their organ Gazeta Ludowa ) always address themselves to the peasantry as a whole, and not to the rural proletariat alone. Therefore, what may prove to be entirely correct and suitable for the Russian Social-Democrats is found to be harmful and not in accordance with the class standpoint in the programme of the PPS, against which we have to fight, just as we combat the programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Consequently, our agrarian programme must either be common to all Russia, in which case it must put forward only general propositions, or else this programme will concretise the latter, in which case it will be a programme only for the Russian Social-Democrats. In the second eventuality we must, therefore, allow the Party s different national and regional groups to put forward their own programmes. It needs to be mentioned, incidentally, that our Programme does not contain a single point which is included in the programme of the West-European parties. It would be more appropriate, I think, to indicate the basic principles with which we approach the peasants, and, as regards concrete measures, to complete our programme as the various questions become clarified.

Trotsky: Our agrarian programme differs qualitatively from our general programme, said Comrade Yegorov. Of course it does. And this difference is formulated in those very five lines, or even not five but only three lines, of the section which deals with principles, to which Comrade Yegorov referred so ironically. ‘In order to eliminate the survivals of serfdom which are a heavy burden upon the peasants, and in the interests of free development of the class struggle in the countryside, the Party will aim at… ‘ Our general minimum programme represents the maximum that we can demand of the capitalist order. Our agrarian programme calls for clearing feudal hindrances from the path of this capitalist order as a whole. And this is the answer to Comrade Lieber, when he expresses surprise at the ‘meagreness’ of the demands of our agrarian programme. With what are we approach-ing the peasantry? asks Comrade Lieber. Why do we confine ourselves to an agrarian programme directed only against the survivals of serfdom? Why do we not draw up, as well, an agrarian programme adapted to the capitalist system in general? But it remains for us to ask whether the Social-Democrats need such a programme. Perhaps Comrade Lieber deems that that field of agrarian relations is an economic ghetto, or an economic Arcadia, whichever you prefer, for which the laws of capitalist evolution were not written. We do not agree. And for that reason we do not need a general agrarian programme. But we approach the peasantry not only with our ‘meagre’ agrarian programme, which pursues a special aim, but also with the whole of our Social-Democratic programme, principles and minimum demands included. We are not capable of fabricating a special ‘agrarian socialism’, in the sense of co-operatives and so on. That we leave to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

But does our ‘meagre’ programme possess universal significance? Can it be proved, asks Comrade Yegorov, that the situation of the peasants is always worse where there are cut-off lands? I grant that we cannot. But what does that mean? We cannot prove that the situation of the proletariat is always and everywhere worse when wages are paid in kind. But that does not prevent us from demanding that this form of payment be prohibited, even though it has been preserved in only one-tenth of the country.

Here I disagree with Comrade Lieber when he says that since what we are discussing is our common programme, we do not need to work out demands applicable to particular localities and nations. The agrarian programme speaks of the elimination of ‘survivals of serfdom in the Urals, in the Altai, in the Western Territory and in other parts of the country’. But Comrade Lieber does not grasp the difference between the levelling character of capitalist evolution (which is what our general programme is concerned with) and the detailed character of the feudal survivals, which are distinguished by their extreme diversity, consolidated in legal forms (which is what the agrarian part of our programme is concerned with). We have to reckon with this diversity. If serfdom had been preserved in Tver province alone we would have to put forward the demand: ‘Abolition of serfdom in Tver province.’ If in Poland, as Comrade Lieber observed, such survivals are not to be found as exist in the Altai, that does not create any difficulties for us in agitating among the Polish peasantry. We approach the Polish peasants with the general-democratic part of our programme, we approach the rural poor with our propaganda for socialism. We shall ‘proletarianise’ them politically before they are proletarianised economically.

Lenin: I shall mention first a detail that came up in the debate. Comrade Yegorov expressed regret that there had been no report which might have considerably facilitated and guided our whole discussion. Since it was I who was suggested as rapporteur, I shall have, as it were, to defend myself for the absence of a report. And I shall say in my defence that I have a report; it is my reply to Comrade X,[11] which replies, in fact, to the most widespread of the objections and misunderstandings aroused by our agrarian programme, and which has been distributed to all the congress delegates. A report is no less a report for having been printed and distributed to the delegates instead of being read to them.

I now pass to what was said in the speeches of those who, unfortunately, have paid no attention to this report of mine. Comrade Martynov, for example, failed even to take account of earlier writings about our agrarian programme, when he spoke repeatedly about redressing an historical injustice, about an unfounded reversion to forty years ago, about destroying not the feudalism of today but that which existed in the sixties, and so on. In replying to these arguments I shall be obliged to repeat myself. If we had indeed based ourselves only on the principle of ‘redressing an historical injustice’, we should have been guided by democratic phrasemongering alone. But we refer to the survivals of the serf-owning system which exist around us, to present-day reality, to what is today hampering and holding back the proletariat’s struggle for liberation. We are accused of reverting to the hoary past. This charge merely reveals ignorance regarding the most generally known facts about the activity of the Social-Democrats in all countries. Everywhere they set themselves the aim, and work for it, to finish what the bourgeoisie has left unfinished. That is just what we are doing. And in order to do it we are obliged to revert to the past and that is what the Social-Democrats do in every country, where they are always reverting to their 1789, to their 1848. Similarly, the Russin Social-Democrats cannot but revert to their 1861, and they do this all the more vigorously and frequently because our so-called peasant ‘reform’ has brought about so little in the way of democratic changes.

As to Comrade Gorin, he too commits the common error of forgetting the serf bondage that actually exists. Comrade Gorin says that ‘hope of getting back the cut-off lands perforce keeps the small peasant bound to an anti-proletarian ideology’. In fact, however, it is not ‘hope’ that he will get the cut-off lands but the present cut-off lands themselves that perforce maintain serf bondage, and there is no escape from this bondage, from this serf-type tenancy of land, except by transforming the pseudo-tenants into free proprietors.

Lastly, Comrade Yegorov asked the authors of the programme a question about its significance. Is the programme, he asked, a conclusion drawn from our basic conceptions about the economic evolution of Russia, a scientific anticipation of the possible and inevitable result of political changes (in which case Comrade Yegorov might agree with us)? Or is our programme, in practice, an agitational slogan? In that case, we could not outdo the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the programme must be regarded as mistaken. I must say that I do not understand the distinction drawn by Comrade Yegorov. If our programme did not meet the first condition, it would be wrong and we could not accept it. If, however, the programme is correct, it cannot but furnish in practice a suitable slogan for agitation. The contradiction between Comrade Yegorov’s alternatives is only apparent: it cannot exist in reality, because a correct theoretical decision guarantees enduring success in agitation. And it is for enduring success that we are striving, and we are not at all disconcerted by temporary setbacks.

Comrade Lieber likewise repeated long-refuted objections, expressing astonishment at the ‘meagreness’ of our programme and calling for ‘radical reforms’ in the agrarian sphere as well. Comrade Lieber has forgotten the difference between the democratic and the socialist parts of the programme. What he has taken for ‘meagreness’ is the absence of anything socialistic in the democratic programme. He has not noticed that the socialist part of our agrarian programme is to be found elsewhere, namely, in the section on the workers, which also applies to agriculture. Only the Socialist-Revolutionaries, with their characteristic lack of principle, are capable of confusing, and constantly do confuse, democratic and socialist demands. The Party of the proletariat, however, is in duty bound to separate and distinguish between them in the strictest fashion.

Gorin: Comrade Lenin has not answered me. I was not arguing about the substance of the matter, I merely said that Article 4 does not deliver us from serfdom relations in the best possible way. My system is better. Since nobody has objected to it I consider that I have not been refuted. What I say is this: while recognising that the cut-off lands are a cause of semi-serfdom relations, I do not think that restoration of these cut-off lands will put an end to those relations. I consider that abolition of the corvée system, payments in kind, and so on, will serve better to bring about the ending of serfdom relations. If the cut-off lands are returned to the peasants those relations will soon return, because shortage of land will compel the peasants to resort to leasing land from the nobles. Under my system there are only free tenants, leasing land otherwise than on serfdom principles. Consequently, I propose a situation under which a part of the peasantry would be owners only of the technical means of production, and therefore more highly proletarianised. Besides, as is known, land binds the peasant more closely than anything else. With my system that won’t happen. I would transform serfdom tenancy into bourgeois tenancy.

Martynov: Comrade Lenin, in his answer to me, was knocking at an open door. ‘The proletariat has to finish what the bourgeoisie has left unfinished’, he says. I subscribe to that with both hands. But how is that proposition to be understood? Does it mean that if the bourgeoisie had not executed Louis XVI, then when Louis XVIII was on the throne we should have had to execute not the actual representative of the monarchy but the previous one, who was already dead? I think not. If the bourgeoisie in its time did not abolish feudalism, or did not abolish it completely, then we are now obliged to abolish feudalism, but feudalism in the form in which it exists now, and not in the form in which it existed forty years ago. But Comrade Lenin replies that ‘the lands which were cut off in 1861 still serve as a source of bondage; statistics show that there is complete correlation between the distribution of cut-off lands and the distribution of bondage relations’. I affirm that not only is there no such complete correlation, but there cannot be. Even at the time of the emancipation of the peasants, the Government and the landlords, when they cut off these lands, were not motivated by a desire to preserve serfdom relations. Statistics show that, as a general rule, the purpose of the cutting-off of these lands was different. Where craft occupations were plentiful and the land was poor, redemption payments were very much higher, but cut-off lands were insignificant. Where there were few craft occupations and the land was good, the level of redemption payments was relatively lower, and the percentage of cut-off lands was relatively higher. Thus, there may be a correlation not between the distribution of cut-off lands and that of bondage tenancy, but between the distribution of cut-off lands and the profitableness of the land. And, in fact, in the South, in New Russia, it is not bondage agriculture but capitalist agriculture that prevails, although it was there that the relatively largest percentage of land was taken from the peasants, ‘cut off’ by the landlords.

Consequently, the measure proposed to us by the compilers of the programme does not correspond at all to that correct general principle which is set forth in this programme, calling upon us to carry out a revolutionary abolition of all surviving serfdom relations. The measure proposed is meagre, but not at all because it will give little to the peasants. We cannot be guided by the criterion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, for whom those measures are most revolutionary which promise to be the most peasant. This measure is meagre because it actually proceeds not from a revolutionary principle but from a meagre one, from concern to redress only one historical injustice.

Yegorov: As regards the theoretical part of the programme, the answers given by Trotsky and Lenin have satisfied me. I quite agree that there are not two economic processes. Turning to Lieber, I do not understand why he brings his special point of view into everything. Russia is a single economic entity, and so demands affecting one section of the peasants affect all Russia. But I have not been answered on the main question. In our propaganda among the peasantry, how can we compete with the Socialist-Revolutionaries? Comrade Trotsky said that we say to classes which have outlived themselves, either come over to us or we can do nothing for you. He is right of course: but does he really think that such a phrase as that can serve as an appeal? No! We cannot do much among the peasants. This means that our slogan cannot compete with the slogan of the adventurers. You won’t get the agricultural labourer to fight alongside the rich peasant for the cut-off lands which are already to no small extent in the possession of that rich peasant.

Kostrov: I fully agree with the fundamental parts of the draft agrarian programme. We certainly need to abolish all survivals of serfdom, whatever forms these may assume. So I am not going to argue about that. But the point is that peasant life has thrown up problems which are bound up not only with the old order but with the new one as well. In our part of the country,[12] the peasant movement has begun not where there are important survivals of serfdom, but where these are very slight—in Guria, for instance. Clearly, this results not from the old way of life only, but also from the new. These are modernised peasants, so to speak, who stand at the head of the peasantry and urge them on to a new path. Consequently, to tell them that the revolution must confine itself merely to eliminating survivals means to tell them nothing. They want more than that, and probably when the revolution comes they will seize the land. How shall we react in that case? In one of two ways: either we shall have to put them down, or else we shall say, ‘it’s no concern of ours’. In the first case we shall play the role of reactionaries, and in the second that of mere observers, and the revolution will be carried out independently of us. This is what we need to keep in mind when we discuss our agrarian programme. Comrade Lenin said in his printed report: ‘we would be abandoning the class standpoint of the proletariat if we allowed our programme to state that "the peasantry" (i.e., the rich plus the poor) will go together beyond the eradication of the remnants of serfdom.’ Good. But the fact that this is not in the programme does not mean that it is not found in practice. I say: if the peasantry do actually go beyond’, what are we going to do? Comrade Yegorov said that we shall probably not have any success with the peasantry and that the latter will be headed by various adventurers. I protest strongly against that. We ought to stand at the head of the peasant movement and lead it beneath the banner of the proletariat, not leave it to the will of fate. In short, our agrarian programme should express demands both negative and affirmative: elimination of the survivals of the old order and introduction of the new, socialist order—those are the principles from which we should proceed when we work among the peasants.

Plekhanov: In my ten minutes I cannot, of course, reply to everything that has been said here. I will answer Comrade Martynov first. This speech was very witty. He brought a pleasant animation into our debates by asking us how we would have dealt with Louis XVI if the bourgeoisie had not disposed of him. I quite agree that if the bourgeoisie had not beheaded Louis XVI then we should have had to do that, a bit later. But let us make a different supposition. Louis XVI survives. On the throne in our country sit two Louis, XVI and XVIII—one an up-to-date representative of the constitutional regime, the other a representative of the feudal order, a ghost from the past. What should we do in that case? I think that we should first dispose of the legacy from the old order, Louis XVI, and then proceed undeviatingly to fight against Louis XVIII. This is how we have proceeded in our programme, seeking to bring our society up to date. Look at Prussia, Austria, Hungary. In each of those countries they had in 1848 to dispose of the historical injustices towards the peasantry which had not been eliminated by previous reforms. This was a purely practical question. On the shoulders of our peasantry lies a yoke which chafes its shoulders and must be smashed. And we want to smash it. Comrade Martynov says that the cut-off lands do not bear the same significance everywhere, since in some places the landlords put the emphasis particularly on redemption payments. But here we are shod on both feet, for we call for return both of the cut-off lands and of the redemption-payments.

In so far as bondage relations result from the present state of affairs, the means of combating them are shown in another part of the programme. Finally, we are told that our demands are meagre. This recalls the objection made to us by the Anarchists, who say that demands such as, for example, the demand for a shorter working day, are too meagre. According to them, one should start by socialising the means of production. But that, of course, is merely absurd. When we are rebuked for allegedly being against making the land public property, those who rebuke us forget that our ultimate aim is precisely to make all the means of production public property, but that on the way to that ultimate aim we shall strive for a number of partial reforms. The call for the return of the cut-off lands belongs to the category of our partial demands. But there is something special about it. It aims at modernising our society. Only such demands as that are included in our agrarian programme. When what is involved is present-day bourgeois society we take Kautsky’s view and do not regard it as necessary to work out a special agrarian programme. We are remote from opportunism à la David.[13]

I turn to Comrade Lieber’s objection. Certainly, all those component sections of the RSDLP which have to work in special conditions have the right to put forward demands inspired by those conditions. But we, the compilers of the programme, must criticise these demands from the standpoint of the principles of scientific socialism, and either adopt them or decline to adopt them, depending on whether or not they correspond to these principles.

Lieber: I want to begin by saying that I was not so happy as Comrade Yegorov, to whom Lenin and Trotsky made everything clear. But what Plekhanov has just said has answered me on at least one point, and this answer satisfies me completely. I have, of course, always considered that every demand in the programme of a particular national organisation must be subject to criticism and rejected if it does not fulfil the requirements of scientific socialism. Now I will reply to certain objections that have been made to what I said. First, regarding the example so unhappily quoted by Martynov and still more unhappily utilised by Plekhanov. We must not forget that in this example we are dealing with Louis XVIII, who has inherited something from Louis XVI, and it is hard to imagine the affair going so easily that it would suffice to remove Daddy while Sonny calmly continued to reign. It would be all right to argue in this way if the system could be personified. But I think that we cannot simply extract the survivals of feudalism from the capitalist system, like an aching tooth from a jaw, on the assumption that everything left will remain unchanged. No, it is all bound up together, by thousands of threads. You have forgotten that your cut-off lands may fall into the hands of the rich peasants. Along with those survivals which really are only hangovers from the feudal order there are also survivals from the pre-Reform period which the capitalist system has managed to adapt to itself. If you lay hands on these survivals you will also have to lay hands on the modern capitalist system as well.

While agreeing with Lenin on principles, and declaring that I should like to see this section dealing with principles included in the programme, I propose that the concrete demands be removed from it. They are either unnecessary or incorrect. Comrade Martynov wants to show us that he is a good lad, understands what constitutes the essence of being revolutionary, and counterposes his conception to mine, which is said to concentrate exclusively on the quantitative aspect. No, I did not call these demands meagre because they give too little, but because they do not respond to a whole series of problems which are raised by present-day peasant life. Trotsky made the objection that it would be enough for these survivals to exist in only two of Russia’s provinces for us to include in our programme a demand for their elimination. It is not, of course, for me to deny that. But it is especially necessary to recall this to Trotsky, who pulls out different principles like labels, depending on which of them is most convenient. When I referred to a whole series of special features which distinguish the position of the Jewish proletariat, and said that they all need to be taken into consideration, Trotsky gave me precisely the opposite answer. But the point here is not whether we ought to pay any attention to peculiarities which exist, say, in two provinces, but whether these special survivals of serfdom relations existing in certain parts of Russia ought to set their mark on our entire programme. Trotsky solves the problem very simply: since capitalist evolution is going on in agriculture too, it is clear that we do not need any special programme for the peasants. But that is not true. Of course we can and must give one general, principled answer to questions which arise in both branches of the economy. But this does not mean that there are no special problems applying to one or to the other.

I point to the fact that both Kautsky, in his Agrarfrage, and Lenin, in his lectures, have shown that though an essentially identical process of capitalisation is going on in industry and agriculture alike, the forms assumed by this process are substantially different.[14] A whole number of demands may be of special concern to the rural proletariat, owing to the special technical conditions in which it works. It is enough to mention that in our workers’ programme (as Lenin calls it) there are several such demands, which result from the special technical conditions governing the work of the industrial proletariat, and yet there is not a single demand of that kind in the agrarian programme. I recall that when Comrade Lyadov proposed to include in the workers’ programme a number of concrete demands concerning the rural proletariat, Lenin himself replied by proposing that these demands be transferred to the agrarian programme. So there can be no doubt that, despite the oneness of the process of capitalisation going on in both of these branches of the economy, we still need to have a special agrarian programme, which cannot be reduced merely to elimination of survivals of serfdom.

Makhov: I have been listening for a rather long time to the discussion on our agrarian programme, and I observe that the majority of the speakers positively cannot understand what the programme submitted means and what its aims are. Thus, despite the fact that the agrarian programme is preceded by a pretty unambiguous inscription stating: ‘this is a lion and not a dog’ (otherwise reading: ‘in order to eliminate the survivals of serfdom and in the interests of free development of class struggle in the countryside, the Party will strive for . . .’), nobody wants to pay any attention to this label and everybody stubbornly takes the lion for a dog. And one must be fair: the agrarian programme submitted does, as a whole, really need that inscription: ‘this is a lion, and not a dog’, since otherwise it could hardly be considered a Social-Democratic agrarian programme.

It is not a matter of such demands as abolition of redemption payments and laws restricting the peasants’ right to dispose of their land, that is, Articles 1 and 2, to which, of course, nobody has any objection and which are certainly included in order to eliminate survivals of serfdom. But I cannot refrain from directing attention to Article 3: ‘return to the people of the sums of money extorted from them in the form of redemption and quit-rent payments,’ and so on. What is this? And for what purpose has it been included in the agrarian programme of the RSDLP? In order to eliminate survivals of serfdom or in the interests of free development of class struggle in the countryside? Neither the one nor the other. Returning sums of money to the people, whatever they may be and in whatever form, does not mean eliminating survivals of serfdom; but return in the form proposed does not help free development of class struggle in the countryside, either, since use of such sums to establish a special fund for the cultural and welfare needs of rural communities is, of course, in no way necessary in order that class struggle may develop freely in the countryside. Furthermore, to say nothing of the financial absurdity of setting up a special fund for the cultural and welfare needs of rural communities, I cannot understand why it was necessary to christen this fund ‘return to the people of redemption and quit-rent payments’. Was it supposed that the amount extorted from the people in redemption and quit-rent payments exactly corresponded to the price of the confiscated property? If not, and this is, of course, self-evident, then we must ask why the confiscation of this particular form of property, with this particular aim, should be called return of the redemption and quit-rent payments, with which it has nothing whatever to do? And here I must say that, quite apart from the fact that this smacks somewhat of a game at redressing historical injustices, as has already been pointed out here, the measure proposed also bears the trace of demagogy and adventurism.

And what if the peasants, having grasped the idea of the return of redemption payments, do not want to use the confiscated property in order to set up a special fund, but decide simply to divide it up among themselves? Will the composers of the draft follow the peasants in that event, too? After all, we must reckon with the possibility of such an outcome, and decide what our attitude will be. I know our peasant, the peasant is everywhere the same, he will take for himself everything he can get. And he will never be satisfied with setting up a special fund from the confiscated property, even if it be for raising the cultural level of the countryside. He will say: ‘Give us what you think it is just should be returned to us, and raise the cultural level by taking some special measures or other.’ The whole programme clearly testifies, and Comrade Lenin’s pamphlet confirms this, that they want to treat the peasantry as something homogeneous in composition; but, as the peasantry split up into classes long ago, advancing a single programme must inevitably render the whole programme demagogic and make it adventurist when put into practice.

Martov: Comrade Makhov thinks that Article 3 does not relate to any survival of serfdom. But no, as emerges clearly from Comrade Makhov’s arguments it does relate to one such survival, namely, the prejudice that ‘the muzhik is a stupid fellow’. This prejudice was detectable in other speeches, too. They think that the muzhik is incapable of understanding political programmes and therefore our definite proposal will unfailingly be misinterpreted by him in the sense of grabbing for himself even the money taken from the nobles. They also think that since we are talking about land, the peasants will unfailingly take this proposal as meaning a redistribution of all land. But a fantastic, semi-mystical notion about a universal levelling is one thing, and a realistic reform proposal is another. They think that the peasants, thirsting for a general redistribution, will not want even to listen to any talk about the cut-off lands. I do not agree. When the peasants are faced with various political programmes of land reform conceived in the bourgeois spirit, with redemption payments, which offer the peasants the prospect of satisfying their need for land through alliance with the bourgeois parties, then we can be sure that we still need to revolutionise the peasants’ consciousness, to bring them up to the level of such a ‘meagre’ reform as the return of the cut-off lands.

Gusev: After a number of speeches devoted to the agrarian programme as a whole, it is a little awkward for me to speak about one partial and small question which was touched on in passing by previous speakers. But however small this question may be, it is extremely important, especially for the comrades in Russia. I refer to those fears, that pessimism, which Comrade Yegorov showed regarding our propaganda in the countryside. ‘They want us to beat the record of the Socialist-Revolutionaries,’ said Comrade Yegorov. ‘They want to wage a struggle against political charlatans for influence in the countryside—but in our agrarian programme we can offer the peasants much less than the Socialist-Revolutionaries can. The slogan we bring to the countryside is a small thing compared with the promises of those adventurers.’ I have frequently encountered such a pessimistic view of our work among the comrades active in Russia. I think this view is groundless.

In the first place, the slogan we offer to the peasantry is not so narrow, or ‘meagre’, as Comrade Lieber put it. Our slogan is not at all exhausted by what is in our agrarian programme. We also bring to the countryside the general part of our programme, all our democratic demands. We can say with confidence that our slogan is very broad, and not one political party in Europe has yet presented the peasantry with such an extensive programme all at once. Secondly, following from this, our agitation in the countryside will not consist merely of appealing to the peasants as peasants. On the contrary, the principal content of our agitation will be provided by our general programme and with this we shall address the peasantry, not as a peasantry but as a mass that has been or is being proletarianised, and which is capable of coming over to the proletarian standpoint. Thirdly and finally, we must not forget that our best propagandists and agitators in the countryside will be town workers who will have much better success in winning over to the side of the proletariat the proletarianised masses of the rural population than can be achieved by adventurers who have nothing in common with the class interests of the proletariat.

Consequently, Comrade Yegorov’s fears are groundless, and I think that it is very important for the comrades in Russia to shake off these fears. And I think that Comrade Lenin was quite right when, listening to Comrade Yegorov’s speech, he exclaimed: ‘Well, we have yet to see.’ Yes, we have yet to see!

A proposal was put to the Bureau that the list of speakers be closed.

Akimov: I think that the congress cannot adopt the agrarian programme, in view of the insufficient work that has been done on this question. What I have heard here has only confirmed my view. All the comrades have said that the programme is not clear to them. It seems to me that, this being so, we cannot close the list of speakers.

The proposal was voted on, and it was resolved to close the list of speakers.

Plekhanov: In Comrade Makhov’s opinion, return of the redemption payments is not only an undesirable but also a demagogic measure. In order to reassure him, let me remind him of the demand put forward by Marx in 1848 in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung for the return of the Silesian milliards.different.[15] Thus, in answer to the charge of opportunism, I can only say that this charge also applies to Marx. But Comrade Makhov’s reasoning did not even provide a hint of why this measure is demagogic in character. Suppose the peasants do divide amongst themselves the money they receive. I see nothing bad in hundreds of millions going to improve the peasants’ holdings. Such improvement would, of course, only increase the differentiation among the peasants, but we shall not be frightened by that. As for Lieber, it must be said that his second speech was not like his first. At the outset he spoke to us of general demands relating to the agricultural proletariat, that is, he called for concretisation. We do not suppose, of course, that our programme has no gaps in it, but Comrade Lieber did not show us what they were.

I turn to the question of the famous Black Redistribution. We are told: when you raise the demand for the cut-off lands to be returned, you must remember that the peasants will go beyond this demand.different.[16] This does not alarm us in the least. Let us, indeed, get clear about what is meant by a Black Redistribution. Engelhardt’s opinion on this is interesting. ‘In the countryside,’ he says, ‘Black Redistribution is most vigorously advocated by the rich peasants, who hope that the land taken from the landlords will be divided up "for money", that is, it will go to the rich’.different.[17] And such a movement in favour of redistribution would certainly be a movement in the bourgeoisie’s favour. We are, of course, not obliged actively to set forth a programme for the bourgeoisie, but if, in the struggle against survivals of serfdom relations, the peasantry should take that path, then it would not be for us to hold back this progressive movement. Our role would be merely this: unlike our opponents the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who would see in it the beginning of socialisation, we would direct all our forces to ensuring that the proletariat retained no illusions about the results of this movement, exposing its bourgeois nature. Acknowledging that such a movement is possible, we must tell ourselves that it is not for us, revolutionary Social-Democrats, to halt this process, crying out at it, as Archimedes in his time cried out to the Roman soldiers: ‘Stop! You are spoiling my diagram!’

Kostrov: I fully agree with Comrade Plekhanov. The peasant movement is not a survival from the old order but a result of new tendencies. But we must make use of this movement, we must take care that the revolutionary leadership of the peasants is in our hands and not in that of any adventurers.

Lange: I am not, of course, opposed to the proletariat combating survivals of feudalism. But I am not clear about the significance of the cut-off lands. I do not know what role is played, as regards bondage, by the cut-off lands, and what role by the rest of the land. If we take the Western Territory, where most of the land went to the peasants, we see that bondage is flourishing there. The method proposed in the programme with regard to the cut-off lands does not follow from the role played by these lands. The cut-off lands, as I see it, play a role different from that of the surviving noble estates, to the expropriation of which Social-Democrats can have no objection. I do not know why we should not call for the expropriation of all land. It is necessary to remark that we must not become carried away by our programme. It will, of course, be used as propaganda in study circles, but its role in mass propaganda among the peasants will be infinitesimal.

Yegorov: I shall not say much, so as not to take up the time of the meeting, especially as the question is evidently clear to most of the comrades. I will merely reply to Comrade Gusev. Contrary to what he says, I am not inclined to pessimism, but I do regard the programme as opportunist. It may be that the demand put forward is the maximum that can be given, in accordance with the course of economic development. I merely think that it will not win the race in competition with adventuristic demands. I would add, further, that I am far from sharing the infatuation of the editorial board for the peasant movement, an infatuation to which many Social-Democrats have succumbed since the peasant disturbances. In this connection the example of Western Europe constitutes for me a convincing proof. There, despite the incomparably better conditions for propaganda, and despite the better conditions in which the peasants live, the preaching of socialism among them has met with no success. I do not doubt that the peasantry will play a big role in the movement, but it will be a purely spontaneous one. It is a long way from that, however, to saying that by including socialism in our programme we shall enjoy success among the peasantry.

Makhov: There is a prejudice, says Comrade Martov, to the effect that the muzhik is a stupid fellow, and our Article 3 is directed towards eliminating this survival of serfdom. If this article is directed merely towards eliminating that survival, and Comrade Martov thinks that I harbour this superstition, then I advise him to vote against Article 3, since I do not in the least suppose that the muzhik is a stupid fellow. On the contrary, I think the muzhik is a shrewd fellow. He is shrewd, but shrewd like any petty-bourgeois. One cannot call the muzhik stupid just because his ideal is that of the petty-bourgeois. But just because I regard the muzhik as shrewd within the limits of his narrow class standpoint, I think that he will persist in his petty-bourgeois ideal of seizing and dividing up.

If, says Comrade Martov, the muzhik accepts our general demand for nationalisation of the land, then he will accept all the more readily our demand for nationalisation of the property mentioned in Article 3, and the purpose given for this. But who told Comrade Martov that the muzhik would accept this is the first place? I think that, on the contrary, if we have in mind the whole mass of peasants—not some particular class among them, but the mass of the peasantry as a whole; and it is only of the peasantry in that sense that our agrarian programme speaks—then it will accept neither the general demand for nationalisation of the land nor the demand contained in Article 3. It will not accept them, that is, in their Social-Democratic sense. But the peasants will accept them in the petty-bourgeois sense, they will be for nationalising the land and dividing it up.

‘What a misfortune!’ said Comrade Plekhanov. ‘If the peasants want to divide up all the land, that will be a revolution, and we shall not oppose it, and if they ask for the redemption and other payments to be returned to them, and put the money in their pockets, those sums will go to improve their holdings, and that will be no great misfortune.’ I do not know, of course, what to call a misfortune. But this revolution, if it can be called such, would not be a revolutionary one. [Posadovsky: ‘I ask that this expression be recorded in the minutes!’] It would be truer to call it, not revolution but reaction [laughter], a revolution that was more like a riot. This revolution would throw us back, and only after twenty years would we return to the position we have today. [Plekhanov: ‘Look at Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya!different.[18] Look at it! [Laughter.] I see that many comrades do not like my precise statement of the number of years, and so I will put it more indefinitely. Such a revolution would throw us back, and it would require a certain amount of time to get back to the position we have today. And today we have far more than at the time of the French Revolution [ironical applause], we have a Social-Democratic Party [laughter]. Division of the land and of the money returned from the redemption and other payments would have the same effect as would result from confiscating the factories and then dividing them up among the proletariat or, worse still, among the people as a whole.

The session was closed.

Twentieth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 deciding votes and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Karsky: Those who say that the leaders of the peasant movement may be opportunists, or even, as some put it, ‘adventurers’, are mistaken. That is unjust, and I must speak up in my own defence, because in Caucasia it is my comrades and I who have become the leaders of peasant movements, and we have not betrayed our basic principles. There is now a peasant movement in Caucasia. In Guria, for example, it has embraced nearly the entire peasantry. It began there thanks to workers forced to leave the towns, who brought into the countryside the ideas they had acquired in the towns. They became the peasants’ leaders, and they did not promise them division of the land, but put forward demands similar to their own demands in the towns; for reduction of rent, by analogy with the reduction of the working day. But they told the peasants that complete liberation could come only with socialism. We did not talk to them about the cut-off lands because there is nothing like that in our part of the country.

Trotsky: Comrade Karsky raid that in Caucasia, despite the pessimism of certain comrades, the Social-Democrats are already to a certain extent the leaders of the peasant movement. ‘And did you speak to the peasants about the cut-off lands?’ Comrade Yegorov asked him. As though the cut-off lands are the centre of gravity of the Social-Democratic programme. I remember that in Paris, after some speeches like that, accompanied by discussion, the student audience became convinced that the cut-off lands were the basis of Social-Democracy. Comrade Yegorov’s point of view reminds me of that episode.

The cut-off lands have their definite place in a definite section of our programme, and there can be no doubt that it is right that they should. I would advise all comrades to read Nechetny’s article in the second volume of the Vestnik Russkoy Revolyutsii[19].[20] Some interesting facts are assembled there, though they are, of course, wrongly interpreted. These facts show that all serious peasant riots, protests and so on have been bound up, as regards their origin, not with any semi-mystical concept on the peasants’ part about their right to all the land, not with their notions of Byelovodia and the Land of Justice,[21] but with quite concrete forms of oppression, with some cut-off water-meadow, forest, pond, etc. But, says Martynov, economic life has, after all, not stood still since 1861. The role played by the cut-off lands as a cause of bondage has changed. But are we forbidding the peasants’ committees to look into all the concrete changes which have taken place in connection with the cut-off lands? We are not drawing maps on which ‘the cut-off lands’ are marked in revolutionary red—if the peasants’ committees seize ‘non-cut-off lands’ … It is pointless for Comrade Lieber to tell us that we cannot get rid of all the cut-off lands which sustain the regime of bondage, with one blow, like extracting an aching tooth. We do not aspire to the role of political dentists. We do not suppose we can abolish agrarian bondage with a single decree. That is a task for the peasants’ committees. They know very well which tooth it is that aches, and will do everything that is necessary.

But now Comrade Makhov gets up and says he is afraid that we have excited the muzhik. Don’t tickle the muzhik’s mouth, Comrade Makhov advises us, or the muzhik will open his jaws wide and demand a general redistribution of the land, and that will hinder concentration. Concentration of agricultural production? As though that depended only on the way the land is distributed, as though the distribution of the land will not respond to the requirements of capitalist agriculture.

This warning—don’t tickle the muzhik ’s mouth!’—is produced by Comrade Makhov when what is under discussion is returning the redemption and quit-rent payments in order to raise the cultural level of the rural areas. This demand seems to Comrade Makhov utterly casual and demagogic, even adventuristic, and, in any case, having nothing to do, in principle, with the question of abolishing the survivals of serfdom.

That is not so at all. The low cultural level of our peasants is determined not only by the general conditions of rural life in bourgeois society, but also by that extra oppression which the serf-owning state imposes upon our countryside. Quit-rent and redemption payments have been extorted from the countryfolk ever since 1861. Restoration of this money in order to raise their cultural level follows from the general principle of our agrarian programme.

But there were also speakers who, besides criticising the agrarian programme, put forward this idea—let us not deceive ourselves about our success among the peasants; demagogues will be the ones who will succeed there; let’s have fewer illusions!; look at the example of the West; and so on. Comrades Makhov, Yegorov and Lange all joined in giving us this advice. But their well-meant advice smacked too much of philistinism. Can we calculate our successes in advance? And what influence can this have on our programme and on our agitation? Our programme is decided by a definite principle, and our agitation by the nature of the political tasks of the moment. Before us is the task of revolutionising the peasant masses. Of course the peasantry provide favourable soil for demagogy. But that soap-bubble which out of courtesy one calls the Socialist-Revolutionary Party is too un-serious a competitor. The Liberal opposition of the Zemstvos would not, of course, be averse to utilising the peasantry as a battering ram. But it is itself afraid of the real consequences of demagogy. This lack of serious rivals makes our task easier. In the West, we are told, the Social-Democrats have had no success with the peasants. But in the West the party of the proletariat arose when the revolutionary peasantry had already fulfilled their role. In our country the situation is different. In the approaching revolutionary period we must link ourselves with the peasantry—both in the interests of the peasant poor and in the interests of the proletariat. In face of this task the scepticism and political ‘far-sightedness’ of Makhov and Yegorov are more harmful than any short-sightedness. In our work among the peasantry I should desire for our Party not this far-sighted caution, but boldness, boldness and more boldness!

Lenin: Before passing to details, I want to object to certain general statements which have been made, and in the first place to those of Comrade Martynov. Comrade Martynov says that it is not the feudalism of the past that we have to combat, but the feudalism that exists today. That is right, but let me remind you of my reply to X. The latter referred to Saratov Province. I have looked at the data for that province, and found that the cut-off lands there amount to 600,000 desyatins, that is, to two-fifths of all the land that was held by the peasants under serfdom, while the rented land amounts to 900,000 desyatins. This means that two-thirds of the rented land consists of cut-off lands. So we are out to restore to the peasants two-thirds of the land they occupy as tenants. Hence, it is no ghost that we are fighting, but a real evil. We should arrive at the situation that exists in Ireland, where the current land reform was needed in order to turn the tenant farmers into small proprietors.[22] The similarity between Ireland and Russia was pointed out already by the Narodniks in their economic writings. Comrade Gorin says that the measure I propose is not the best—that it would be better to turn the peasants into free tenant-farmers. But he is mistaken in thinking that it would be better to turn semi-free tenants into free tenants. We are not inventing a transition, but proposing one that would bring the law on land-tenure into line with actually existing conditions, thereby abolishing the relations of bondage that exist today. Martynov says that it is not our demands that are meagre, but the principle from which they are derived. But that is like the arguments the Socialist-Revolutionaries bring against us. We are pursuing in the countryside two aims which are different in kind: first, we want to secure freedom for bourgeois relations; secondly, we want to wage the proletarian struggle. It is our task, despite the prejudice of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, to show the peasants where the revolutionary proletarian task of the peasant proletariat begins. Comrade Kostrov’s objections are therefore groundless. We are told that the peasantry will not be satisfied with our programme, and will go further. But we are not afraid of that, we have our socialist programme for that eventuality, and so we are not afraid even of a redistribution of the land, which frightens Comrades Makhov and Kostrov so badly.

To conclude. Comrade Yegorov has called chimerical the hope we place in the peasantry. No, we are not carried away, we are sufficiently sceptical, and that is why we say to the peasant proletarian: ‘You are fighting now by the side of the peasant bourgeoisie, but you must always be prepared to fight against that same bourgeoisie, and that fight you will wage together with the industrial proletarians of the towns.’

In 1848 [sic: 1852—Trans.] Marx said that the peasants had judgement as well as prejudices. And now, when we point out to the Poor peasants the cause of their poverty, we can count on success. We believe that, because the Social-Democrats have now taken up the struggle for the interests of the peasants, we shall in future be reckoning with the fact that the peasant masses will become accustomed to looking to the Social-Democrats as the defenders of their interests.

Kostich: None of those who have spoken in opposition have dealt with the section on principles. All the objectors have dealt with the surface of the matter; they are logically all in sympathy with each other. Comrade Makhov found the programme demagogic, deducing this from one point in it. Quite apart from the fact that, even if one point was demagogic in character, one couldn’t generalise about the whole programme from that, what is there that is demagogic in that point? In the circumstance that it proposes establishing a special fund for cultural and charitable purposes? He himself says that the peasants have their own special prejudices, that if you say to the peasant: ‘Here you are, here’s one rouble,’ he always wants to put it in his own pocket. Yes, if it be not added what the purpose of these roubles is. Why did he argue? Because he was extremely inattentive, and so made the same mistake as the Liberals, who also called our proposed measure a piece of demagogy. Comrade Makhov spoke of the peculiar psychology of the peasant, of Black Redistribution, and he is afraid that the peasants will digest the Social-Democrats. But whence comes this unsureness of himself, of the stability of his principles? Lieber spoke of meagreness, and then started on about particular, special tasks. It is curious how Comrade Lieber always brings everything down to particular, special programmes for certain regions. They talk about ‘meagreness’, but when they are invited to ‘broaden’ they cannot add anything new. Yegorov refuses to understand the agrarian programme and, having a very pessimistic attitude to the peasants and to the possibility of the Social-Democrats’ gaining influence over them, rejects the whole thing. That is not logical. In his pessimism Comrade Makhov is at one with Comrade Yegorov, although they differ in shade. He forgets that the Social-Democrats are already working among the peasantry, are already directing the peasant movement as far as possible. And this pessimism of theirs narrows the scope of our work. Karsky said, rightly, that the opponents of the agrarian programme said nothing essential about the essential part of this programme.

Chairman: The list of speakers is exhausted. The discussion on the general part is over. Let us proceed to consideration of the agrarian programme in detail. A number of amendments have been moved. I propose that we discuss Comrade Makhov’s first, as being the most radical.

With the agreement of the congress, Comrade Makhov was called upon to speak.

Makhov: When we were discussing the language question, Comrade Plekhanov proposed that the question be deferred to the next congress. Why? Because we could not decide on the question and so it was not cleared up. But that discussion convinced me that both sides at this congress had thought out their positions well enough. In the case of the agrarian programme, however, both the defence offered and the objections made have convinced me that this matter has not been thoroughly thought out. For example, when I speak I have one half of Russia in mind, but Lenin is thinking of the other half. Comrade Karsky supported the programme. Why? Because he judged it by Caucasia, where agrarian conditions are quite different from what they are in the rest of Russia. If we look at our agrarian programme as a whole we see that what we demand for the peasants follows from the other parts of our programme. Abolition of the redemption payments follows from the reorganisation of our financial system. Abolition of collective responsibility follows from abolition of social estates. It is superfluous to tall for the return of particular sums of money since, if we demand sovereignty of the people, this means that the people can dispose of all money, and by saying this we only narrow its scope. What we demand for everyone we also demand for the peasants. As regards Article 5, even the law that exists now condemns what are called unscrupulous contracts, and it is only the peasants’ ignorance that prevents them from becoming aware of the laws and knowing how to use them. Consequently, the whole agrarian programme is unnecessary. In so far as we approach the peasant proletariat, we can do this with the general part of our programme; in so far as we want to approach the other, non-proletarian, part of the peasantry, we can offer them nothing. I therefore propose that we reject the agrarian programme as a whole.

Lyadov (on a point of order) proposed that the list of speakers on Comrade Makhov’s motion be closed, since discussion of it would merely repeat the previous day’s debate.

Akimov did not think it possible to accept Comrade Lyadov’s proposal, since the agrarian question was very important, and, in his view, the majority of the congress was not clear on the subject [shouts : ‘Untrue!’] and he noted that on every complex question that arose a similar proposal was brought forward.

Comrade Lyadov’s proposal for closing the list of speakers was put to the vote and adopted, with 27 votes.

Lieber (moving a resolution and being authorised to speak in support of it): Comrade Makhov’s proposal is unacceptable. We cannot refuse to provide an agrarian programme, since other parties, such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, provide one. And we are united on the general part of our agrarian programme. On that matter Akimov is wrong. The congress is clear about that. It is the question of the details, of the concrete application of these general principles, that the congress is not clear about. I therefore propose that the general part be set out more extensively and fully than in five lines. This task should be turned over to a commission. The detailed part of the programme should be scrapped.

Martov: Though I agree with Lieber that Comrade Makhov’s proposal is unacceptable, I do not agree with his reasons. It is not because the Socialist Revolutionaries have issued an agrarian programme, and we should be ashamed not to do the same, that we must provide such a programme, but because life has put this question on the agenda. Not to answer means refusing to answer. But Lieber’s proposal is also a proposal that we refuse to answer this question. I therefore oppose both resolutions.

Makhov withdrew his resolution and supported Lieber’s. The following resolution by Lieber was put to the vote: ‘The second congress of the RSDLP has worked out a number of general theses of principle regarding its attitude to the agrarian question in Russia, while at the same time declining to formulate in detail particular concrete demands.’

This resolution was rejected by 38 to 9.

The first paragraph was discussed.

Lenin moved an amendment: to replace ‘will aim at’ by ‘demands first and foremost’. In the speeches made during our discussion it was said that the draft deliberately said ‘will aim at’ so as to stress that we intend to do this not now but in the future. So as not to provide grounds for such a misunderstanding I am moving this amendment. I want by including the words ‘first and foremost’ to say that we have other demands besides those in the agrarian part of our programme.

Akselrod moved a resolution to include the word ‘directly’ so as to indicate that there were also those who suffered indirectly.

Martynov fully supported Lenin’s proposal, but did not agree with the reason he gave for it. By the words ‘first and foremost’ Lenin wanted to say that they also had a socialist programme. The amendment served to broaden and so to improve the draft.

Martov supported Akselrod’s resolution. Indirectly, the survivals of serfdom affected the urban proletariat as well—e.g., through the system of collective responsibility.

Gorin: I cannot support Karsky’s statement that the Caucasian committee are carrying on agitation in the spirit of Article 4 of Iskra ’s agrarian programme. No, they are doing this precisely in the spirit of my draft. Agitation in Caucasia is not about anything like the return of the cut-off lands. The subject of agitation is the replacement of the peasants’ personal obligations by obligations in terms of money, and the standardisation of these cash payments. Now, to reply to Comrade Lenin. He says that this draft is no idle invention, that in Ireland, which he compares, as regards what we are discussing, to Russia, something like the return of the cut-off lands is now being carried out. I say that my draft too is far from being an idle invention. History knows two ways of making the transition from feudal to capitalist relations. I refer also to the authority of Marx, according to whom, besides free small-scale ownership and free small-scale tenancy, the transition can also be made directly. The reference to Ireland is not convincing. I am in the good company of Marx when, unlike Comrade Lenin, I do not look upon any one method of transition to capitalist relations as being the absolute norm. Both methods can be either normal or abnormal, depending on the social circumstances. For Ireland transition by way of petty proprietorship is undoubtedly necessary. Irish landlordism is not just noble landownership but also political rule over Ireland. In addition, Irish landownership is, owing to the tremendous concentration of land, a case of monopoly by the landowners not only in relation to the small tenants but also to the capitalist farmers. It is an absolute hindrance to the development of capitalist relations. I see nothing similar to that in Russia. In France the enrichment of the petty proprietors at the expense of the feudalists resulted from the revolution, and so cannot be taken into account.

But my objections to the draft do not concern what has been said here. I merely consider my own draft to be better, and if it is rejected I shall vote for Comrade Lenin’s, since I recognise the transition from feudal to capitalist relations by way of petty proprietorship as being also a revolutionary act. And it is impossible to leave that to take its own course. I emphasise, like Comrade Trotsky, that it is highly important for the Party to link itself with the peasantry. Comrade Lenin has said that we are on the eve of our 1848. I fully agree with him. But I would add that we are at the same time to some extent on the eve, first, of our Great Revolution, since we are dealing with the autocracy and other feudal survivals, and, secondly, of our Commune, since, thanks to West-European socialist and ideological influence, we have a revolutionary proletariat and a workers’ party (in the shape of the Social-Democratic movement) which, though perhaps not a par with the parties in Western Europe, can, to some extent at least, promise us our 1871. But in that case we need to rid ourselves, so far as possible, of those unfavourable conditions in which the proletariat of Western Europe found itself in all the revolutions I have mentioned, because it was not linked with the peasantry.

Kostrov: Gorin said that in Caucasia propaganda among the peasant population is carried on exclusively against the survivals of serfdom. But that is not so. Yesterday I said that at the head of the peasant movement in our part of the country stands our most cultured area, namely, Western Georgia, and Guria in particular. Here there is no question of cut-off lands; here the survivals of feudalism are slight; this movement has been created on the basis of modern ideas, thanks to the urban workers exiled from Batum as a result of the strike. At the head of the movement have stood our own comrades, and they have begun to make propaganda not only for the abolition of all survivals of serfdom but also for socialisation of the land. I know of a case, for example, when at a village gathering one of the ordinary peasants spoke about abolishing private ownership of land and socialising it. In short, in Caucasia, besides propaganda for the abolition of all survivals of serfdom we carry on propaganda for socialism too.

Karsky: I am surprised at what Comrade Gorin said. When we composed our appeal to the peasants we did this in the spirit of our propaganda. Comrade Gorin was not there. If we did not refer to the question of the cut-off lands this was not because we are against them but because this problem does not exist in Caucasia. I have a special report on this matter, which I offer to the attention of anyone who wants to read it.

Lenin’s amendment was voted on and adopted by all against one.

Akselrod’s amendment was voted on and adopted unanimously.

The first paragraph as a whole was adopted unanimously.

Article 1 was discussed.

Lyadov proposed adding: ‘or on other inhabitants of the countryside, as a taxpaying estate’.

Posadovsky considered this amendment of Lyadov’s unacceptable, since it spoiled the unity of a whole section of the agrarian program-me, expressed in the first paragraph, where it was stated that the subject-matter was the peasants.

Martov defended the appropriateness of the insertion proposed by Lyadov, since what was meant here was the peasants as a socioeconomic entity, in which all the inhabitants of the countryside could be included.

Plekhanov sided with Posadovsky’s interpretation, since the rights of other estates were guaranteed by other sections of our programme.

Lyadov: Serfdom relations exist not only for the peasants but also for other estates.

Posadovsky: Serfdom relations survive not only in the rural areas, as, for example, in the case of quit-rent payers: whole towns are still in the dependent condition of quit-rent payers (Berdichev and others).

Martov agreed that Comrade Lyadov’s last reason was wrong, but he could not accept Plekhanov’s arguments as correct.

Makhov: Since the agrarian programme has not been rejected, we have to mix everything into it. The whole of New Russia was settled after 1861 and there are no serfdom relations there.[23] One cannot speak of the peasantry as a single entity.

Plekhanov: Comrade Makhov’s triumph is premature: what we are considering here is the redemption and quit-rent payments, but this is something quite different from general taxation. Comrade Makhov has misunderstood. But I offer him this example: in Ireland redemption and general taxation have nothing in common. The end of the paragraph, which is a repetition, though not essential, is not without value.

Lenin: I am against Comrade Lyadov’s proposal. We are not draft-ing law, but only giving general indications. Among the townsfolk in Russia there are also members of the taxpaying estates, and also there are the small tradesmen in the suburbs, and others, and if we were to include them all in our programme we should have to use the terminology of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

Martov opposed insertions which deprived the programme of its character as an agrarian programme, but considered that Comrade Lyadov’s did not come into that category, as it dealt with a broad stratum of the non peasant population of the rural areas.

Muravyov: In Article 4 we mention the setting up of peasant committees for abolishing survivals of serfdom in the Urals and so on. Consequently, no insertion is needed in this paragraph.

Comrade Lyadov’s amendment, to add: ‘or on other inhabitants of rural areas, as a taxpaying estate’, was voted on, and rejected, by 25 to 15.

Article 1 as a whole was put to the vote and adopted unanimously.

Article 2 was discussed.

Kostrov and Lange moved amendments (see below) to this article.

Martynov: This article gives oblique hints but provides no answer to anything of importance. How are we to understand ‘their land’? From the recent commentaries in Iskra and Zarya it emerges that the peasant is to be able not only to get his share in a redistribution but also to take an allotment for himself. Therefore, there are two possible interpretations here: (1) each peasant has the right of redemption, in which case the interests of the village community are not infringed; or (2) each peasant has the right to appropriate land for himself, without redemption. I ask, how are we to understand this? Is there some unwillingness to give an answer here?

Lenin: Martynov’s question seems to me superfluous. Instead of stating general principles we are being forced to go into details. If we were to do this we should never come to the end of this congress. The principle is quite definite: each peasant has the right to dispose of his land, regardless of whether it is part of the village community’s land or privately owned. This is merely a demand for the peasant to have the right to dispose of his land. We insist that there must be no special laws for the peasants; we want more than merely the right to leave the village community. What may be required, in detail, to implement this we cannot now decide. I am against Comrade Lange’s addition: we cannot demand the abolition of all laws regulating the use of land. That would be going too far.

Martynov: I have been completely misunderstood. I am speaking not of details but of the general principle. Who is the owner of the land? The village community or the peasant who disposes of it? If the former then, since we consider it a hindrance to economic development, we stand for the right of redemption. If the latter, then there is no need for redemption.

Lyadov: If we introduce freedom of use into the programme, as Comrade Lange has proposed, we may end up with the Manchester principle.

Lenin: Martynov is evidently under a misapprehension. What we want is uniform application of a common body of laws—that which has now been adopted in all bourgeois states, derived from the basis of Roman law, which recognises both common property and private property. We should like to consider landownership by the village community as common property.

Plekhanov: I think it should be added that in the programme of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group there was mention of the peasant’s right to renounce his allotment. Current writings on this subject have shown that today the realisation of the demand would, owing to its inadequacy, run counter to the interests of the poorest section of the peasantry.

Lange: I maintain my amendment, since I consider insufficient the facts that have been given in explanation. In the sphere of landownership there are still many survivals of serfdom. Compulsory ways of using land, for instance. Comrade Lyadov’s objects are unsound, since by that reasoning all roads would lead to Manchesterism.

Comrade Kostrov’s amendment, to delete ‘collective responsibility’. was voted on and adopted unanimously.

Lange’s amendment, to add ‘and, to some extent, use’, was rejected by a big majority.

Article 2 was voted on as a whole and adopted unanimously.

Article 3 was discussed.

Makhov moved that Article 3 be rejected. Article 3 did not explain the agrarian programme as a whole and had nothing in common with it. We can raise the cultural and material level of the peasantry by other means. We should not play with phrases like ‘return of the redemption payments to the people’. We want to obtain money for certain purposes, so let us say so. And what shall we do with the rest of the money if the amount obtained from the confiscation exceeds what is needed? Accordingly, I regard the proposal as purely demagogic.

Comrade Makhov’s proposal for complete elimination of this article was rejected by all against four.

Rusov: Confiscation of monastery and appanage estates has no place in this article. Even if nothing were to be said about the redemption payments we should still have to confiscate these estates. I propose that the point about confiscation be transferred to a separate article.

Martynov: I do not understand why it is necessary to restore to the peasantry only what was taken from them after 1861 and not what was taken from them earlier. This is redressing historical injustice, but that did not begin for the peasantry only with the period of emancipation. We cannot take the standpoint of redressing historical injustice. We must do all we can for the cultural advancement of the peasantry, and the first part of this article merely restricts this fundamental demand.

Muravyov: We are concerned with eliminating survivals of feudalism. I should willingly favour demanding back everything that was taken from the peasants before 1861 as well, but I do not see what organisations or persons we could appeal to with such a demand, and so I should not advocate it.

Martov: We are told that restoration of the cut-off lands will not abolish bondage relations. What are we going to do? It would seem that here we provide the answer. I stand for retaining here the word ‘charitable’. This must be kept, since it concerns a struggle against the pauperism which developed on the basis of the allotments that were granted in 1861.

Martynov: Like Comrade Muravyov, I am in favour of taking everything possible from the exploiters. Therefore I am against the limitations of our programme. If our aim is to do everything for the peasants at the expense of the exploiters, then there is no point in confining our demands to the expropriation of the estates of the landlords alone. I do not see why we should not extend this expropriation to the land belonging to the Falz-Feins[24] and whole groups of new-type exploiters. We ought not to tie our hands.

Muravyov: Agreed. But not everything that is desirable is possible. Against the exploiters of whom Martynov speaks we fight by means of taxes on income. Sums of money which have caused poverty must go to raising the cultural level.

Kostrov: I propose that Article 3 be split into two parts and each part voted on separately, as comrades who support the first part may be against the second. I am definitely for the confiscation of monastery and appanage estates. There is even an element of bondage-relations in these estates. For example, the Borzhomi estate[25] of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich obliges the peasants who live on the lands of this estate to sell their produce exclusively to the estate office, which itself fixes the prices for this produce, and the peasant has to submit to the arbitrary decision of that office.

As regards the second half of the article, it is unjust and unrealistic. After all, many nobles who received redemption loans have already dissipated their estates and these have been acquired by kulaks, practically for a song. And why should special taxes be taken from these impoverished noblemen (assuming that we could obtain the money from them anyway) while the kulaks get off scot free? That would be unjust, and even impracticable.

Rusov: It is clear from what has been said that many who have spoken here in favour of confiscation do not agree with the rest of this article. So I support the demand for the article to be split and each part voted on separately.

Gusev opposed Comrade Rusov’s proposal. There could not be a separate article in the agrarian programme dealing with confiscation, since this had no place in such a programme.

Lyadov proposed adding the words: ‘church estates and those in the nature of latifundia’. By saying this we show that we want to return to the peasants not only what was taken from them after 1861 but also what was taken before that date.

Posadovsky: I agree with Comrade Lyadov, and propose that add: ‘church estates, and also those belonging to the Tsar’. I do not agree with him, though, about including latifundia, since we should then be introducing a demand for the expropriation of all large landowners, and that does not follow from the basis of this section of our minimum programme.

Kostrov proposed adding: ‘estates of the imperial family’.

Makhov: I want to ask a question. There are appanage estates and estates which are the private property of members of the imperial family. Are they to be treated as one and the same? The latter are of enormous extent. For instance, Nicholas II owns extensive lands in Siberia. Mikhail Nikolayevich, when he was ruling Caucasia, looted nearly the whole of it and he also has big latifundia in Kherson province.

Yegorov explained the matter of appanage and crown lands.

Kostrov: None of the estates of the imperial family were bought, but stolen from the people; we must certainly include all the estates of the imperial family.

Lenin: I am not sure that Comrade Yegorov’s explanation of the difference between appanage lands and those belonging to the Tsar is correct, but since Comrade Yegorov insists, I have nothing against that.

Rusov’s resolution was voted on. This was for the words ‘confiscation of monastery and appanage estates for general state purposes’ to be made a separate article. It was rejected by 19 to 11.

Martynov’s resolution was voted on. This was to formulate Article 3 as: ‘confiscation of monastery property and appanage estates. The sums thus obtained to be placed in a special people’s fund for the cultural needs of the rural communities’. It was rejected by 22 to 8.

Akselrod’s proposal to delete the word ‘large’ from the end of the fourth line of Article 3 was adopted.

Glebov’s proposal was adopted unanimously. This was to insert: ‘confiscation of monastery and church property and also appanage and crown estates and those of all members of the imperial family.’

Fomin’s amendment, to add to Glebov’s the words: ‘and belonging to’, was adopted unanimously.

Rejected by all against two was Makhov’s amendment to Glebov’s for deletion of word ‘crown’.

Gorin’s proposal was rejected. This was that Article 3 should readi ‘Confiscation of monastery property, appanage estates and lands cut off from the peasants’ holdings when serfdom was abolished. Taxes to be imposed on the lands of large-scale noble landowners who have received redemption loans. The sums obtained in this way to be paid into funds from which (1) the money taken from the people in the form of redemption and quit-rent payments must be returned to them, and (2) the cultural and charitable needs of the rural communities will be satisfied.’

Lyadov’s amendment—to add: ‘and large latifundia’—was rejected by all against four.

Lange’s amendment was rejected by all against one. This was to add: ‘as well as other large landowners, with grant to them of the right to claim compensation for their losses from the original noble owners’.

Lyadov’s amendment, to delete from the end the words ‘of the rural communities’, was rejected by all against one.

Plekhanov’s amendment, to substitute ‘return to the peasants’ for ‘return to the people,’ was adopted…

The article as a whole was approved by all against four.

The session was closed.

Twenty-first Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Kostrov said that serfdom relations had been preserved in Caucasia in forms that were different from those in the rest of Russia. There were 1,150 peasants in temporary bondage, who had not yet redeemed their allotments. It was desirable that these relations should be abolished, and so a demand for their abolition should be included in the programme.

Martynov: To do that it would be enough to insert in Article 4 the words: ‘and in Caucasia’.

Kostrov: No. It is important to mention specifically this form of serfdom.

Rusov: Introducing particular demands like this merely lengthens the programme without making it complete, since, while enumerating various forms of serfdom, we may leave out several. Wherever survivals of serfdom may exist, they are all included in the formulation: ‘in all parts of Russia’. Consequently we should confine ourselves in the programme to general indications only.

Lyadov: I quite agree with Comrade Rusov. But Article 4 is about setting up peasants’ committees exclusively for the purposes of regulating agrarian relations. Yet survivals of serfdom have been preserved not only among the peasants. We have the quit-rent payers (chinsheviki ), the Siberian post-servants (yamshchiki)[26] and so on. So we should make the second part of Article 4 an article on its own, worded like this: ‘Abolition of survivals of serfdom relations wherever they may be found.’

Plekhanov: The chinsheviki and the post-servants are peasants, too.

Lyadov and Kostrov supported Comrade Rusov’s amendment.

Lenin tried to link together the proposals of Rusov and Kostrov in the following way. Including in Article 4 the words: ‘and in Caucasia’, we provide, by this amendment, that it comes within the competence of the peasants’ committees. If that is not enough, then especially important cases can be dealt with in a special point—for instance, saying that the land of peasants in temporary bondage should become their property.

Lieber: My proposal does away with the need for all these amendments, by deleting the whole of Article 4. I should like to have this explained to me: what are peasants’ committees’? For what period are they to be set up? The moment of revolution? Or are they to be transformed into a permanent institution? If this is a protracted process, why do we need all this article? If the abolition of serfdom relations is to be effected in a revolutionary way, why are committees needed? Comrade Plekhanov says that we must grant the peasants the right to recover the cut-off lands. But in this connection it is being forgotten that the peasantry are already differentiated to a considerable extent. Who are to constitute these committees: the poor peasants or the kulaks? What attitude are we Social-Democrats to take up towards them? What activity are we to undertake in defence of the oppressed? Otherwise, all the land will go to the kulaks, who, as the more influential stratum of the population, will rule the roost in the committees. I repeat my question: on whose behalf are we working—the kulaks’, or that of the rural proletariat? And another question: why should we put our hopes in the revolutionary spirit of the peasants’ committees? There are no grounds for showing such faith in them. Why cannot the Social-Democrats themselves abolish survivals of serfdom in a revolutionary way? This article is based on faith in the revolutionariness of peasants’ committees, and the role of Social-Democracy is not mentioned in it at all. If it was Socialist-Revolutionaries who were talking here, that would be understandable. For them the peasantry is homogeneous. I regard this article as wholly unsatisfactory.

Chairman: You have forgotten to speak about Comrade Kostrov’s proposal.

Lieber: It goes without saying, that proposal will be unnecessary. Fortunately, we have present here representatives of Caucasia who have been able to tell us about the existence of survivals of serfdom in their part of the country. But we have here no representatives of Poland or Latvia. And we cannot overlook the existence of abnormalities of that sort in those parts too. Therefore I propose that this section be deleted altogether.

Karsky considered inappropriate Lenin’s proposal that a special point be introduced.

Lyadov: Comrade Lieber mentioned that we have no Letts here and so we do not know enough details about the existence of serfdom in their part of the country. But that is a delusion. Purely capitalist relations prevail among the Letts. There is no serfdom there.[27] Consequently, our Lettish comrades have no special programme for the peasants.

Lange said that serfdom relations did exist among the Letts, extending even into family relations and openly intruding into the personal lives of the peasants.

Plekhanov: Our programme, the programme of the RSDLP, deals mainly with relations in Russia. This comes about partly because our Party has been joined only by the Bund, which does not deal with peasants, and the Caucasians, who have not yet put forward any ideas on this matter. Points relevant to particular border areas can, of course, be introduced into the programme. Let the comrades from each borderland work out their own demands and, provided they do not contradict our general principles, and are not too petty, we shall be glad to include them in the programme.

Lyadov: There are no serfdom relations among the Letts. There, the peasants were emancipated without land, and what exists there now is, on the one hand, landlords, and, on the other, agricultural labourers.

Kostrov: In our parts there are still an impressive number of peasants in temporary bondage (about 100,000 in Tiflis province and about 50,000 in Kutais province), and also what are called the khizani, whose situation should be changed. I will say something about the khizani. We give this name to a particular category of peasants living in Tiflis and Kutais provinces and numbering about 48,000. The khizani ’s situation came about, already in the period of serfdom, in this way: a peasant driven from his home by famine or some other calamity found shelter with some landlord and, being given by him the tenancy of some land, rendered him services merely in respect of this land. He did not, like a serf, become bound to render personal service; he was not a serf, and so the reform of 1861 did not affect him, the law did not take him into account. But some conflicts with landlords who wanted to evict khizani from their land attracted the attention of the Government to this question, and in 1891 it issued a ‘statute of the khizani ’. By this statute the landlord could evict a khizan from the land only by mutual agreement. And since the khizani did not want at all to give up to the landlords the land they had cultivated and built upon, the landlords appealed to the government to ‘protect the peasants from oppression’. The result of these intrigues was the statute of 1900, by which a landlord was given full authority to evict a khizan from his land whenever he saw fit to do so, on paying the khizan the value of any buildings he had erected. This authority was extensively used by the landlords, and this gave rise to a number of agrarian crimes, peasant movements, and so on.

This question can be settled only in a revolutionary way, by recognising the khizani as owners of the lands they have occupied for centuries and which they have paid for many times over. I therefore propose immediate abolition of both temporary bondage and the situation of the khizan. In this connection I suggest the following wording: ‘(b) for handing over to ownership by the peasants in Caucasia those lands which they have been working as temporary bondsmen, khizani, etc.’; (c) would then take the place of what in the draft appears as (b).

Lenin: The question has arisen of drafting an addition to Article 4, relating to Caucasia. It would be best to insert this addition after point (a). There are two resolutions before us. If we adopt Comrade Karsky’s amendment, the point would lose too much of its concreteness. In the Urals, for instance, there are a host of survivals, it’s a real lair of serfdom. As regards the Letts we can say that they come under the Phrase: ‘and in other parts of the country’. I support Comrade Kostrov’s proposal, namely, that we should include a demand for the transfer of land-titles to the khizani, temporary bondsmen, and so on.

Karsky withdrew his amendment.

Lieber: Point (b) is tautologous in relation to the section of the agrarian programme dealing with principles, in which it has already been said that we are for the abolition of serfdom. The question of the peasants’ committees remains to be dealt with. Actually, this does not even require to be mentioned in the programme. Why, comrades, do you bring forward a different principle each time? Sometimes you say that the programme should not be made concrete; at other times, however, you call for concretisation. Now you have gone so far as to include in the programme a point that has absolutely nothing Social-Democratic about it. There is no call to write into the programme what we read day after day in the liberal organs, Novosti, Russkie, Vyedomosti, etc. There would be no point in Lenin’s including in the programme an article about the abolition of flogging and imprisonment. Comrade Lenin is very fond, in certain cases, of saying ‘that is self-evident’. Here, though, where more than anywhere else that phrase would be in place, he finds it necessary, for some reason, to concretise the programme with references to the Urals, the Altai, and so on.

Lange proposed that this point include the words: ‘in Caucasia and in other localities’.

Trotsky found inappropriate the insertion about the khizani. Ninetenths of the members of the congress might not know anything about the situation of the khizani and would be voting à discrétion, solely on the basis of a demand by one person.

Lenin: There is nothing for Comrade Lieber to be surprised at. He demands that we employ a single, general criterion, but there is no such criterion. Sometimes one demand has to be advanced, sometimes another. We have no fixed pattern. Lieber claims that our demand for the abolition of serfdom coincides with the Liberals’ demands. But the Liberals do not say how this demand is to be realised. We, for our part, say that it must be realised not by the bureaucracy but by the oppressed classes, and this means the way of revolution. Therein lies the radical difference between us and the Liberals, whose talk about changes and reforms ‘befouls’ the people’s consciousness. If we were to set forth in concrete form all the demands for the abolition of serfdom, we should fill entire volumes. That is why we mention only the most important forms and variants of serfdom. Our committees in the different localities will bring forward and elaborate their particular demands, developing our general programme. Trotsky’s remark that we cannot concern ourselves with local demands is wrong, in that the question of the khizani and the peasants in temporary bondage is not just a local one. Besides, it has become known through writings on the agrarian question.

Karsky: I fully support Lenin’s view. Such questions as these cannot be unknown to our comrades. We came to the congress with a report to give, and it is not our fault that we were not able to give it. I urge that we enumerate those regions where serfdom exists in particularly acute forms.

Lieber: l am obliged to speak a third time. I said that I do not regard myself as well-informed on the question at issue. Comrade Plekhanov and Lenin used this statement of mine so as to argue that, since I know nothing about them, I am not answerable for the way these questions are dealt with. But I think that it is the duty of those comrades who are competent on the questions, and who have composed the programme, to reply to the doubts and perplexities that have arisen. Lenin did not say where he gets his faith in the revolutionariness of the peasants’ committees. I hear for the first time that the demands of oppressed classes are necessarily revolutionary. On the contrary, these demands are often reactionary. I ask the comrades, if they will deign to answer me, to explain, first, why they believe in the revolutionariness of peasants’ committees, and, secondly, why they think the kulaks will not rob the other peasants? I am reminded of those cashboxes of which Comrade Plekhanov spoke. Again, why do we speak here about political bondage while saying nothing about economic bondage? What is the source of this confidence that the kulaks, who will rule the roost in the peasants’ committees, will not betray the interests of the rest of the peasant population? Again, in the interests of the symmetry of the programme, we cannot take up a different standpoint each time: either all special demands should be included, or none.

Martynov: I have already shown the unacceptability of the point about returning the cut-off lands. I will now add only this. The authors of the draft themselves admitted, obliquely, that there is a hiatus in this article. Comrade Lenin moved an amendment to the general section of the agrarian programme: ‘In order to eliminate the survivals of serfdom … we shall demand first and foremost, etc.’ Lenin assures us that this is only an explanation of the programme, but I think it is a correction. Comrade Lenin interprets the words first and foremost’ in the sense that we want first of all to abolish survivals of serfdom, and then we shall have left for dealing with rural affairs our general, maximum, socialist programme. This interpretation is false. The corrected passage will read: ‘In order to eliminate the survivals of serfdom we shall demand, first and foremost …’ Evidently Lenin realised that the return of the cut-off lands was inadequate even for abolishing the survivals of serfdom—that in this matter returning the cut-off lands was merely the first step. Iskra wrote about the matter in that way in one of its issues, and Comrade Plekhanov wrote in the same way in his commentaries on the programme. In those articles it was said that we do not rule out the expropriation of other lands as well, we merely do not give it the importance assigned to it by the Socialist-Revolutionaries; it will not abolish rural capitalism but help it to flourish. In his article against Ryazanov, Comrade Plekhanov said that the extent to which expropriation will be carried out at the moment of revolution will depend merely on the relation between social forces. In view of all that, I see no grounds for tying our hands with a point about the cut-off lands. We should give the future peasants’ committees one single directive of principle: they must hand over to the community itself those lands and appendages which serve, in the hands of the large landowners, as means for maintaining serfdom relations, independently of where and when these portions of land came into the possession of the large landowners.

Popov: I come back to the question, still not cleared up, of whether or not bondage exists among the Letts. I think that Lieber, Lenin, Lange and Lyadov are all right in what they say. The Lettish peasants were indeed emancipated without land, but nevertheless bondage relations do exist there. In those parts bondage is not a survival of serfdom. As far as I remember, Kautsky says somewhere that there is in German agriculture a category of proletarians who are exploited like serfs. Evidently, bondage is met with under capitalist relations too.

A proposal to close the list of speakers was voted on, and received 17 votes, with 12 against. A second vote showed a majority of 18 to 16 and the list of speakers was closed.

Martov: Lieber claimed that he had not been given answers to all his questions, but it does not follow from all his questions that he really wants clarification. Is, for example, his demand for deletion of the point about the cut-off lands dependent on whether the peasants’ committees will or will not be revolutionary? Lieber has evidently fallen into the same misunderstanding as any of the Anarchists who ask us what makes us think the Zemsky Sobor will be revolutionary. The Zemsky Sobor will undoubtedly be revolutionary, but its degree of revolutionariness will not satisfy us, and from its first days we shall probably have to convict it of being reactionary. General political and economic questions will be decided in general institutions, and the detailed clarification of these decisions will be entrusted to local institutions. How far the peasants’ committees will be revolutionary is hard to foresee at present. But we must exert every effort to ensure that they are revolutionary. We must take the class struggle into the countryside and organise the rural proletariat: then the influence of Social-Democracy will certainly be reflected in the peasants’ committees. It is futile for Lieber to confront us with the choice either to include all details or none. There are important details and inessential ones. But it is necessary to make mention of the most backward forms of peasant relations. Backwardness of the forms of production in agriculture often gives rise to bondage relations. There is hardly a single country where no bondage can be found. Our Article 4 does not finally do away with serfdom relations but merely weakens them.

Makhov: Mention is made here of ‘peasants’ committees’. This expression is not satisfactory, since an entire third of the rural population do not belong to the peasant estate.

Lenin: Comrade Lieber proposed deletion of the point about the cut-off lands, on the sole grounds that he does not like the peasant committees. That is strange. Since we have agreed on the fundamental question, namely, that the cut-off lands keep the peasants in bondage, the establishment of committees is only a detail, and to reject the entire point on account of that would be illogical. It is strange, too, to hear the question asked: How are we to influence the peasant committees? I hope that the Social-Democrats will be able when that time comes to organise congresses with less difficulty, and at such congresses to reach agreement on how to act in each particular case.

Akselrod proposed that the section dealing with peasants’ committees be shifted to the end of the article. It is normal to speak first of the end and then of the means.

Lange: There are many localities where the peasants are landless. So we ought not to confine ourselves to the cut-off lands, but should add: ‘and also those lands which serve this purpose’.

Rusov moved an amendment by which committees would be set up everywhere that semi-serfdom relations existed, and not only where there were cut-off lands. Further, it should be added that the peasants’ committees are to abolish not only the cut-off lands but also all conditions of bondage in general. Why should the hands of the peasants’ committees be tied? Perhaps they might expropriate particular estates.

All the amendments to this paragraph were put to the vote.

Kostrov’s amendment was adopted, with 27 votes.

Bekov’s amendment was rejected. This would have made point (b) read: ‘to suppress survivals of serfdom relations existing in the Urals, the Western Territory and Caucasia (temporary bondsmen, khizani, etc.) and in other regions of the country’.

Martynov’s amendment was rejected. This would have made point (a) read: ‘to hand over to the rural communities those lands and appendages which serve, in the hands of the large landowners, as means of maintaining semi-serfdom relations’.

Lange’s amendment was rejected. This proposed to replace the word ‘survivals’ by ‘vestiges’ and the word ‘existing’ by ‘existent’. Lange’s second amendment, proposing that the words: ‘and in Caucasia’ be inserted before ‘and in other regions of the country’ was also rejected.

Lange’s third amendment was rejected. This proposed that Article 4 should read: ‘setting-up of peasants’ committees to suppress and weaken everything that gives rise to the enslavement of the peasantry and thereby maintains the old pre-Reform relations’: ‘(a),’ instead of ‘those lands which were cut off’ ‘those of the lands cut off when serfdom was abolished which serve in the hands of the landlords as an instrument for enslaving the peasants,’ and ‘(b) expropriation at the discretion of the peasants’ committees of all other lands (ponds, roads, etc.) which serve, like most of the cut-off lands, as a weapon for enslavement’.

Rusov’s amendment was rejected. This ran: ‘Setting-up of peasant committees to abolish serfdom relations existing in certain parts of the country and also conditions which serve as instruments in the hands of the landlords for imposing bonds of serfdom (cut-off lands, the khizani system, etc.)’. Lieber’s amendment was abolished. This proposed,first, that Article 4 read: ‘return to the rural communities,’ etc., and, secondly, that point (b) be deleted.

Akselrod withdrew his amendment.

Article 4, as amended by Kostrov, was adopted as a whole, by a majority of 30 to 1. The congress proceeded to discuss Article 5.

Kostrov: Complaining to the courts means a whole long-drawn out procedure. It seems to me it would be better to set up conseils de prud’hommes.[28]

Lenin: Article 5 is linked with Article 16 of the workers’ programme. This does in fact propose courts composed equally of workers and employers: we must demand special representation for the agricultural labourers and the poorest peasantry.

Martov: I ask this question: Is it a good idea to make the industrial courts apply to the agricultural proletariat when the latter still needs to be organised? Perhaps it may prove more appropriate to bring in jury courts. For that reason I favour leaving the vague formulation which we have in the programme.

Lieber: Perhaps, when rent-payments are being decided, resort could be had to the fixing of rates by a court? I should suggest, therefore: to grant the courts the right to determine rents.

Lenin: I think this is undesirable, since it will broaden excessively the competence of the courts. We aim at reducing rents, and fixing of rates of payment by the courts might enable landowners to appeal to accomplished facts in order to demonstrate the justice of their claims. Reducing rents rules out any idea of increasing them. Kautsky, speaking about Ireland, says that the introduction of industrial tribunals has produced some results there.

Article 5 was put to the vote and approved by a majority of 35, with 11 abstentions.

The first paragraph of the concluding part of the programme was read.

Makhov: What does it mean, ‘to support oppositional and revolutionary movements’? If it means that we are to promote their development, then I am absolutely against. Our only revolutionary class is the proletariat: the rest are of no account, they are mere hangers-on. [General laughter] … Yes, they are mere hangers-on and only out to reap the benefits. I am against supporting them. We shall be pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for them.

Akselrod: We have no revolutionary parties, but we do have oppositional elements, and we must make use of them for our own purposes.

Lieber: I am confused by the lack of precision in one place, where it says: ‘every oppositional movement’. Not every oppositional movement acts in the same direction as the proletariat. For instance, take Sharapov.[29] Regarding such reactionary elements we have, to be sure, reservations enough. But there is another sort of reactionary, who talks about the trusteeship exercised by the landlords, about the good old days. Nothing is said about him. Also, it is not stated in this paragraph that the attitude recommended in relation to these trends is to apply only in the period before the conquest of political freedom. After the fall of the autocracy other trends will appear: agrarian trends, for example, which in some cases will act in the same direction as the proletariat.

Plekhanov: The phrase being discussed has been taken almost word for word from the Communist Manifesto. We considered it useful to repeat this expression in our programme because we wanted to bring out the difference between our views and those of the Narodniks and the Utopian Socialists. The Narodniks and the Utopian Socialists declared themselves against the political struggle of the bourgeoisie because they were convinced that the triumph of political freedom would strengthen the economic domination of the bourgeoisie. We are ready to support this movement because it facilitates our own struggle against the existing political order. But while supporting them we—as is also said in the Communist Manifesto —do not for a moment refrain from developing the workers’ awareness of the antagonism between their interests and those of the bourgeoisie. And that is why our support for the bourgeoisie does not involve any risk for us.

Starover: Comrade Lieber makes a bad mistake when he assumes that our draft programme does not say, precisely and clearly, what sort of oppositional or revolutionary movements we are to support. No, it is stated in this draft that we support ‘every movement directed against the existing social and political order in Russia’—in other words, that our support is given only to movements aimed at over throwing the autocracy. Consequently, all Comrade Lieber’s references to the Agrarians in Germany, or to Mr Sharapov in Russia, fall to the ground. Sulking Agrarians may be very sharp in their criticism, they may attack very resolutely a particular minister or a particular government bill, or even the entire direction followed by government policy at a certain moment, but they remain on the terrain of the existing political order. They are conservatives. ‘The Slavophils’, says Comrade Lieber. But the Slavophils attacked only the bureaucratic ‘barrier’ which had been raised between the Tsar and the people, distorting the image of the autocracy—the autocracy itself was for them something inviolable.

Glebov proposed to say, instead of ‘police and official tutelage’, ‘police and social-estate tutelage’.

Lieber proposed putting: ‘every progressive-oppositional and revolutionary movement’.

Both amendments were voted on and rejected.

Makhov proposed that the word ‘oppositional’ be deleted, adducing the following arguments. We must support every revolutionary movement, whereas, for example, the peasants’ wars in the Reformation period were reactionary in character, though they were an oppositional movement just like our own peasant movements. I think Marx does not speak of ‘oppositional movements’, so that my proposal is in accordance with the spirit of Marx’s teaching.

Starover: Why tie our hands in relation to oppositional trends which act in the same direction as the revolutionary proletariat?

Lyadov: The only revolutionary class is the proletariat; the peasants’ wars were not revolutionary.

Martynov: I agree with Starover. But what movements do possess a revolutionary character? Only democratic ones. If a movement is merely a ‘sulk’ we don’t have to support it. Therefore I propose an amendment: to put the word ‘democratic’ in front of ‘oppositional’. Iskra expressed itself in that sense in the article: ‘About urban self-government’. If the oppositionists want a compromise, such as, for example, a restriction based on a property qualification, then we must not support them.

Plekhanov: I do not understand what it is, actually, that we are arguing about. Comrade Martynov says we must support only democratic movements. Well, and what about the liberal movements? Are we to oppose them? We cannot do that, behaving like the German ‘True Socialists’ whom Marx ridicules in the Communist Manifest°. Comrade Martynov says we must not support the liberals, and explains why not. We must criticise them, expose their half-heartedness. That is true. But we must do that also where the so-called Socialist-Revolutionaries are concerned. We must expose their narrowness, their limitedness; we must show the proletariat that only the Social-Democratic movement is truly revolutionary nowadays. But, while exposing the narrowness and limitations of all movements other than the Social-Democratic, it is our duty to explain to the proletariat that even a constitution which does not confer universal suffrage would be a step forward compared with absolutism, and that therefore it should not prefer the existing order to such a constitution. I repeat, supporting a movement directed against the existing order does not mean telling the proletariat that such a movement is sufficiently broad in scope, and this is not in any way stated in our programme.

Martynov: There can be no doubt that, as regards the liberals, we differ from the old Narodniks on two essential points. First, we are not afraid of a bourgeois constitution but, on the contrary, see this as a very great and unavoidable step forward. Secondly, we are not unaware of the strength of the liberals, because we see in them the representatives of certain strata of the bourgeoisie which will inevitably become the rulers of a liberated Russia. Since we have to develop the political awareness of the proletariat we must, obviously, acquaint it with the nature of the impending revolution and with the relation between social forces in this revolution, and so we must acquaint it also with the liberal movement. But we must support oppositional movements only in so far as they are revolutionary, or pursue the same immediate aim as ourselves, namely, the conquest of democratic freedom. But in so far as the liberal movement is already now, in the persons of the Yevreinovs,[30] taking its stand between revolution and reaction, in so far as it is seeking, through a compromise, to check the progress of the revolutionary movement, we must fight against the liberal parties for our sphere of influence, for influence over the democratic movement.

In view of all this, I propose that in the paragraph under discussion we insert before the word ‘oppositional’ the word ‘democratic’.

Trotsky: There can be no doubt that the developed and revolutionised proletariat exercises a revolutionary effect in a purely spontaneous way upon other social classes and strata … There can be no doubt that the rise of a broad political movement among the students, and the appearance of the so-called ‘SRs’, and also the advance of the liberal opposition—all these phenomena which have been features of the last five years, have grown from the soil provided by the movement of the Russian proletariat. But the support which the proletariat has accorded and is according to other oppositional movements is determined by the bare fact of the existence of the labour movement. This support must now become an instrument of our Party’s tactics. What had been done spontaneously must be done consciously … [Martynov: ‘But how, in what way?’] I am just about to give an example. When Martynov—not you, but your namesake, Martynov of the Voronezh Agricultural Committee—spoke in favour of a constitution, he was arrested. We must make this fact known to all. We must inform the masses of the people of the significance and nature of the demands put forward by the oppositionist Martynovs. Thereby we shall give political weight to the declarations of these Martynovs. The constitutional demands of the Zemstvo opposition will thus prove to be a small part of the demands of the people as a whole. Bringing this idea to the proletariat means at one and the same time demarcating our Party from all other oppositional and revolutionary movements and also supporting these movements. That is the sort of support which revolutionary Martynovs ought to give to oppositionist Martynovs.

The list of speakers was closed.

Lieber: Trotsky explained the matter in such a way that no Social-Democrat will agree with him. It has been observed that in our proclamations, while attacking the autocracy, we forget about the labour movement and its class character. Yes, we need to support a movement against the autocratic order but the best form of support consists in sharpening up the character of the class movement of the proletariat. It is not by printing the speech of Comrade Martynov’s Zemstvo namesake that we help the class movement of the proletariat to develop, but by telling about his illegal arrest, and how he behaved. We must support the liberals by urging them on with criticism. Direct support to oppositional movements is harmful. At that rate, why don’t we distribute Osvobozhdenie ? Turning every protest into a revolutionary protest, that’s the form our support should take.

Strakhov: One thing or the other—either the Social-Democratic movement is to stand at the head of the revolutionary movement, or it is not. If it is, then we must support every movement hostile to the tutelage of the police and officialdom. To me, therefore, the point is perfectly clear. I would merely suggest adding: ‘which reconcile themselves to the tutelage by the police and officialdom, which so greatly restricts the independence of the working class’.

Makhov: The word ‘revolutionary’ is quite adequate. Lyadov is wrong when he says that only the proletariat is revolutionary. White essentially it is reactionary, the bourgeoisie is often revolutionary –for example, in the struggle against feudalism and its survivals. But there are some groups which are always reactionary—such are the handicraftsmen. I am against the agrarian programme and I fear what the great mass of the peasantry may do. There are certain groups whose ideal is Caesarism.

Plekhanov: I can be brief, because the objections we have just heard have contributed little that is new. Comrade Martynov mentioned that there are oppositional strata, which may take up a position between the revolution and the present order of things. He told us that we must expose these strata before the proletariat. I ask, is it worth uttering such well-known truths at a congress which needs to economise its time? The first item in all propaganda explaining to the proletariat the need for our Party must be criticism of all other, non-Social-Democratic, revolutionary and oppositional parties. Refraining from such criticisms would mean signing our own death warrant. If the men of the Mountain of 1793 were to rise from their graves today we should have to criticise them, too, from the stand-point of our principles. But that does not mean that we ought not to support diem in their struggle against the prevailing order. Comrade Martynov said that we must counterpose ourselves to all the bourgeois parties: that is indisputable. The whole question lies in how we are to go about it. The Utopian Socialists—for example, the so-called ‘True’ Socialists, in Germany—counterposed themselves to all the bourgeois parties by telling the proletariat that it had no need of bourgeois political freedom. Saying this meant counterposing themselves to the liberal bourgeoisie and supporting not them but the police state. And our Narodniks and subjectivists counterposed themselves to the liberal bourgeoisie in exactly the same way. We counterpose ourselves in a different way. We support the liberal bourgeoisie by showing the proletariat that the political freedom which the liberal bourgeoisie will give it is not useless but inadequate, and that it must therefore take up arms itself in order to win a nurober of rights that it needs to possess.

I will explain my idea by means of an example. Imagine a policeman, the embodiment of the police state, and along with him, imagine a bourgeois who is struggling with this policeman, striving to win some rights for himself, but not for the working class, and, finally, imagine a proletarian who is watching the fight between the bourgeois and the policeman and wondering: ‘What should I do?’ The reply of the Utopian Socialists was: ‘Do not get mixed up in this fight, it is a family quarrel between your enemies, and whichever of them wins, you will gain nothing, or you may even lose a great deal.’ We, from the standpoint of modern scientific socialism, say to the proletariat: the outcome of this struggle is not a matter of indifference to you—every blow that the policeman gets from the bourgeois is a step forward along the path of progress and is therefore to your advantage. But, in his fight with the policeman, the bourgeois is thinking not of you but of himself, and moreover, cannot cope with the policeman, so you must yourself enter the fray, armed to the teeth, as the French say, so as not only to knock down the policeman but also to be in a position to rebuff the bourgeois when he wants to deprive you of the fruits of victory. That’s all. If, as Comrade Lieber says is the case, the antagonism of interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is insufficiently brought out in our Party’s proclamations, we will talk about that when we come to discuss our Party press. This reproach has nothing whatsoever to do with the programme. And in any case it is not the editorial board of Iskra and Zarya, who drafted the programme, that can be suspected of trying to gloss over the differences that exist between us and other parties. What were we blamed for so often in the press, in letters and at meetings? For having too pronounced a penchant for polemics. But why did we have that penchant? Because we set ourselves the task of beating with an intellectual cudgel, as Lassalle puts it, everyone who stands between the proletariat and clear proletarian class-consciousness. That being so, there are no grounds for fearing any inclination on our part towards compromise. From the first word to the last, our draft programme is truly revolutionary, in the spirit of Marx and Engels, and that is why you can accept it with a perfectly quiet conscience.

The amendments moved by Strakhov, Martynov, Makhov and Lieber were voted on and rejected. These proposed, first, to add ‘ progressive’ before ‘oppositional’, and, secondly, to add after the word ‘order’: ‘at the same time counterposing the revolutionary movement of the proletariat to this opposition, and rejecting …’

The whole paragraph was adopted by a majority of those voting: there were a few abstentions.

The last paragraph of the programme was read.

Strakhov proposed that after the words ‘overthrow of the autocracy’ there should appear: ‘and its replacement by sovereignty of the people. For this reason the RSDLP puts forward as its first political demand the convening of a constituent assembly, freely elected by the whole people.’ He justified this proposal by saying that the convening of a constituent assembly would still not ensure the realisation of our aims—only sovereignty of the people would guarantee their triumph.

Martov: I regard this amendment as superfluous, since all the proposals in the Party programme will be implemented only when a constituent assembly has been convened.

Starover proposed that ‘considers’ be substituted for ‘is firmly convinced that’.

Plekhanov proposed that there be inserted the words: ‘and its replacement by sovereignty of the people’.

Martov opposed Plekhanov’s amendment. Repetition of ‘sovereignty of the people’ would seem odd here.

Akimov: I would like someone to explain to me what is implied by the expression ‘sovereignty of the people’. Is it the power that will be won by us in the impending revolution, or is it that which will result from the social revolution? If the former—and I think it is the former that is meant—how are we to combine with this the demand for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Are we going to aim to establish that dictatorship in order to abrogate the sovereignty of the people?

Gusev: The entire point says nothing that has not already been said in the programme. If some ideas are emphasised, there is adequate reason for doing that.

Strakhov: I should like to say that Plekhanov’s formulation of ‘sovereignty of the people’ (narodnoye samoderzhaviye) is ill-conceived—it bows to Narodism.

Trotsky: I want to reply to Akimov. Under sovereignty of ‘the people’, dictatorship is wielded by the bourgeoisie. When the socialists win the majority, then there begins the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Gorin: Like Martov, I find it extremely inappropriate to speak here of ‘sovereignty of the people’.

Plekhanov withdrew his amendment.

The amendments by Strakhov and Starover were voted on. The congress rejected both.

The last paragraph of the programme was adopted.

Next, the rapporteur of the programme commission, Yegorov, was called upon to speak about Article 7 of the general programme, which had been returned to the commission.

Yegorov: The commission decided as follows. (1) At the end of Article 6 to add the words ‘and of language’. (2) To insert a new paragraph: ‘The right of the population to receive education in their mother-tongue; the right of every citizen to express himself in his mother-tongue at meetings and in public and state institutions.’ (3) To delete from Article 11 the phrase concerning language.

Goldblatt: The second point does not satisfy me. At the previous session it was said that the words ‘and of language’ were to be left only if the rest was rejected.

Karsky: I want to point out some lack of precision in the formulations. In Caucasia we already have the right to use our mothertongues. That is not the point. In my view, this formulation ought to embrace something bigger. The state or public institutions which receive taxes and dues from the population ought to provide the resources for building these schools. I would mention one omission: we ought to say that court proceedings should be conducted in the mother-tongue—at the lower instances at least.

Kostrov agreed with Karsky.

Plekhanov: The defects mentioned by Goldblatt and Karsky would be eliminated, I think, by my amendment which reads: ‘ensured by creation, at the expense of the state and the organs of self-government, of the schools needed for this purpose’.

Karsky: In our part of the country the towns already have the right to set up their own schools, but in the villages the mother-tongue is being squeezed out, just as in those educational institutions in the towns which have been set up at the expense of the state.

Bekov: That isn’t true. There are only a few schools for the nobility where teaching is carried on in the mother-tongue. Comrade Karsky must have forgotten the barbarous methods that were used to shut down the Armenian schools—that was a real epic of the Tsarist autocracy. By our programme the population are guaranteed the right to speak their mother-tongue and also extensive regional self-government: that is guarantee enough. What else is there to be said? After all, the programme is not being written for Caucasia.

The point was approved by the congress in the form in which the commission had worked it, with a few amendments (see Article 8: general political demands of the programme). The commission’s first proposal was rejected, and the third accepted. The congress then, voting by roll-call, adopted the programme as a whole. Those persons who were present with consultative voice also took part in the voting. The programme was adopted by all present with the exception of Comrade Akimov, who abstained and in this connection submitted the following statement:

‘When the programme was voted on as a whole I abstained from voting, and I wish to explain this abstention.

‘Objecting to the speech I made in the general discussion of the programme, Comrade Plekhanov said that I mistakenly considered the basic idea of the draft to be Lenin’s view of the proletariat as being merely the milieu in which the Social-Democratic movement works, and that in fact the basic idea of the draft was Marx’s view of the laws of development of society, which Plekhanov summarised in the expressions used in the preface to Zur Kritik.

‘This was, in my opinion, not a serious objection, since I do not deny that the draft is a Social-Democratic programme and, to the extent that the fundamental positions of Social-Democracy are contained in the programme, I agree with it, and that is why I cannot vote against it. But I cannot vote for it, either, because in several very important sections the draft deviates from the Western-European Social-Democratic programmes, and yet the congress sanctioned these deviations, hardly discussing the section of the programme dealing with principles, and not allowing those delegates who did not agree with the draft to defend their views.

‘Contrary to the congress standing orders, and contrary to the statement made by the chairman, after which the congress approved the termination of general discussion, members of the congress were deprived of the right to discuss amendments when voting on the programme point by point.

‘In fact, each member was allowed five minutes altogether for each point, and could speak only once on each point. To show that in this length of time it was physically impossible to develop one’s views, I will refer merely to the question of the "filling up" of the proletariat with socialism (Erfüllungstheorie ). The congress adopted the formulation given in the draft (Article 9), thereby adopting an ultra-Kautskyan point of view and rejecting the views of Adler, which were confirmed by the Austrian Party Congress and found expression in the Vienna Programme.

‘The comrades in Russia could not be sufficiently familiar with the proceedings of the Vienna Congress and with a number of articles in Neue Zeit, Vorwärts and the Leipziger Volkszeitung which prepared and summarised the decisions taken by our Austrian comrades on this question, and it would have been frivolous to try and deal with this question in five minutes.

‘In just the same way the problem of impoverishment (Verelendungstheorie )[31] was settled in our programme in a way that contradicted the Vienna Programme and the latest works of Western-European Social-Democratic literature, and, in particular, the writings of Kautsky and Bebel. The way this question is decided sets a clear-cut mark on all manifestations of the activity of Social-Democracy, its political and economic struggle. It was impossible to set out my ideas in opposition to this point, too, in five minutes.

‘But that is not enough. Not one person of conviction can be satisfied with a brief résumé of his opinion, he should have the right to defend his views. Yet the congress refused the right to speak a second time in reply to objections which frequently distorted the ideas of the speaker. How useless it was, under such conditions, to expound one’s views is shown by the following example.

‘Comrade Lieber drew the attention of the congress to the need for the expression "to the extent that" in the passage of the draft dealing with the attitude of the Social-Democrats to other strata of the people. Comrade Plekhanov replying to him, raid that this expression was used in the corresponding passage in the Communist Manifesto. Actually, this is not so. This expression is not to be found in the Manifesto and appears only in Plekhanov’s inaccurate translation of the Manifesto into Russian.[32] Yet Comrade Lieber was not able to deal with Plekhanov’s objection on this most important question, because he could not speak a second time.

‘Thus the congress finished extraordinarily quickly with the part of the programme dealing with principles, devoting only one session to general discussion of it and one to voting on it, that is, altogether, one day.

‘Under these circumstances I could not take part in the discussion of the programme, so I cannot vote for it.’

Chairman: This is not true. Comrade Akimov submitted 21 amendments to the commission—allow five minutes for each one—and that took up no small amount of time. As regards the rest of the programme, which the commission did not examine and which was discussed in pleno, the conditions under which it was discussed are known to you all. Every delegate had the right to speak three times, for ten minutes, on each point. Comrade Akimov spoke several times. The standing orders were approved by the majority of the congress.

After it had been resolved to express gratitude to the editorial board of Iskra for having produced the draft programme, the chairman spoke:

Plekhanov: Comrades, the Party of the conscious proletariat, the Russian Social-Democratic Party, now has its programme. Rather numerous objections were made to some parts of it. Those comrades with whose objections the congress did not agree remain subject to the decision of the majority. Members of our Party are obliged to accept its programme. This does not mean, of course, that a programme, once adopted, cannot be criticised. We have recognised, do recognise, and will continue to recognise, freedom of criticism. But whoever wishes to remain a member of our Party must remain, even in his criticism, on the terrain of the programme. Be that as it may, the problem which has occupied us for so long has been disposed of, and we can say, with legitimate pride that the programme we have adopted furnishes our proletariat with a durable and dependable weapon for the struggle against its enemies.

The session was closed.


Twenty-second Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates, and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

The next subject for discussion was the Party’s organisational rules. The resolution serving as introduction to the rules was read: ‘The Party’s general rules are binding on all sections of the Party, with the exception of those points which are provided for in special appendices to the rules defining the relation of sections to the Party.’

Posadovsky proposed a different wording, which was adopted [see the Party Rules].

Lieber: I shall not speak about the substance of the question. The resolution cannot be adopted, since it is impossible to adopt general points without knowing what exceptions will be approved subsequently.

Martov: I don’t known what Comrade Lieber is talking about. When we have passed the resolution we shall proceed to discuss each point in the rules separately, and we shall discuss them on the basis of the single principle which we have adopted already. Our position of principle has been decided, and I think it will be more convenient for the Bund to consider first of all the general rules for the Party, since it will be able to explain its own position of principle. I would recall to Comrade Lieber that our organisational principle is not broad autonomy but strict centralisation.

Goldblatt: Martov’s arguments are wrong both in content and in form. Formally, we have the right to demand that our rules be discussed under item 6 of the agenda, as has already been decided, and, as regards content, it is important to us that the position of the Bund be clear and well-defined. We are asked to break up the Bund’s rules into sections and to connect these separate sections with the separate points of the general Party rules. But we cannot do this since our rules there are points which cannot be made to coincide with any of the points in the general Party rules. If this proposal is adopted, then we shall have to abstain from participating in the discussion of the general Party rules until our own rules have been discussed.

Martov (on a point of order): On whose behalf is Comrade Goldblatt speaking? What are we to understand by ‘we’?

Akimov: It seems to me impossible that such a question should be put. We are dealing not with some corporation or other but with delegates, each of whom, of course, speaks for himself.

Martov: If the Bund agrees with Akimov, then on behalf of what ‘we’ is Goldblatt speaking?

Lieber: It would be out of place to have an interrogation. If it suits the congress then we shall, of course, answer this question. Plekhanov: I am not satisfied with Lieber’s answer. If we cannot ask questions then this amounts to saying that the assumption is correct … Who, then, are the ‘we’ on whose behalf the Bund speaks? We are anxious to know this, because we accord particular attention to the delegation of the Bund.

The congress decided to ask the Bund to make a statement on this matter.

Lieber: I continue to find the whole of this incident out of place. But since an answer is asked for, we will give it. We ask, and we insist, that our rules be discussed first, not because they constitute an amendment but because we take our stand on positions that are different in principle, and we need to get clear on the attitude of the congress to the principles which guide us. We asked long ago that the rules of the Bund be discussed. The congress rejected this request. I again direct the attention of the congress to this irregular attitude taken towards our demands. I give notice that we shall move amendments only in relation to the general rules.

Lange: The Bund proposed that we defer discussion of the general Party rules. This is not convenient, because we do not know the general standpoint from which we shall have to consider the particular rules of the Bund.

Trotsky: We are not avoiding a discussion of the rules of the Bund. We are working out a procedure for discussion. We have to decide on the general rules of the Party and then, from that standpoint, to determine the place of the Bund in the Party. The Party does not exist for the Bund, but the Bund for the Party.

Yegorov: I agree with what Lange said. But he did not understand what it was that the Bund wanted, whereas I consider that the Bund is wrong. We do not in the least wish to fragment the rules of the Bund. We shall discuss them as a whole, but only after we have discussed the Party rules.

Lieber: I agree neither with Comrade Yegorov nor with Comrade Trotsky. I warn the congress against attempts to interpret our words maliciously and tendentiously .. .

The Chairman called the speaker to order.

Lieber (continuing): I say that Trotsky’s interpretation is not in accordance with the truth. We are accused of saying that the Party exists for the Bund. This is untrue. We stand on two positions of principle which differ from each other. We are told that the principle on which the majority takes its stand is autonomy, and those who say this think they have said something. Yet the question is, to whom do they want to apply autonomy? We put forward our rules not as something higher than the Party rules but only as something that should be discussed first when we discuss the Party rules. Since there is a difference of principle between us, then, if you are men of principle, you will clarify these principles.

Lenin: I do not know if I am justified in pointing out to the congress something that is self-evident. It is unheard-of that the part should come before the whole.

The list of speakers was closed.

Gorin: I agree with Trotsky, and I think that the Bund agree with him too. Essentially, they are putting forward their own draft rules for the Party. This is an infringement of the agenda. We already have a draft, which we are discussing.

Lieber: I have to say that we shall take part in the discussion of the rules, but we reserve the right to speak, at the right time, about the exceptions concerning the Bund.

Glebov, the rapporteur of the rules commission, said that votes in the commission were so divided that the first article of the rules was presented in two different formulations [see the rules and Lenin’s resolution]. [Lenin’s resolution: ‘A member of the RSDLP is one who accepts its programme and supports the Party by personal participation in one of the party organisations.’]

Yegorov said that the existence of two tendencies in the definition of the concept ‘Party’ had become apparent. Lenin’s formulation narrowed the concept, whereas Martov’s [see the Rules] broadened it to the point of opening the door to ‘democratism’. We must not forget that, while we are an underground organisation, we are also linked with the broad masses. I fear that after saying A we may have to say B.

Akselrod: I think that we must draw a distinction between the concepts ‘Party’ and ‘organisation’. These two concepts are being confused here. And the confusion is dangerous. Let me recall the strictly secret and centralised organisations of the past: Zemlya i Volya and Narodnaya Volya. Around Zemlya i Volya were grouped a large number of people who did not belong to the organisation but who helped it in one way or another and who were regarded as Party members. Narodnaya Volya was even more discriminating, but it held to the same principle. This principle should be even more strictly observed in the Social-Democratic organisation. And, indeed, fet us take for example, a professor who regards himself as a Social-Democrat and declares himself as such. If we adopt Lenin’s formula we shall be throwing overboard a section of those who, even if they cannot be directly admitted to an organisation, are nevertheless Party members. First and foremost we are, of course, creating an organisation of the most active elements of the Party, an organisation of revolutionaries; but, since we are the party of a class, we must take care not to leave outside the Party ranks people who consciously, though perhaps not very actively, associate themselves with that Party.

Martov: The question we are discussing is an extremely important one. The more we wish to be revolutionaries, the more acute the attention we must give to the point raised by Comrade Akselrod. We are those who give conscious expression to an unconscious process. The Party organisation is the flywheel that sets in motion the work of the Party in our sense of the word. The question of rights and duties is decided by the statement: ‘there is the work you have to do’. I am not afraid of a ‘conspiratorial’ organisation. The rights of a Party member, according to our project, consist of bringing his views and desires to the attention of the centre. There is another right, to form public opinion, and the more the ‘conspirators’ take account of this opinion the less danger will arise from the question of ‘rights’. Let there be many organisations: they must increase. They cannot join the Party organisation, but the Party cannot get on without them. The more widespread the title of Party member the better. We could only rejoice if every striker, every demonstrator, answering for his actions, could proclaim himself a Party member. For me a conspiratorial organisation only has meaning when it is enveloped by a broad Social-Democratic working-class party.

Kostrov spoke of the two trends which had become apparent in the interpretation of the concept ‘Party’ and of the fact that organisation and Party were not the same thing, and proposed to unite the two formulations.

Posadovsky: Two points of view on the tasks of the Party have already been defined. One restricts the Party’s scope, the other broadens it. It is impossible to confine the sum-total of Party members to the sum-total of conspirators, but the expression ‘under the control’ defines inner-Party relations too vaguely, and I propose that it be replaced by the expression ‘under the direction of’.

Karsky considered that the difference between the formulations was very important. The first formulation deprived all those who did not personally participate in a direct way in an organisation of the possibility not only of regarding themselves as Party members but also, what was much more important, of helping to the best of their ability. The second formulation eliminated this disadvantage. I support it, but I agree with Comrade Posadovsky that the words: ‘under the control of’ should be replaced by ‘under the direction of’.

Brouckère: In discussing the first paragraph of the rules we have entered upon a question of very great importance—the organisational question. I disagree with the rules as a whole and with their entire spirit. I stand for the type of organisational system on which that local organisation is constructed to which I belong—the Petersburg Committee of the Union of Struggle—and I should like this to apply also in the way the Party is organised.

This year, organisational work was one of the principal and, in my view, most productive tasks carried out by the Committee. By the end of the year we had worked out a form of organisation which we regard as entirely good, and which I would call perfect but for the fact that new problems have arisen before us, as before all live organisations. Even before the split, the upsurge of the revolutionary movement made everyone aware of the need for centralisation, but whereas the majority of the committee, and one of the trends in the Petersburg Committee, decided in favour of a conspiratorial type of centralisation, like Narodnaya Volya, we stood and stand for the right of every active member of the organisation to influence the work of the Committee, the right, corresponding to his duties, to influence, directly or indirectly, elections to the Central Committee and to area committees. We can now say that we have no members without rights, just as there are none without duties. As for those sympathisers who from time to time, in one way or another, render us services, they cannot be regarded as members, since in our Party there can only be active members. To these sympathisers we allow the right to call themselves Social-Democrats and sympathisers with the Social-Democratic Party, a right of which, incidentally, we cannot deprive them, and also we can graciously grant them the right, which Comrade Martov proposed to give all Party members as their only right, apart from Party administration—the right to express their opinion, and not only to do this among themselves but also to bring it to the attention of the CC. All active members belong to one or other section of the organisation (committee groups, etc.), covering every form of work which every organisation has to carry out.

This year’s experience has convinced us that the right to influence the conduct of the Party is a mighty force for unity, excluding all possibility of discontent within the organisation, and so all possibility of a split. It fosters interest in the work, draws people into Party life, and develops all active forces. Only when these rights obtain is the Central Committee the real spokesman of the views of all working members and so of the whole organisation, and only then does it act in agreement with them. The strength of an organisation lies not only in the duties it imposes on its members but also in the rights which it confers upon them. This must apply in the Party, too. All its active members must have rights; rights cannot be given only to the active members, active members cannot be unconnected with the organisation. This connection must be regulated. I stand, therefore, for that formulation by which all members must belong to one of the organisations. As regards democratism, it cannot, of course, in itself frighten any conscious Social-Democrat. But Comrade Martov speaks of ‘so-called democratism’, something thought up in the heat of polemic, democratism carried to absurd lengths, which, like anything carried to an absurdity, is, of course, absurd, and therefore nonsense, as Comrade Martov put it, and I agree with him in this, but I consider that the type which he advocated is also a fantastic and nonsensical fabrication.

Trotsky: I fear that Lenin’s formula will create a fictitious organisation, one which will merely give its members a qualification but will not serve as a means for Party work. There will be created ‘fighting organisations’ such as the Tomsk organisation, the rules of which some of us have read, the aim, essence and basis of which will be not some practical task but the rules of the organisation themselves.

Lenin s poke briefly in defence of his formulation, stressing in particular that it provided a stimulus: ‘Organise!’ It should not be supposed that Party organisations must consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diverse organisations of all types, ranks and shades, beginning with extremely narrow and secret ones and ending with very broad, free lose Organisationen. Endorsement by the Central Committee was an essential condition for a Party organisation to be considered such.

Lyadov considered that it was necessary to add the requirement of giving material support to the Party, as he thought it extremely important to specify in this way, at least, a sign that someone belonged to an organisation.

Lieber: I fully agree with Comrades Akselrod and Martov. They have put the matter correctly. Comrade Lenin has refuted nothing and proved nothing. I draw the attention of the congress to a point that nobody has mentioned. There are Social-Democrats who accept the programme but who cannot and do not wish to join the organisation, as they consider that they can be of more use by remaining outside it. The Party must make use of these elements, for their help is often substantial. Comrade Lenin mixes up the question of organisation with that of particular persons. Our task is not merely to organise an organisation, we can an must organize a party.

Popov: After listening to the speeches of Comrade Martov and Akselrod I did not want to say anything more about this question, but now, after Comrade Lenin’s speech which, as I observed, troubled now comrades’ minds, I rise to speak again so as once more to put the question as it was put by Comrade Martov. The two drafts differ in the following words: Comrade Lenin’s says ‘personal participation’, while Comrade Martov’s says ‘personal assistance’. Both Lenin and Martov appreciate the importance of the organisational meaning of this point. As Comrade Martov has said, he has introduced this point in order to draw into the Party those elements which are at present neither in nor out of it. Comrade Lenin pursues, so he says, the same aim. He is told: you draw too narrowly the limits of the Party, confusing it with a secret organisation. He replies: thereby I provide a stimulus to organisation. Trotsky, foreseeing this, said: you will create hollow organisations. Lenin answers: that cannot happen, because all organisations have to be confirmed by the Central Committee. The CC, like ‘a spirit that is present everywhere and is everywhere the same’ [Lenin: ‘A fist!’][33] or, if Comrade Lenin wishes, like a fist that is present everywhere, thrusts itself into every corner, assigns everyone to an organisation, gives everyone work to do. But there are very extensive circles which take a very lively part in our work, but cannot join an organisation. I will not speak of Comrade Akselrod’s professor, perhaps it is not worth worrying about him, but we ought to concern ourselves about the high-school boys of whom Lieber spoke, and about the very wide circles of workers about whom I want to speak. Everywhere, in Petersburg as in Nikolayev and Odessa, as the representatives of these towns testify, there are dozens of workers who are distributing literature and carrying on word-of-mouth agitation, but who cannot be members of an organisation. They can be attached to an organisation, but not regarded as members. And here is the big difference between us in our very understanding of what is meant by belonging to an organisation. For me, a member of an organisation is one who bears responsibility for its actions. And if he bears responsibility, then he ought to take part also in discussing and deciding questions.

Strakhov: First, I must say that I cannot agree with any of the comrades who have just spoken and explained the origin of so-called ‘democratism’ by the absence of control over the activity of local organisations. In my view, the conditions for the rise of ‘democratism’ were quite different. At any rate, so far as Petersburg is concerned, what must be put in the foreground there is the non-admission to the organisation of the Union of active workers of that organisation, and refusal to recognise them as members, and also, connected with these negative tendencies of the Union at that time, its inability to satisfy the demands presented to it by the workers. However, I cannot talk about that now. As regards the question of membership which has arisen, I must say that Comrade Martov regards me as a supporter of his resolution only as a result of misunderstanding. I consider the membership formula put forward by Comrade Martov to be unsatisfactory. The control he proposes is impracticable. As I said before, in my view the only effective and reliable control is that which an organisation exercises over its members. In this matter I agree with Comrade Lenin.

In general, I would observe that it seems to me that comrades have spoken here about two different things, understanding membership in two different ways. Some, I think, understand the words ‘Party member’ in a narrower sense, as a member of the central organisation of the Party. Others embrace a wider definition, implying by ‘Party members’ all those persons in general who agree with the programme of the Party and are willing to help it. While in no way denying the practical importance of the first definition, I must point to the importance of the second, wider one. The thing is that our Party, as Comrade Lenin quite rightly said in his speech, must necessarily include a number of organisations of many different kinds, beginning with the central Party organisation and ending with trade unions which join the Party. The members of all these unions, who accept the programme and enter our Party, must be regarded as members of the Party. Such a broad definition of Party membership seems to me to be very important. It makes obvious to everyone the fact that a Party which includes workers’ organisations of every kind is the real defender of all the correctly-understood interests of the workers. And once this becomes apparent to the mass of the workers, then thereby the ground is cut from under the feet of the Zubatovites and other hypocritical defenders of the workers’ ‘true’ interests. The whole question is this, do we want to remain a conspiratorial organisation, or do we want to create a real workers’ party? I want the latter, and I propose that we consider as a member of the RSDLP everybody who wlorks in any of the organisations which are included in the Party.

Akselrod: Lenin attacked the weakest point in my speech. But I deliberately chose such an extreme example as a professor who unconditionally accepts our programme and even our tactics, in order to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the formula. But how are we to act towards study-groups of revolutionary young people, and in general towards groups which fully accept the Party’s programme and tactics, submit to the decisions of its central organisation, and declare that they belong to the Party? No decrees can forbid them, or any individuals, to call themselves Social-Democrats or even to regard themselves part of the Party. I favour a clear-cut demarcation between party and organisation, in the interests of the latter. One may be a sincere and devoted member of a Social-Democratic party and yet quite unsuitable as a member of a strictly centralised fighting organisation made up of professional revolutionaries. On the other hand the Party of the proletariat must not, on that account, be restricted to the narrow confines of a conspiratorial organisation, which would have to treat hundreds and even thousands of conscious proletarians as being outside the Party, not members of it. As formulated by Lenin, paragraph 1 directly conflicts in principle with the very nature and aims of the Social-Democratic party of the proletariat. But I observe I am knocking at an open door, because Comrade Lenin, with his peripheral circles which are to be regarded as part of the Party organisation, goes out to meet my demand. There still remain the individuals, but here too we could bargain.

Martynov: We are seeing something strange. Comrades speaking in defence of Martov’s resolution, which broadens the limits of our Party, are referring in their arguments to Lenin’s pamphlet What Is To Be Done? They are affirming, rightly, that, according to this Pamphlet, our organisation ought to consist only of professional revolutionaries. If this is so, they say, there is no room in the organisation for the whole Party. The author of What Is To Be Done?, who wants by his resolution to narrow the limits of the Party, having admitted the other day that he had bent the stick, now assures us that he does not conceive the organisation as being so narrow as was indicated in his pamphlet, and that in the Party, together with the organisation of professional revolutionaries, there will also be a place for lose Organisationen. This being so, he says, there is nothing terrible in narrowing the Party down to the limits of its organisation.

Evidently it would not be difficult for us to come into conflict regarding the frontiers of the Party if we were to decide unambiguously what sort of organisation we want to have in this Party. An amazing confusion of concepts has been shown to exist among us on that matter. Some have said here that our organisation must be centralised and clandestine (konspirativnaya ), and therefore conspiratorial. I say that there is no ‘therefore’ about it, that these ideas are not the same, even though the French-derived word konspiratsiya is used both as a synonym of ‘conspiracy’ and also in the sense of ‘underground’ activity.

While recognising that our organisation must be centralised and extremely clandestine I say at the same time that it must be different, in principle and fundamentally, from a conspiratorial one. These two types of organisation presuppose completely different class bases. The conspiratorial type cannot be proletarian, but must be a radical party basing itself on miscellaneous democratic elements which are subject to transient and changing political moods. Our Party is based on the proletariat, on a class with a definite historical tendency. Since conspirators are not backed by a mass which is united by uniform and lasting tendencies, and are linked with few people in their activity, they act secretly, behind the backs of those whose interests they defend, and use the changing moods of these sections for arbitrary political combinations. A revolutionary Social-Democratic organisation is a different affair. It is merely the conscious spokesman of the class movement of the proletariat. It does not act behind the back of the proletariat but merely guides it, helping it to become aware of its interests and consciously, purposefully to fight for them.

Consequently, the Social-Democratic organisation of professional revolutionaries (in the central and local committees) must, unlike a conspiratorial organisation, be organically linked with the massel, and specifically with the proletarian masses, by a whole network of more or less broad, more or less close-knit organisations. I repeat, the Social-Democratic organisation must always be strictly centralised, and under Russian political conditions it must also be strictly clandestine, but by its very nature it can never be conspiratorial. If we recognised this principle without any ambiguity, it would not be difficult for us to settle the question of the limits of our Party.

Akimov: I agree with what Comrade Martov said and hope that that will not do him any harm. I agree with the formula presented by Martov not because it defines exactly the relation I desire to see existing between Party and organisation, but merely because it takes a step forward along the road to a correct solution of the problem.

The session was closed.

Twenty-third Session[edit source]

(Present, 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Martov: Out of all the objections advanced against my formula I will deal with the one about the impracticability of my first paragraph, that is, control by Party organisations over members of the Party. I think the position is just the reverse of what has been said. Control is practicable, inasmuch as, having assigned a function to somebody, the committee will be able to watch over it. The purpose aimed at by Lenin’s rules, however, is essentially unrealisable. In Lenin’s opinion, there should be no organisations in the Party other than ‘Party organisations’. As I see it, on the contrary, such other organisations must exist. Life creates and breeds organisations faster than we can include them in the hierarchy of our fighting organisation of professional revolutionaries. Lenin thinks that the Central Committee will confer the title of Party organisations only on such as are fully reliable in the matter of principles. But Comrade Brouckère understands very well that life will assert itself and that the CC, in order not to leave a multitude of organisations outside the Party, will have to legitimise them despite their not quite reliable character; that is why Comrade Brouckère associates himself with Lenin.

I for my part think that if such an organisation is prepared to accept the Party programme and Party control then we may admit it to the Party, without thereby making it a Party organisation. I would consider it a great triumph for our Party if, for example, some union of ‘independents’ were to declare that they accepted the views of Social-Democracy and its programme, and were joining the Party which does not, however, mean that we would include the union in the Party organisation. I support Lenin’s idea that we need to have, besides an organisation of professional revolutionaries, also lose Organisationen of various sorts. But only our formula expressed the desire to have a series of organisations between the organisation of professional revolutionaries and the masses. For us the workers’ party does not consist only of an organisation of professional revolutionaries. It is that, plus the whole aggregate of active, advanced elements of the proletariat.

Plekhanov: I had no preconceived view on the paragraph of the rules now being discussed. When, this morning, I heard the supporters of the two opposing views speak, I found that I leaned now to this side, now to that’. But the more that was said on the subject and the more attentively I listened to the speeches the more convinced I became that Lenin is right. The whole question bolls down to this: what elements can be included in our Party? According to Lenin’s draft, only someone who joins a particular organisation can be regarded as a Party member. Those who oppose his draft say that this will cause unnecessary difficulties. But what do these difficulties consist of? They talk of persons who do not want to join, or who can’t join, one of our organisations. But why can’t they? As someone who has himself taken part in Russian revolutionary organisations, I say that I do not admit the existence of objective conditions constituting an insuperable obstacle to anyone’s joining. And as for those gentlemen who do not wan t to join, we have no need of them. It has been said here that some professor who sympathises with our views may find it humiliating to join a local organisation. In this connection I remember Engels saying that when it becomes your lot to deal with professors, you have to be prepared for the worst. [Laughter.] The example is, in fact, an extremely bad one. If some Professor of Egyptology considers, because he has by heart the names of all the Pharaohs, and knows all the prayers that the Egyptians submitted to the bull Apis, that it is beneath his dignity to join our organisation, we have no need of that professor. To talk of control by the Party over persons who are outside the organisation means playing with words. In practice such control is impossible. Akselrod was wrong in citing the 1870s. At that time there was a well-organised and splendidly disciplined centre; around it there were the organisations, of various categories, which it had created; and what remained outside these organisations was chaos, anarchy. The component members of this chaos called themselves Party members, but that harmed rather than benefited the cause. We should not imitate the anarchy of the 1870s, but avoid it.

The supporters of Martov’s draft say that the right to call oneself a Party member has great moral significance. But I do not agree. If it is all useful to recall the example of the 1870s, then it is in this very connection. When Zhelyabov said in court that he was not a member of the Executive Committee, but only one of its agents, at the fourth level of trust, this did not reduce the fascination exerted by that famous Committee, but enhanced it. It will be the same now. If somebody says that he sympathises with our Party but does not belong to it because, unfortunately, he cannot satisfy all its requirements, the Party’s prestige will only increase as a result.

I do not understand, either, why it is thought that, if Lenin’s draft is adopted, that will shut the door of our Party on a lot of workers. Workers who want to join the Party are not afraid of entering an organisation. Discipline has no terrors for them. Many intellectuals, thoroughly imbued with bourgeois individualism, are afraid of joining an organisation. But that is a good thing. These bourgeois individualists are usually also representatives of every sort of opportunism. We need to keep them at arm’s length. Lenin’s draft can serve as a bulwark against their entry into the Party, and if only for that reason all opponents of opportunism should vote for it.

Rusov: I have no sympathy with opportunists and Bernsteinists and should not like to see them in the Party, but I cannot agree with Comrade Plekhanov. It seems to me that the danger which Comrade Lenin presents as threatening us if we adopt the second formula is quite unreal. The title of ‘Party member’ which is conferred by the rules does not give the person who bears it any rights in relation to the Party, but only a mass of obligations. Given the absence of the electoral principle in all Party organisations, the strict centralisation that prevails, and the answerability of everybody working for the Party to its central institutions, there is no reason to fear penetration by elements constituting a threat to purity of principles. After all, those members of whom Lenin’s formula speaks are already in Party organisations, registered, and with duties in the sphere of competence of the organisation to which they belong. In order that they may be regarded as Party members and have imposed upon them the duty of helping the Party, there is no need to introduce a new title.

Comrade Lenin would be logical if he were to strike out the whole of the first paragraph, or replace it with a paragraph stating that a basic unit of the Party is any group, any organisation, which is confirmed by the central organs of the Party and which fulfils some Party function. But, in adopting this, we should be leaving outside the Party that mass of proletarians and individual townspeople who, while not belonging to any Party organisation, serve as instruments in the hands of the organisation for accomplishing its tasks. Every practical worker present here, if he will only try to recall all the persons who work in the localities, will agree that people like that are especially numerous among the workers. Attaching them to the Party, while doing no harm at all to its work and its ideological purity, will at the same time enable it to know at any moment the minimum force upon which it can count. In addition, such attachment will enable the Party to require of all these persons that they fulfil unconditionally the obligations which the Party imposes upon its members. These obligations can be particular Party resolutions and also decisions by the central organs. Reminding comrades, once again, that a Party member will have no rights but, on the contrary, a mass of obligations towards the Party, I invite you to support Comrade Martov’s resolution.

Pavlovich: I always treat with some caution Comrade Brouckère’s declarations of solidarity with us on any question. In the present instance, Comrade Brouckère is with us owing to a misunderstanding. Comrade Lenin’s entire organisational plan is unified by the idea of centralism. But Comrade Lenin has tried to ensure that the negative aspects of centralism are present to the least possible extent. As a supporter of ‘democratism’, Comrade Brouckère was led into error by the first paragraph. It is certainly not to our interest to dilute the Party’s ranks with dubious elements. I appreciate his good intentions, but his mistake lies in that he sees the process of a growth of the Social-Democratic movement not dynamically but statically. Acceptance of the programme presupposes, after all, a fairly high level of Political consciousness. But if we are to go the way of Martov, we should first of all delete the clause on accepting the programme, for before a programme can be accepted it must be mastered and understood. Lenin’s paragraph provides for acceptance not only of the programme but also of the relations laid down by the Party rules. Translated into simple terms this means (though the translation may not please Comrade Lieber): ‘If you want to be a Party member, your acceptance of organisational relations too must be not merely Platonic.’

We have been told here about those individuals—professors and officials—who are not afraid to go under the canopy of Martov’s resolution but are frightened by Comrade Lenin’s. But, comrades, the Party rules are written not for professors but for proletarians, who are not so shy as professors, and they, I hope, are not afraid of organisation and collective activity. In general, rules are written not for individuals but for collectives. I will go further and say: these individuals who do not have the sanction of any Party organisation cannot be called, either formally or really, representatives of the Party. As for those affiliated organisations, of high-school boys, writers, correspondents, and so on, about whom Lieber is so concerned, I say to him that all that is needed is simply for one of our organisations to decide how Social-Democratic they are and assign them functions and responsibility in the appropriate field, and within that field they will have to bring their actions into line with ours. If these high-school boys and students persist in their bourgeois outlook, then I see in that no loss to the Social-Democratic movement. By adopting Martov’s formula we irresponsibly admit an anarchic mass to membership of the Party. We must not proceed from the assumption that Russia is a tabula rasa. Even today there is not a single important centre in Russia where we do not have an organisation, or the elements of one. How we are to reconcile the conception of our Party, ramified all over Russia, with the existence, acting alongside of it, of some irresponsible persons who have enrolled themselves in the Party, and how this anarchistic conception is to be reconciled with Comrade Martov’s own statement that our Party must be the conscious spokesman of an unconscious process, I leave it to the comrades to decide.

Muravyov: I think Comrade Rusov’s objection to Lenin’s draft, that it would leave many people outside the Party, is without foundation. Lenin’s plan embraces, besides ‘Party organisations’ in the strict sense, a number of other organisations, which various circles and individuals can easily join.

Trotsky: I was very surprised when Comrade Plekhanov advocated voting for Comrade Lenin’s formula on the grounds that it is a reliable means against opportunism. I did not know that one could exorcise opportunism by means of rules. I think that opportunism is produced by more complex causes. Finally, I did not realise that opportunists are organically incapable of organisation. I know the Jaurésist party, which is organised opportunism. I have not forgotten the organisation of our economists. No, it seems to me that this dispute is much less principled in character. Why cannot a person join our organisation, if he accepts our programme? asks Comrade Plekhanov, and answers: This is obviously a question of intellectuals’ individualism, and we must fight against that.

But the point is that Lenin’s formula, against intellectuals’ individualism, hits a quite different target. It is much easier for the intellectual youth, organised in one way or another, to enter themselves on the rolls of the Party. Societies of high-school pupils, Red Cross organisations, and especially organisations of students coming from the same part of the country are very much longer-lasting than any broad (lose ) workers’ organisations. Organisations of students from the same area survive for several years, whereas broad workers’ organisations break up daily, under the impact of strikes, crises and migration by the workers. So, Comrade Lenin’s definition takes its stand on the difference in conditions between the intelligentsia and the workers. The author of this definition says that it enables us to know at any moment what forces we can lead into battle; but I am afraid that when Comrade Lenin looks at his lists at the critical moment, he will find there societies of students from the same area, and young ladies, very good Social-Democratic young ladies, grouped in the Red Cross … I do not accord any mystical significance to the rules, and I don’t think that they will shift the centre of gravity of our work into the milieu of societies of students from the same area and Young ladies belonging to the Red Cross. No, our field of work will remain, as before, of course, the proletariat. But if statutory definitions are to correspond to actual relations, Comrade Lenin’s formulation must be rejected. I repeat: it misses its mark. Its author, and, especially, its defender, Comrade Plekhanov, want to make it a noose to hang those politically corrupt and depraved characters from the ‘intellectual’ milieu, calling themselves Social-Democrats, who form Young people into groups and hand them over to Peter Struve. Believe me, comrades, I would be the first to grasp at any formula that would serve as a noose for those gentry, I would pull it tight with enthusiasm. But won’t these gentry be able to join any broad (lose ) Party organisation? Won’t they be able to form for themselves some such organisation? You will say that the CC wouldn’t recognise it. Why not? Obviously, not because of the character of the organisation itself, but because of that of the persons belonging to it. That means that the CC Will know MM and NN as political personalities. But in that case they would not be dangerous, and would be got rid of by a general Party boycott. But what is the sense, I ask, of restricting the rights and status of those individual intellectuals who take their stand on the Party programme and renler services to the Party in their individual capacity, under the direction of a Party organisation? Must the CC say to any such individual Social-Democrat living in the town of Penza: ‘Before you can enjoy your minimum rights as a Party member you must link up with similar individuals in Samara and Kaluga. This is because we have now thought up a formula for keeping your intellectual individualism at bay.’[34]

Lenin: I should like first of all to make two remarks on particular points. First, as regards Akselrod’s kind proposal (I am not speaking ironically) to ‘strike a bargain’. I would willingly respond to this appeal, for I do not at all consider our difference so vital as to be a matter of life and death for the Party. We shall certainly not perish because of a bad point in the rules! But since it has come to a choice between two formulations, I simply cannot abandon my firm conviction that Martov’s formulation is a worsening of the original draft, a worsening which may, in certain circumstances, cause no little harm to the Party. My second remark concerns Comrade Brouckère. It is only natural for Comrade Brouckère, who wants to apply the elective principle everywhere, to have accepted my formulation, the only one that defines at all exactly the conception of a member of the Party. I therefore fail to understand Comrade Martov’s delight at Comrade Brouckère’s agreement with me. Can it be that Comrade Martov actually takes it as his guiding principle to be against whatever Brouckère says, without examining this comrade’s motives and arguments?

To come to the substance of the question, I must say that Comrade Trotsky has completely failed to understand Comrade Plekhanov’s fundamental idea, and his arguments have therefore entirely missed the heart of the matter. He spoke about intellectuals and workers, about the class point of view and about the mass movement, but he failed to notice one basic question: does my formulation narrow or enlarge the concept of a Party member? If he had asked himself that question, he would easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept, whereas Martov’s enlarges it, for what distinguishes his concept is (to use Martov’s own, correct expression) its ‘elasticity. And in the period of the Party’s life which we are now passing through it is just this ‘elasticity’ that most certainly opens the door to all the elements of confusion, vacillation and opportunism. In order to refute this simple and obvious conclusion it would be necessary to show that such elements do not exist, but even Comrade Trotsky has not thought of doing that. Nor can it be shown, for everyone knows that such elements exist in plenty, and that they are to be found in the working class too. Safeguarding the firmness of the Party’s line and the purity of its principles has now become all the more urgent because, with the restoration of its unity, the Party will recruit many unstable elements, whose numbers will increase as the Party grows.

Comrade Trotsky understood very incorrectly the fundamental idea of my book What Is To Be Done?, when he spoke about the Party not being a conspiratorial organisation (many others also raised this objection). He forgot that in my book I advocate a whole series of organisations of different types, from the most secret and exclusive to comparatively broad and ‘loose’ (lose ) organisations. He forgot that the Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast mass of the working class, the whole of which (or nearly the whole) works ‘under the control and direction’ of the Party organisations, but the whole of which does not and should not belong to the Party. Let us look, indeed, and see what conclusions Comrade Trotsky derives from his fundamental mistake. He has told us here that if rank after rank of workers were arrested, and all these workers were to declare that they did not belong to our Party, our Party would be a strange one! Isn’t it the other way round? Isn’t it Comrade Trotsky’s reasoning that is strange? He sees as something sad that which a revolutionary with any experience at all could only rejoice at. If hundreds and thousands of workers who were arrested for taking part in strikes and demonstrations proved not to be members of Party organisations, that would only show that our organisations are good, that we are fulfilling our task of keeping a more or less exclusive circle of leaders in secrecy and drawing the widest possible masses into the movement.

The root of the mistake made by those who support Martov’s formulation is that they not only overlook one of the main evils of our Party life but even give it their blessing. This evil is that, in an atmosphere of almost universal discontent, when conditions require our work to be carried on in complete secrecy, and when most of our activity has to be confined to close, secret groups and even private meetings, it extremely difficult, almost impossible, for us to distinguish those who chatter from those who do the work. And there is hardly any other place where the jumbling of these two categories is as common, and as productive of such boundless confusion and harm as in Russia. We are suffering severely from this evil, not only among the intelligentsia but also among the working class, and Comrade Martov’s formulation sanctions it. This formulation inevitably aspires to make all and sundry into Party members. Comrade Martov himself had to admit this, with the comment: ‘Yes, if you like.’ But that is just what we do not like! And that is just why we are so resolute in our opposition to Martov’s formulation. It would be better if ten who do work should not call themselves Party members (those who really work don’t run after titles!) than that one chatterer should have the right and the opportunity to be a Party member. That is a principle which seems to me irrefutable, and which compels me to oppose Martov.

The objection has been put to me that we confer no rights upon Party members, and that therefore no abuses can occur. Such an objection is untenable: while we have not stated what particular rights a Party member enjoys, note that neither have we said anything about any restriction on the rights of Party members. That is point one. And secondly—and this is the main point—irrespective even of rights, we must not forget that every Party member is responsible for the Party, and that the Party is responsible for every one of its members. In view of the conditions in which we have to carry on our political activities, in view of the rudimentary state of our political organisation at the present time, it would be simply dangerous and harmful to grant the right of membership to persons who are not members of an organisation and to make the Party responsible for persons who are not members of an organisation (perhaps deliberately). Comrade Martov was horrified at the idea that somebody may, in spite of the energetic work he may have done, lack the right to declare in court that he is a Party member. That does not frighten me. On the contrary, serious harm would be done if a person who calls himself a Party member, even though he does not belong to any Party organisation, were to show up badly in court. It would be impossible to deny that such a person was working under the control and direction of an organisation—impossible because of the very vagueness of this expression. Actually—and there can be no doubt about this—the words ‘under the control and direction’ will result in there being neither control nor direction. The Central Committee will never be able to exercise real control over all who work but do not belong to organisations. It is our task to endow the Central Committe with real control. It is our task to safeguard the firmness and maintain the purity of our Party. We must strive to raise the calling and importance of a Party member high, higher and still higher—and for this reason I oppose Martov’s formulation.

Kostrov: The rules exist for life, life does not exist for the rules. Let us look and see to what extent Lenin’s draft of the rules corresponds to the actual state of affairs. We have Social-Democratic Committees consisting of a few advanced revolutionaries. These committees stand at the head of the local labour movement. Behind them, behind these leaders, there is a whole mass of fighters, revolutionary workers who distribute proclamations, collect money, demonstrate in the streets, go to prison and into exile, but who do not belong either to a Committee or to any other organisation. Are these fighters, these soldiers of ours, not Party members? Must we exclude them from the Party? Who will be left in the Party? Only generals without an army. That means disorganising all our work in Russia, and setting our own comrades against the Party. Comrade Plekhanov says that in the days of Narodnaya Volya the party was identical with the organisation. I believe that to be true, but we must not forget that the Narodnaya Volya party was a party of intellectuals, whereas ours is a party of the masses, of the proletariat. And one cannot include the masses in the organisation: that would be unthinkable in the present state of Russia. Consequently, our Party must consist of the organisation, those prime movers of the Party, plus a mass of fighters who are outside the organisation but are still members of the Party. Therefore, adopting Lenin’s draft means disorganising the entire party, and I propose that it be rejected.

Akimov: The question of the choice between two versions of the first paragraph of the rules has divided comrades who up to now have always voted together. On this matter I part company with Comrade Brouckère. This is because the two formulas proposed have essentially one and the same aim. Comrades Martov and Lenin are arguing as to which of their formulations will best achieve their common aim; Brouckère and I want to choose the one which is least likely to achieve that aim. From this angle I choose Martov’s formulation. Many have spoken here about which version will best protect our Party from harmful elements, and as an illustration we have had given us the example of the professor of archaeology who is to be either admitted to the Party or not admitted, depending on the degree of purity of his Social-Democratic views. This example was taken only so as to hide the fear felt by the authors of the draft at the entry into our Party of elements of a type quite different from that mythical professor.

Comrade Plekhanov said this morning he did not know which of the two formulations he was going to support, but that does not mean, of course, that he had not already decided what sort of organisation our Party needed. Already in his commentaries on the draft programme, Plekhanov expressed himself quite definitely on that point. ‘If we are not mistaken,’ he wrote, ‘there is not one of our comrades who now has any doubt that our Party needs an organisation of the same type as Zemlya i Volya and Narodnaya Volya; they disagree only about the quickest way to achieve that’—I quote from memory. And now both authors are presenting the congress with texts of Paragraph One of the rules which seek to achieve that aim. Their very aim is impracticable and harmful. Too much has changed since the days when Narodnaya Volya perished: quite different strata of society are now the chief bearers of revolutionary tasks, and the tasks themselves have changed considerably. Even a priori i t seems impossible that a mass, class movement of the proletariat can be satisfied with the old conspiratorial organisation. Of course, the average revolutionary worker of today inevitably must be on a lower level as regards knowledge, and even as regards consciousness, than the ‘professional revolutionary’, and so you want to lock yourselves up in a special ‘organisation of revolutionaries’, and devise a set of rules to ensure that the non-professional revolutionary cannot, with his uneducated conception of the tasks of our Party, spoil all our work. I am glad that you have taken care to fence yourselves in. I am confident that the realities of life will, nevertheless, force their way into our Party organisation, whether you bar their path with Martov’s formulation or with Lenin’s. But while Comrade Lenin finds that Martov’s text is not such a serious worsening of his plan, I recognise in it an improvement, even if not too big an improvement, because Lenin’s formula shuts out of our Party the entire mass of its active workers, leaving only a handful of ‘professional revolutionaries’.

Gusev: It falls to my lot to be the last to speak. After all that has been said, I have nothing to add. I am for Lenin’s formulation, because it comes closer to the plan of organisation expressed in the rules which have been put before us.

The Congress voted. Lenin’s formulation was rejected (in a roll-call vote) by 28 to 23. [Voting for were: Bekov (2 votes), Gusev, Tsaryov, Osipov, Medvedev, Pavlovich, Stepanov, Sorokin, Lyadov, Gorin, Muravyov, Lange, Dyedov, Orlov, Yegorov, Gorsky, Brouckère, Plekhanov, Lenin (2 votes), Hertz, Braun. Voting against weré: Rusov (2 votes), Karsky (2 votes), Makhov (2 votes), Lvov (2 votes), Kostich, Ivanov, Panin (2 votes), Byelov, Fomin, Posadovsky, Trotsky, Lensky, Popov, Akimov, Martynov, Deutsch, Martov (2 votes), Hofman, Goldblatt, Lie ber, Yudin, Abramson.]

Martov’s formulation was adopted by 28 to 22, with one abstention. [Voting for were: Rusov (2 votes), Karsky (2 votes), Makhov (2 votes), Lvov (2 votes), Kostich, Ivanov, Panin (2 votes), Byelov, Fomin, Trotsky, Posadovsky, Lensky, Popov, Akimov, Martynov, Deutsch, Martov (2 votes), Hofman, Goldblatt, Yudin, Lieber, Abramson. Voting against : Bekov (2 votes), Gusev, Tsaryov, Osipov, Medvedev, Pavlovich, Stepanov, Sorokin, Lyadov, Gorin, Muravyov, Lange, Dyedov, Yegorov, Gorsky, Brouckère, Plekhanov, Lenin (2 votes), Hertz, Braun. Abstention: Orlov.]

Lyadov proposed that paragraph 1 should include the words: ‘supports the party financially’.

Martov: I was in a minority in the commission when it was proposed to include the point about financial support. This point is becoming especially important now, when the Social-Democratic movement is becoming increasingly proletarian. The Party must count on its own financial resources exclusively. Consequently we must train the mass of the membership to show constant concern for the Party’s funds.

The list of speakers on this question was closed.

Yegorov: I agree that the Party must exist on the resources provided by its members. But it does not follow that this should be said in paragraph 1, for the rendering of fmancial support cannot be a condition of membership. I propose that the obligation of Party members to render financial support to the Party be embodied in a separate paragraph.

Lieber proposed excluding ‘financial support’ from paragraph 1. He considered that these words would do nothing to ensure the flow of money into the Party. At the same time there was an unpleasant note sounded here, as though Party membership was something to be bought with financial contributions.

Glebov also called for the deletion of these words. This point might be needed for professors, but certainly not for broad strata of the workers, for reference to paragraph 1 had no meaning for the proletariat.

Lenin urged that the words about financial support be included, since everyone acknowledged that the Party must exist on its members’ resources. One could not allude to moral considerations when dealing with the establishment of a political party.

The proposal to include the words about financial support was adopted by 26 to 18.

Akimov proposed a different formulation of paragraph 1 [Akimov’s resolution: ‘A member of the RSDLP is one who accepts the basic propositions of its programme and renders personal assistance to the Party under the direction of one of its organisations.’] and said, in support of it: I propose this amendment in order that our rules may not contradict unavoidable reality. Very few conscious members of our Party will be found who are absolutely in agreement with all the theses of the programme. And yet, according to paragraph 1 of the draft, even somebody who disagrees only with the agrarian part of the programme cannot be a Party member. It is therefore necessary to say that only the basic propositions of the programme must be shared by every member. This will correspond to the rules of the Social-Democratic Parties of Western Europe. I recall that Kautsky disagreed with Adler on one important question of the programme which was adopted by a congress. But this could not prevent Kautsky and Adler from remaining in the same party.

Martov proposed that Comrade Akimov’s amendment be rejected, since every member of the Party was bound to accept its programme as a whole.

Lieber spoke for Comrade Akimov’s amendment. ‘Member of the Party’ was a fairly broad concept. In so far as Comrade Martov meant members of the organisation, he was right, but it was not possible to require such a degree of unanimity on all points of the programme from all those who joined the Party.

Trotsky considered Comrade Lieber’s explanations unsound. The programme was unconditionally binding on all Party members.

Pavlovich: I am surprised that Martov does not agree with Akimov. Comrade Akimov’s proposal is fully logical from the standpoint of Comrade Martov, since we have thrown out Comrade Lenin’s formulation of paragraph 1 and adopted that formulation which will open the door to non-Social-Democratic elements.

Martynov considered that the programme was binding on all Party members in the same degree. From the fact that all members might not be equally conscious it did not follow at all that they might not be equally agreed on the programme.

Plekhanov urged that Akimov’s proposal be absolutely rejected, since otherwise the doors of the Party would be opened to Bernsteinians and all sorts of bourgeois economists.

Rusov proposed that the discussion be closed.

This proposal was adopted, and the congress voted. Kostrov’s resolution [Kostrov’s resolution: ‘A member of the RSDLP is one who accepts its programme and who supports the Party by personal participation in one of the Party organisations or by rendering personal assistance under the direction of these organisations.’] was rejected. Kostich’s resolution was rejected. [Kostich’s resolution: ‘Anyone who accepts the Party programme, and who helps the Party by giving financial support and regular personal assistance under the direction of one of the Party organisations, is considered by the latter as a Party member.’xx] Rejected likewise were (1) Gusev’s amendment (to insert ‘constant’ before ‘direction’) and (2) Pavlovich’s amendment (to add ‘and accepts the general Party rules’). Comrade Akimov’s resolution was rejected.

Paragraph 1 as a whole was adopted by 35 to 1, with 12 abstentions. The rapporteur read Paragraph 2 of the rules.

Tsaryov proposed, in the first place, to substitute for ‘half the votes’—‘one-third of the votes’.

Lieber drew attention to the difficulty of convening a congress. In Russia, where organisational work was only beginning, it was necessary to approach the question of convening a congress with very great caution. One had to distinguish between the initiative for a congress and the right to convene a congress. He therefore proposed a change in the formulation.[Lieber’s resolution: ‘In an emergency a congress can be convened on the initiative of one-third of the deciding votes, if not less than two-thirds of the deciding votes are cast in favour of it.’]

Martov spoke against the amendments by Lieber and Tsaryov. He considered it necessary to keep the provision that an initiative required half the votes having the right to participate in a congress, but with the final decision on calling a congress left to the CC, which could communicate with the other committees.

Yegorov also proposed a change. [Yegorov’s resolution: ‘A congress is to be convened on the initiative of one-third of the votes, if one-half of the votes are east in favour of this.’]

Akimov proposed that the words ‘if possible’ be deleted. All the amendments and changes were rejected, and Paragraph 2 was adopted by the majority.

The session was closed.

Twenty-fourth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

The session opened with the reading of the minutes of the ninth session.

Martynov (commenting on the minutes as read): In the report given of Comrade Lenin’s speech it is said of me, among other things, that I defended opportunist ideas at the congress, upholding the theory of accumulation [?][35] and denying the theory of impoverishment and the dictatorship of the proletariat. I declare that Lenin did not say that about me, and could not have said it, because, directly before he spoke, I had categorically stated that I did not deny either the dictatorship of the proletariat or the theory of impoverishment.

I have, of course, nothing against Lenin’s adding something new to what he said earlier. But I regard it as important to note that he considered it necessary to do this at the present stage of the debate, and belatedly to add something to a speech he made some time ago.

Lenin said that no changes had been made by him in his speech.

Lvov drew attention to a not quite accurate formulation in the minutes of his speech about the Bund: he had spoken about the harm caused by alienation from the Polish Socialists in general, and not merely about the events of May of last year.

Lieber: I have nothing against this amendment.

The rapporteur of the rules commission read Paragraph 3 of the rules. Personally, he thought it necessary to insist on special representation of the Central Committee at Party congresses. Members of the CC who were on the Party Council could not represent the CC at a Congress, since the CC might disappear, and a new one be formed, With different views.

Trotsky proposed that discussion of paragraph 3 be postponed, as it was not possible to decide the question of the representation of the Party’s central institutions at a congress before the character of these institutions had been clarified.

At Lenin’s suggestion, the congress decided to discuss that part of the paragraph which did not relate to the highest organs of the Party, and to come back to the rest of it when they discussed paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.

Rusov moved that note 2 to paragraph 3 (see paragraph 3 of the rules, with notes) be altered so that the CC had the right to invite to a congress, with consultative voice, representatives of any organisation at all, and not just those which were mentioned in the note.

Goldblatt: I propose two amendments to the paragraph we are discussing. The first concerns the expression ‘association of committees’ which appears in it. This is something new, not previously found in our terminology, and which has been introduced, apparently, so as to embrace in one expression two different concepts, namely, both territorial and national organisations. The subsuming of these two categories under one designation seems to me to be unsuitable, first because it implies a certain mutual levelling of these two radically different types of organisations, and, secondly, because the concept ‘national organisation’—and perhaps this applies also to the concept ‘territorial organisation’—does not completely fit into the concept ‘association of committees’. A national organisation is not a mere association of committees but something greater than that, an integral organism, strongly bound together by ties which are not at all mechanical, and consisting not of committees only but also of a number of other organisations. In view of this, I propose that unclarity be avoided and that the vague words ‘association of committees’ be replaced by the unambiguous terms ‘territorial and national organisations’.

Now for my second amendment. I propose that the representation of an organisation at a congress be not confined to a single delegate, but that there be two of them. My reasons are twofold. On the one hand, it is necessary to enable a minority to be represented at a congress. This is required both by justice and by considerations of expediency, since thereby it will be easier to avoid splits in the committees. On the other, allowing the committees to send only one delegate leads to their representatives being overwhelmed at a congress by the representatives of the central institutions. Let me offer a little calculation in terms of figures. If we assume that we have 20 committees, then the number of delegates with the right to attend a congress will be 27—20 delegates from the committees, plus five from the Party Council, plus two from the Central Committee and the Central Organ. A congress is considered valid if more than half of its members are present, that is, in this case, 14 members. An absolute majority, decisive on all questions, will be provided by eight persons. Consequently, it will be sufficient for the central institutions, with their seven votes, to attract to their side just one other vote, and then they can decide all questions against the will of the rest of the committees. The inexpediency of this is obvious, and so I propose that committees, and those organisations which are put on the same level with committees for this purpose, be given the right to send two delegates to a congress.

Martov: It is the unwieldiness of a congress, and the risks to security it presents, that dictate the restriction in the number of delegates. Each delegate can be given two votes, but there cannot be more than one delegate from each committee. I did not understand what Comrade Goldblatt meant about ‘associations of committees recognised by the Party’. No insult was intended in putting national and territorial associations on the same level, but it was not possible to enumerate them, since there could be associations of various kinds.

Glebov did not agree with Rusov’s amendment. The Central Committee should only be given the right to send persons with consultative voice to a congress.

Lieber: Goldblatt’s points have not been refuted by Martov. At a congress we need to get a complete picture of the trends that exist in the Party, and so it is necessary to have representation of both the minority and the majority. Comrade Martov proposes that each dele-gate be given two votes. But that would merely double the number of votes. I, too, am against the expression ‘association of committees’. It is far too indefinite and lacks content. We have on our agenda an item about territorial and national organisations. Why are the other types of association of which Comrade Martov spoke not mentioned there? Because they do not exist. And, this being so, there is no need to include them in the Party rules. Literally, an ‘association of committees’ signifies the Party. The point is not whether a particular organisation is an association of committees but what the basis is on which these committees are associated. I propose that the vague expression ‘association of committees’ be replaced by the expression ‘territorial and national organisations’, which is the one used in the agenda.

Glebov: The congress has already adopted a special resolution to the effect that the rules of national organisations will be given in special appendices to the general rules. Therefore Comrade Lieber’s proposal is not acceptable. Besides, national organisations are covered by the expression ‘association of committees’. As for the proposal that each organisation send two delegates to a congress, let me recall that the arrangements for a congress involve tremendous difficulties. Representation of trends is also impossible, as there may be three or four of these in a committee. Should not four delegates be sent, then? Besides, a minority can always appeal to the CC, to the Central Organ, to the Party Council, and, in the last resort, to a congress, which can invite their representatives to attend with consultative voice.

Kostich: Lieber’s end will not be achieved by his means, because the majority will always elect its own two delegates.

Kostrov: Comrade Goldblatt’s misgivings about the expression ‘association of committees’ seem to me to be uncalled-for. This expression includes both national and territorial associations. As regards the number of votes to be allowed to local organisations at a congress, I consider they should certainly be given two votes, and this is why: the life of our Party and the questions which Party life brings up are becoming more and more complicated. We have a Party programme, we shall have rules and tactics decided on, and all this will be turned over to the local organisations for them to discuss and to implement. Where such complex questions and actions are concerned it is inevitable that different tendencies will appear in the organisations, and to give representation to the majority trend does not necessarily mean giving representation to the correct line. The minor-ity may be correct, and to deprive it of the possibility of defending its view at a Party congress means harming the Party itself. It is said that inviting extra delegates to a congress is difficult for reasons of security and cost. That is true. Accordingly, should it not be laid down that committees are to have two votes each, and are to be represented by one delegate, but with this addition: a committee will send two delegates only in those cases when it is found necessary to ensure representation of its minority and majority trends at a congress. I propose that article 3 be amended in this sense.

Goldblatt: Comrade Glebov’s objections are not convincing. His reference to the fact that the representation of national organisations will be defined by a special set of rules is inconclusive, since what is involved here is not the character of representation but merely a clear and precise enumeration. His reference, too, to the fact that there will be a note distinguishing between the two types of organisation of which I spoke, is not true, because the note employs the very same expression: ‘associations of committees’. One of the comrades said that, despite the double number of delegares at this congress, there is no minority represented. Analogy is, in general, not proof, and if no minority is represented at this congress, I find it very hard to explain why this should be so: perhaps it is because there is no minority to be represented. Comrade Glebov takes too complacent a view of things when he says that, even if there is no special representation of the views of a minority, they will be brought to the notice of a congress if the CC finds these views worthy of attention. That is just the point, that the CC itself may, in the given instance, be one of the parties to a dispute, and so ought not to be allowed to decide how important the arguments of its opponents are. The opponents should be allowed to expound their own views at a congress.

Two words about the sarcastic allusion to the Bund which Comrade Glebov permitted himself to make. I must observe that at the last (fifth) congress of the Bund its Central Committee was represented by only five men, the total number of participants in the congress being 30. Our committees have the right to send two delegates, and so it is impossible to draw a parallel between the Bund and the Party as a whole. The Bund has been formed as a strong organic entity, with a stable periphery and an influential public opinion, which would always be able to paralyse any power-seeking moves by the centre, if such were to be discerned, though no such strivings by the centre exist where we are concerned, nor can they exist, and therefore there is no Place for any sort of fear on that score. The situation in the Russian Party, taken as a whole, is quite different. Here, according to the rules which are before us, there can be no sturdy body of the Party, but only a sturdy centre, with all the rest of it forming a kind of amorphous mass. Given this tendency to identify the Party with the centre and reduce the committees to nothingness, the influence of the central institutions upon a congress needs to be countered by strong representation of the periphery. And that the tendency I have mentioned exists, and is clearly apparent in the draft rules, can be doubted only by those who deliberately shut their eyes to it.

Tsaryov considered that representation should be exercised through two delegates. A congress was a school for the comrades from Russia. To ensure the success of a congress, too, it was necessary that more revolutionaries should be present.

Lieber: The statement by some comrades that there is no minority at our congress shows only that there was no minority to be represented. Or else we should have to assume that the CC proceeded incorrectly. Let me recall that, in the rules of the congress, representation by two delegates is justified by the desire to represent the minority as well. But even if there is no minority, or it cannot secure representation, the point about two delegates is still justified, since all active elements in the Party should be sent to a congress. That is what happens in the Bund.

Akimov: Every time I speak I do so fully realising that my arguments will not influence the comrades but will, on the contrary, damage the point I am trying to defend. [Laughter.]

I am in favour of the sending of two delegates, and I want to emphasise the true statement by Comrade Kostich that a minority was not represented at our congress. This shows the inadequate political education of our committees, because two votes are given them precisely so that both majority and minority may be represented.

Gusev: Giving both majority and minority one vote means putting them on a footing of complete equality, and so abolishing the distinction between majority and minority. That is inadmissible. Giving a deciding vote to a minority is possible only if we accept the principle of proportional representation. In practice this principle could not be applied among us, and it is not necessary, since minority rights are sufficiently safeguarded in the CC, in the Central Organ, in the Council, and even at a congress. Comrade Tsaryov’s ideas—correct in essence, but abstract—about the congress being a school, and that therefore each committee should send two delegates, could have absurd results if applied in practice. Why two delegates, and not three, or four? And Comrade Lieber, as we saw, carried his conclusion to the point of absurdity when he said that all the Party’s active forces should be sent to a congress. I must make a substantial factual correction to Comrade Lieber’s speech. The idea of the representation of both majority and minority is not to be found in the rules of the Congress, as he said, but in the reasons set out by the Organising Committee, which constitute a quite private statement. Facts actually refuted the proposals of the OC. It turned out that there was no minority, contrary to the belief of Comrade Akimov, who is the lone representative of a non-existent minority.

Rusov: There has been a misunderstanding about the expression ‘associations of committees’ which appears in the rules. The Bund cannot be included in this concept, because it is an association of committees of the Bund, that is, not of Party committees but of committees working exclusively among the Jewish proletariat.

The list of speakers was exhausted. The session was closed.

Twenty-fifth Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Chairman: I draw the attention of the comrades to the fact that the fourth week of our congress is beginning, and yet we still have very many questions to discuss on our agenda. In view of this, I propose, with the agreement of the Bureau: first, that speakers make their contributions as brief as possible, and, secondly, that, after we have adopted the organisational rules, we omit all, or nearly all, the following items and proceed straight to the last one. If there are some comrades who find that certain questions are sufficiently important to make it necessary that some decision be taken on them, then I invite these comrades to get together with their co-thinkers to draw up resolutions, and then we can devote one or two sessions to discussion of these resolutions and amendments to them. Will the congress please give its views on this suggestion. [Nobody asked to speak.]

Chairman: Considering that the Bureau’s proposal has met with unanimous approval, I move the following resolution on its behalf: ‘The congress decides that all the items of the agenda after the one on Party organisation and until the one on elections to the central institutions (i.e., items 9 to 18) must be eliminated; on these items only resolutions, signed by not less than ten members of the congress, can be voted on, provided there is time.’

Goldblatt considered that one could not vote on resolutions without having discussed them.

Lenin: mentioned the presence on the agenda of such questions as, for example, the celebration of May Day, terror, and so on, resolutions on which could be adopted without discussion, in view of the clarity that existed on these questions. Resolutions on subjects other than these could be briefly discussed.

Lieber considered it was not possible to lay down a minimum number for signatories to a resolution, and in particular that this number should not be ten. By adopting that figure we should be ruling out resolutions from organisations, such as the Bund, which had only five votes.

Martov: I do not think we can take into consideration or as our guide the argument developed by Comrade Lieber. Arguing in that way and taking account of the fact that from the way the congress has gone we could foresee that, given such rights as Lieber advocates, resolutions might be submitted over the signature of Comrade Akimov alone. We should in effect be adopting the proposition that all resolutions signed by not less than one voting delegate were to be voted on. Since the majority of the congress expresses the will of the congress, it is for this majority to decide which proposals it considers sufficiently important to be discussed.

Chairman: We have two resolutions here. One is that of the Bureau, the other has been handed in by Comrade Deutsch. It reads: ‘I propose that we decide that the congress shall end not later than Saturday at 5 p.m.’

Both proposals were adopted, the first with 38 votes, the second by 40 votes, with the rest abstaining. The congress then returned to the agenda, that is, to voting on paragraph 3 of the rules and the amendments thereto. Amendments by Comrades Goldblatt, Kostrov and Rusov were rejected. The only amendment adopted was one by Comrade Kostrov, saying: ‘Each of the organisations mentioned is to have two votes at a congress, and to be represented by one delegate.’ Paragraph 3 as a whole (except points a, b and c) were adopted by the majority, with seven abstentions.

Paragraph 4 was then discussed (see paragraphs 4 and 5 of the rules.)

Tsaryov: I am sure nobody will agree with me and so I shall be brief. I am not going to argue in favour of my resolution, or criticise the innumerable variants of the commission’s resolution which run counter to my opinion. I am against the institution of a Party Council. I conceive the organisation of the central institutions like this: the Congress elects or appoints the editorial board of the Central Organ, and an Executive Committee. The general direction of Party life is undertaken by the Central Committee, which is made up of the entire membership of both the editorial board and the Executive Committee. How these two bodies communicate with each other is their own affair. Perhaps they will arrange private congresses; perhaps they will have recourse to delegating authority to one, two or three of their members; perhaps they can decide some questions by correspondence. We haven’t sufficient experience of these matters. That is why five members of the commission have put forward as many as three draft resolutions. In addition, certain delegates have their own independent draft resolutions. This abundance is due to the Party’s lack of experience, and under these conditions we cannot set up a Party Council.

Hertz: Of the three formulations of the first part of Paragraph 4 which have been submitted, I prefer the first, but with this alteration: instead of the words ‘these four members of the Council invite the fifth’, I propose we say: ‘the fifth is to be elected by the Party congress’. Next, I direct comrades’ attention to the second part of the paragraph, which says that the Party Council has the right to reconstitute the CC or the editorial board if one of these institutions becomes vacant. The point is that in the event of a complete disappearance of the CC, the Party Council itself ceases to exist, since there will be no delegation of the CC in it, and, this being so, the CC cannot be reconstituted. Therefore I propose that the passage mentioned be altered thus: ‘In the event of complete disappearance of the CC, it is to be reconstituted by the remaining members of the Party Council.’

Pavlovich spoke against election of the fifth member of the Party Council by the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ, since they might not agree, and then the Council would be unable to function. He considered it necessary, furthermore, to give the Central Organ predominance over the Central Committee, in view of the stability of the former, and so he proposed that the congress elect three men from the Central Organ and two from the CC. As regards the third formulation of this paragraph, he thought it unnecessary to discuss this, since even in the commission it had been supported only by one vote.1

Martov considered it inexpedient to leave it to the two institutions themselves, as proposed by Tsaryov, to decide how to communicate and to regulate their activity. We needed a unified institution not so much in order to settle misunderstandings between the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ as to prevent such misunderstandings from arising. When a difference breaks out it is then usually rather late. Personally he was in favour of the first formulation. He could not see the difficulty, mentioned by Pavlovich, in inviting the fifth member. It would always be possible to find a fifth member from among the practical workers, or the editors living abroad. Comrade Pavlovich’s proposal to fix the preponderance of one institution over the other he regarded as unnecessary, and, especially, he opposed the argument which accompanied this proposal. It was possible that the CC might find it necessary for one of its members to be outside of Russia; in this way the stability of the CC in matters of principle would to some extent be preserved. The third formulation had all the inconveniences of the first and second, while at the same time lacking the good sides of those formulations. A Party Council was needed, and there must be equal representation in it, owing to the character of this institution as a conciliation board.

Lieber (on a point of order): I propose that we first discuss the functions of the CC and the Central Organ, since it is from these that it will follow what the Council is to do and for what purpose it is needed.

Lenin (on a point of order) opposed Lieber’s proposal, on the grounds that he deplored the time which had been devoted by speakers to discussing the question of the Party Council. In all probability, not everyone lacked a definite opinion on this matter, in the way that Comrade Lieber did.

Martov said that it should be added to what Comrade Lenin had just Said that a general discussion on the rules as a whole had already taken Place. It would have been more pertinent to have discussed then whether the Council was needed, and for what purpose.

Comrade Lieber’s proposal was rejected by a big majority.

Rusov: Although the commission has offered us three formulations, 1 cannot agree with any of them. Only the second approaches more or less to the view I maintain. In order to discuss these formulations, we veed to decide the question of what the Party Council actually is to be. An arbitration board, or a permanent collective, the highest Party centre, pursuing its own line, directing the whole of the Party’s work along the path indicated by the Congress? In order that there may be no vacillation in the Party’s policy, in order to guard the purity of the Party’s principles, we cannot entrust the supreme leadership to an institution the composition of which is casual. And the Council, as defined in the first formulation, is such an unstable institution. One part of it, elected by the CC, will be altered with each gap that appears, depending on who the members of the new CC will be. This will have the effect of disturbing the permanency of the dominant tendency on the Council. The first part of the second formulation, providing for election of members of the Council by the congress, completely eliminates this defect. From the number of revolutionaries present the congress will elect five persons, disregarding whether they belong to the CC or the Central Organ and without any idea of securing predominance by one centre or another, but guided solely by the desire to ensure the predominance of certain principles in the Council, and the Council will then itself co-opt additional members, in the event of anyone’s departure. But I cannot agree with that part of the second formulation which predetermines that, out of four members of the Council, two must come from the CC and two from the Central Organ. We must elect members without regard to where they come from, being guided solely by the fitness of a candidate to carry out in the Council the ideas of the congress majority. On the basis of these ideas I move a corresponding amendment to the second formulation, with the basic idea of which I agree.

The list of speakers was closed.

Lange: In the plan for the Party’s organisation put forward by the commission a violation of the unity which should distinguish the centre, the Party’s organ, has been allowed to appear. We all know very well that this retreat is due only to extreme necessity. All the more, then, must we seek to eliminate from the plan of organisation everything that might give rise to unnecessary friction and threaten this unity. Election of the Council by the congress will not guarantee that the Council’s membership is not composed casually; this mode of election is far from ensuring that the Council is not penetrated by unfriendly elements. This applies even more to election by the congress of the fifth member of the Council. That is why I am decidedly opposed to election of the Council by the Congress.

Gusev: I move the following amendment: ‘The Party Council is to consist of five persons. Three of these will be elected by the congress, the other two delegated by the CC and the Central Organ.’ I regard my proposal as more suitable because it offers the best means of equalising the influence of the CC and the Central Organ in the Council, which is something everybody who has spoken has been concerned about. In general I do not think that in the present situation we can find forms that would preserve the Council from predominant influence on the part of the Central Organ. Even if the Council were to be made up exclusively of representatives of the CC it would still, at the present time, be subjected to the influence of the Central Organ. We cannot construct an organisation in conformity with this phenomenon. And if I say that my plan ensures equality of influence better than the others, this is not because I have constructed the Council on the basis of fear lest the Central Organ predominate in it. The structure of the organisation must be independent of the present situation, since the rules are being laid down for a number of years.

Starover: According to the provision of the draft presented to us, the Party Council is to ‘reconcile and co-ordinate’ the activity of the Central Committee and the Central Organ. This special character of the Council is mentioned also in that point in the draft where it is said that the Council is to meet only at the wish of the two sides. If this is so then it is obvious that the Council, having this mission to fulfil, certainly cannot be nominated by the congress, but must be chosen by those organs which it is its duty to reconcile and unify. We have two centres—one, the ideological centre, abroad, the other, the practical one, inside Russia. They operate in different circumstances, under different conditions. Hence differences, varying shades of opinion, cases of fiction are possible and even inevitable. These conflicts must be prevented and eliminated. That task can only be accomplished With any degree of success by an organ that is constantly, organically linked with both centres, and that, I repeat, is possible only if both centres elect members to the Council.

But now it has been suggested that, instead, we fix the Council’s composition forthwith, predetermining what it is to be. I draw the assembly’s attention to the fact that, already, the question of elections to the Central Committee has come up against great difficulties at the Congress. It has been asked: can the congress be competent as regards Persons worthy of being elected to the CC? But how much less competent is the congress to decide the question of those persons on whose shoulders is to be placed the difficult and delicate task of reconciling and unifying the two centres. After all, comrades may be good editors and excellent practical workers, and yet quite unsuitable for the function of ‘reconciling and co-ordinating’. Only the interested bodies themselves, the centres, will be able, in the course of their work, having tested their personnel and acquired a good know ledge of them, to make a proper selection.

Trotsky: Let me recall how the idea of the Party Council arose. We proceeded from the proposition that the existence of two centres is inevitable. And since it is inevitable, then equally inevitable is the existence of a regulator of the activities of these two centres. The Party Council is to be this regulator. Now, when we are confronted with the question of setting up the Council, some comrades, like Gusev and, especially, Rusov, want to fix the Council as the Party’s one and only effective centre. And so we are starting afresh.

Lieber: I agree with Comrade Gusev that our rules have been devised independently of the given moment, but whereas he finds this ideal, I find it detrimental. Comrade Gusev rightly said that we either need the institution of a Council or we do not. If we need it, then this institution must be permanent, and not something that comes into existence, as has been proposed, only when requested by one of the central institutions. This contradiction arises from the artificial distinction made between the activity of the CC and that of the Central Organ. We need only one centre, and not three, as proposed here—one centre which will lead, ideologically and practically, all the Party’s activity.

Lenin considered the first formulation inappropriate in that it gave the Council the character of an arbitration tribunal. The Council must not be merely that, but also must co-ordinate the activity of the CC and the Central Organ. He also spoke in favour of the fifth member being elected by the congress. A case might arise when four members of the Council could not elect the fifth, and we should then be left without an institution of which we have need.

Yegorov: I had intended, in accordance with the decision the Congress took today, to refrain from speaking, but since Comrade Pavlovich has sought, with the authoritative voice of a member of the Bureau, to discredit the commission’s third formulation by saying that it was put forward by only one member, I want to help him discredit it even further. I strip away the pseudonym of this member and declare that I am he. Everyone who has spoken so far has proceeded from extreme positions, treating the plan he favours as the ideal one. Actually, none of these formulations is ideal, simply because our rules as a whole are a certain adaptation to the evil that results from conditions in Russia. That a single centralised institution is needed to ensure unity of activity is not open to doubt. But it is not possible to realise this ideal. And the creation of the Council is a sort of compromise, a surrogate for this unity, and so it is by its very nature not ideal. My proposal follows from the total aggregate of the activities of the Party council. As the co-ordinating highest organ of the Party it must be elected by the congress; as the organ which reconciles and, consequently, sometimes has to settle conflicts and differences in the activities of these organisations, it must be composed so as to be able to fulfil this function, that is, there must be no obvious preponderance of the CC or of the Central Organ.

Panin: I proceed from the proposition that the Council, in its task of ‘co-ordinating and reconciling’ the activity of the central institutions, is similar to an arbitration tribunal. I propose, therefore, that everything be deleted from the second and third points of this paragraph which would fix the Party Council in the position of a permanently functioning supreme institution of the Party.

Kostrov: 1 want to direct comrades’ attention to a curious fact. We are arguing very hand for one permanent centre, and yet we don’t possess such a centre. We have one centre, this Council, but it is not permanent, it is casual in character. There remain two permanent central institutions, the CC and the Central Organ, which may quarrel, pulling in different directions, and then we shall have not one leadership for the Party but two, which means dualism and disorganisation of the Party. Either we need one permanent centre, which must be the Party Council, or we do not, in which case the Council is superfluous. I favour the former view and I propose the following amendment to Paragraph 4: ‘The Party Council is the highest permanent institution.’

Akimov: The congress has adopted all measures needed to ensure that discussion of this question is reduced to formality, by allowing all who speak on the subject three minutes only. I must say, nevertheless, that Comrade Lenin’s amendments and formulation are reactionary and seek to bring a purely Arakcheyev spirit into our rules. While this was clearly apparent already in the speeches of Comrade Pavlovich, the straightforward interpretation given by Comrade Rusov put the dots on the i’s. The congress has gradually reduced to nil the influence which the local committees can exercise on the general course of Party work. Congresses have become something problematical: the Council may even fail to tall a congress for two years, since it is obliged to can one only ‘so far as possible’; the composition of congresses is determined in such a way that there is no guarantee of their independence. Having safeguarded the Council in this way from interference by the Party, the congress has given it, in fact, discretionary power. If three members of the Party Council were to be from the Central Organ, the Central Committee would be converted into a mere tool of the editorial board. Three persons residing abroad would obtain the unrestricted right to order the work of the entire Party. Their security would be guaranteed and their power would therefore be lifelong. Such an order of things is completely intolerable in the Party.

Zasulich agreed with the statement of the problem that had been given by Comrade Martov. The objection that four members of the Council could not elect a fifth was groundless: if an institution like the Council proved incapable of electing a fifth member, then that meant the institution was ineffectual generally.

Pavlovich: None of the objections made have convinced me. Nor did Comrade Yegorov’s speech convince me. I am not alarmed by the fear expressed here by Comrade Akimov when he said that my proposal would fix the Party on a certain direction and prevent any other direction appearing in Russia from having any influence on the source of Party affairs. I stand, indeed, for the stability and purity of the principles represented by Iskra. By giving preponderance to the editorial board of the Central Organ, I want to fortify these principles. By adopting the first or the third formulation we incur the risk that within a year the Council may have completely changed its physiognomy.[36]

Goldblatt considered the idea of two centres, with the Council co-ordinating them, to be inexpedient. Either the Council would be a temporary institution, in which case it was superfluous, or it would be a permanent one, in which case it differed in no way from the CC as it must be in fact and not as it was imagined here. Then all those inconveniences would reappear which had been mentioned here, as regards differences between the activity in Russia and abroad.

At Posadovsky’s suggestion, the movers of all three resolutions were allowed to speak last in the debate, each being given five minutes.[37]

Martov: The entire discussion has confirmed my conviction that the first formulation is the best. The argument that a body of four men would be unable to come to a decision did not convince me: after all, in the CC there could be four persons who could not adopt a particular decision owing to the division of votes. I propose that the motion to delete the words ‘the Council is the highest institution’ be rejected. Our formulation deliberately leaves open the possibility of the Council developing into the highest Party institution. For us the Council is not merely a conciliation board.

Lenin considered Comrade Zasulich’s arguments ill-conceived. The situation envisaged was already one of conflict, and in that event no rules would be of any help. By proposing that the fifth member be chosen by the four members of the Council we should bring this conflict into the rules. It was necessary to keep in mind that the Council was not only a conciliation board—that, for example, the rules gave the right to any two members of the Council to convene it.

Yegorov: Since my formulation unites the first and the second formulations, all that can be said for it has already been said. I shall therefore try to deal with some objections. First of all, about the impossibility of electing the fifth member. I think that such a blocked situation could come about in the Council on other questions too; for example, if two members hold one view and two another, and the fifth abstains. As for the impossibility of electing two members from each institution, that is a technical question; one could, for example, first elect (by secret ballot) two members of the CC td sit on the Party Council, and then the rest of the members of the CC.

Chairman: I will first put to the vote the resolutions which reject this paragraph altogether, namely, the resolutions moved by Comrades Abramson and Tsaryov.[Abramson’s resolution: ‘The Central Committee of the Party is the Party’s highest institution. Its task is to direct all the activity of the Party and to represent it in dealings with other parties. The Central Committee is elected by the congress, and numbers three persons, with the right of co-option. The Central Committee has the right to supervise the editorial board of the Central Organ. The editorial board of the Central Organ is elected by the Party congress.’

Tsaryov’s resolution: ‘The congress elects (or appoints) the editorial board of the central organ and the Executive Committee. General leadership and direction of all Party activity is entrusted to the Central Committee, which is composed of the Executive Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ in corpore. ’]

Both of these resolutions were rejected by a big majority.

The chairman having asked the congress to choose one of the commission’s formulations as a basis,[Resolution by two members of the commission: ‘The Party Council is appointed by the editorial board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee, which send two members each to the Council; these four members of the Council invite a fifth; outgoing members of the Council are replaced by the institutions which have nominated them.’] it chose the first of these.

Lyadov proposed that this paragraph be voted on in sections: (1) on the appointment of four members of the Council, (2) on the election of the fifth member, and (3) on the replacement of outgoing members.

This proposal was adopted and a vote taken first on the first section.

Gusev’s formulation[Gusev’s resolution: ‘The Party Council is composed of five members: three of these are elected by the congress and the other two are delegated by the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ.’] was rejected by the majority.

Yegorov’s formulation [Yegorov’s resolution: ‘The Party Council is elected by the congress, with two members from the Central Committee and two from the editorial board of the Central Organ.’] was also rejected by the majority, 23 to 15. Makhov’s amendment, to replace the word ‘send’ by the words ‘elect …, who are confirmed by the congress’, was rejected by the majority.

Resolution by two other members of the commission: ‘The Party Council is appointed by the congress, from members of the editorial board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee, and consists of five members, not less than two of whom must be from each of these bodies. Outgoing members of the Council are replaced by the Council itself.’

Resolution of the fifth member of the commission: ‘The Party Council is elected by the Congress from two members of the Central Committee and two members of the editorial board of the Central Organ. The four elected members elect a fifth by unanimous vote. Outgoing members of the Council are replaced by those organisations to which they belong, with the exception of the fifth, who is replaced by the method mentioned above.’

The first section of paragraph 4, as formulated in the resolution (the first) of the two members of the commission was adopted by 27 votes with eight abstentions.

The second section was voted on. By 23 votes to 18, with seven abstentions, the formula of the resolution submitted by Rusov and Hertz[Resolution by Rusov and Hertz: ‘The fifth member of the Council is appointed by the Congress.’] was adopted.

Akimov’s proposal that the fifth member of the Council be invited from among the comrades active in Russia was rejected.

Lenin moved an amendment. [Lenin’s resolution: ‘Outgoing members of the Council are replaced by the Council itself.’]

Fomin said that this proposal was unacceptable, since the congress had already decided that the Council should be appointed by the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ.

Lenin said that we were now talking not about the appointment of the Council but about the replacement of outgoing members, and so his proposition was not in contradiction to what had already been decided.

Lenin’s amendment was rejected by 23 votes to 16.[38]

Panin’s proposal[Panin’s resolution: ‘The fifth member, elected by the congress, cannot belong to either of the bodies (the Central Organ or the Central Committee.’] was rejected by the majority.

Yegorov’s amendment was adopted: this was to add, after the words ‘by the institutions which nominated them’ the words: ‘with the exception of the fifth, who is to be replaced by the Council.’

Lenin proposed to add also the words: ‘in the event that he (i.e., the fifth member of the Council) does not belong to either of the bodies’. This amendment was rejected by the majority.

The whole of the first part of Paragraph 4, as amended, was voted on and adopted by 40 to 7, with 3 abstentions.

The congress passed to the second part of Paragraph 4. (See Party rules, Article 5, paragraph 2.)

Panin’s amendment—to delete the words ‘and represents the Party in dealings with other parties’—was rejected.

Lenin’s amendment—to replace the last phrase by the following: ‘if the entire membership of one of these institutions is put out of action’—was adopted.

Makhov’s proposal[Makhov’s resolution: ‘All members of the Council live permanently abroad, and those going into Russia must be replaced in advance.’] was rejected. Also rejected were amendments (1) by Trotsky, proposing that the end of the second part should read: ‘in cases where no more than two members of these institutions are left’; (2) by Kostrov, for inserting the words: ‘possess the power of supreme leadership of the Party and represent it in dealings’; (3) by Panin, to delete the words ‘the Party Council is the Party’s highest institution’; (4) by Panin, to delete in the third part, ‘or two members of the Council’; and (5) by Kostrov, to add after ‘highest’ the word ‘permanent’.[39]

Yegorov’s proposal, to rearrange two phrases in the second part, was adopted.

After this, the second and third parts of Paragraph 4 were adopted by an overwhelming majority (6 against and 4 abstentions).

The session was closed.

Twenty-sixth Session[edit source]

(Present, 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

The rapporteur of the rules commission, Glebov, read paragraph 5 of the draft rules and the note to this (see paragraph 6 of the rules and note thereto) and conveyed the opinion of the minority, which wanted to add a second note [Resolution by the minority of the commission: ‘The Central Committee has no right to dissolve local committees, associations of committees and other organisations equivalent to these, without the agreement of the Party Council, and an organisation can be dissolved only if it (1) deliberately refrains from implementing a decision of a congress, or (2) is composed of unreliable elements.’] restricting the right of the CC to dissolve local committees. The majority of the commission, including the rapporteur, considered that the rights of the CC ought not to be restricted in this connection, since it might be necessary for the CC to take emergency measures.

Panin: I find the second version of this paragraph just as unsatisfactory as the first one. No perspective is observed here: all the functions of the CC which are listed are lumped together, regardless of their degree of importance. In addition, it is not emphasised with sufficient clarity that, among its other functions, the CC is responsible for directing political agitation. In defining the activity of the CC it would be best to confine ourselves to a single general formula, as is done in the rules when the activity of the editorial board of the Central Organ is defined. And in this case we could be satisfied with the words: ‘The Central Committee co-ordinates and directs all the Party’s practical activity.’ But since the functions of the CC are numerous and very complex, I think it necessary that the most important of them be listed. I propose the following formulation for this paragraph. [Panin’s resolution: ‘The Central Committee unifies and directs all the Party’s practical work: it endorses committees, directs political agitation, distributes the Party’s forces and resources, settles conflicts, both between different organisations and inside them, manages the central treasury and technical enterprises common to the whole party, etc.’]

Popov defended the note which he and Yegorov had proposed. It was necessary to say to the CC that this was an emergency measure and could be employed only in emergency cases.

Martov defended the view of the majority of the commission. The note was unnecessary. There was no need to stress that, since the Central Committee would in any case deliberate before deciding on so serious a step as the dissolution of an organisation. Panin’s amendment was uncalled-for, and it failed to enumerate all the functions of the CC. Martov was against substituting the word ‘endorses’ for the word ‘organises’. It must be given the right to organise as well.

Lieber agreed with Panin’s formulation, provided that it be added that the CC directs those undertakings which possess importance for the Party as a whole. He did not agree with Martov that ‘organises’ was better than ‘endorses’. Only if work was already going on in a locality could an organisation be set up. It had already been stated that the CC distributed the Party’s forces. That ought to be enough for the CC. He thought it necessary to stress the right of the CC to issue political, agitational leaflets. He considered the second note naive. If a provocateur was present in an organisation it would be dissolved much sooner than the CC would do this. The mention of deliberate failure to carry out decisions was quite unnecessary, since the CC had the power to distribute forces: he could not imagine how any committee could barricade itself against the CC.

Glebov quoted a case from the Northern Association, saying that though there was a provocateur in the given organisation, it did not want to be dissolved. In such cases it was necessary, not only in the interests of the organisation concerned but also in that of other, neighbouring organisations, that the CC should have the right to dissolve an organisation.

Martov: Lieber himself is naive in the way he restricts the application of the word ‘unreliable’. Here the word is used in a different sense.

Yegorov: The word ‘unreliable’ also means something different for us. The note confers a broad but nevertheless limited degree of authority.

Lange: An important defect in the draft is that although a great deal is enumerated in it, not much prominence is given to the political role—the organisation of general demonstrations. I propose that we put at the beginning: ‘The CC co-ordinates and directs all the Party’s political work, so that …’

Panin’s proposal was rejected.

Lange’s amendment was rejected by all against three. Abramson’s amendment (to insert in Article 5 the words: ‘The CC is appointed by the Party congress, and consists of three persons’) was rejected by all against four.

Paragraph 5 as a whole (without the notes) was adopted by all against three, with three abstentions (see Paragraph 6 of the rules).

The second note (proposed by the minority of the commission) was rejected.

The first note was adopted by 37 to 5.

Glebov proposed that from Paragraph 4, as adopted, the following phrase be extracted: ‘The congress appoints the fifth member of the Party Council, the CC, and the editorial board of the Central Organ’, and that this phrase be made a special paragraph no. 5, so that the paragraph now being adopted would be no. 6.

This proposal was adopted by 29 to 2, with 9 abstentions.

Lieber proposed that in Paragraph 5 the word ‘appoints’ be replaced by ‘elects’.

This proposal was rejected by 24 to 13.

The congress proceeded to discuss Paragraph 7.

Goldblatt proposed that the whole of Paragraph 7 be rejected, since it was either unnecessary or harmful.

Lenin did not agree with Goldblatt. There must be supervision of Party publications.[40]

Akimov: What does Lenin understand by the words: ‘follows Party publications’? Does this mean that we are to have a preliminary censorship?

Lenin: If I follow English publications, does that mean that I exercise a preliminary censorship over them?

Paragraph 7 was adopted by 35 to 4, with five abstentions.

Points a, b and c of Paragraph 3 were then discussed.

Glebov: The majority of the commission proposes to give the Council five votes at the congress, and the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ one vote each. The minority proposes that neither the CC nor the editorial board have any representatives.

Popov supported the opinion of the minority. The CC and the editorial board were already represented at the congress by those of their members who were on the Party Council.

Lyadov: Those members of the CC and the editorial board who were on the Party Council might not be suitable as representatives of those organisations at the congress.

Deutsch: The members of the Party Council may not be the right persons to report to the congress on the situation in their organisations. The highest organisations of the Party should be represented at the congress as such.

Akimov: The Council must be present at the congress, but it should not be given a deciding vote, only a consultative voice. There are no grounds for giving a deciding vote to the Party’s executive organs when the Party is discussing the activity of these very organs. I therefore move the following resolution. [Akimov’s resolution: ‘The Party Council is present at the congress in corpore, with consultative voice. The Central Committee and the Central Organ have one representative each.’]

Akimov’s resolution was voted on and rejected by all against three.

An amendment by Fomin, to insert ‘members, each with one vote’ was adopted by all against two.

The proposal by the minority of the commission [Resolution by the minority of the commission: ‘The Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ are not represented at a congress.’] was rejected.

Orlov’s proposal [Orlov’s resolution: The Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ each have the right to rend two delegates, each of whom has one vote.’] was rejected.

Paragraph 3 in its new version was adopted by all against three, with seven abstentions.

Paragraph 8 was discussed.

Karsky considered the paragraph ill-drafted and proposed that after ‘exclusively’ there be inserted’ ‘to the area of their activity’.

Gusev proposed that the second part of Paragraph 9 be transferred to Paragraph 8, and that Paragraph 8 take this form [Gusev’s resolution: ‘All organisations joining the Party enjoy autonomy in their internal affairs, within the limits set by the instructions of the Central Committee.’].

The proposals by Karsky and Gusev were rejected.

Paragraph 8 was adopted by all against two, with seven abstentions.

The congress proceeded to discuss paragraph 9.

Kostrov proposed to insert, after the words ‘all decisions by the CC’—‘relating to the affairs of the Party as a whole’.

Kostich proposed that the end be omitted, as there was already a point about submitting to all the decisions of the CC.

Lieber: May the CC set up, alongside already existing organisations, other destined to carry out the same functions as the existing ones?

Glebov: I think that the CC will not set up new organisations to carry out exactly similar functions, but we shall set up organisations to perform those functions which are not being performed by the existing ones.

The amendments by Kostrov and Kostich were rejected.

Paragraph 9 was adopted by all against four, with one abstention.

Paragraph 10 was discussed.

Martov was against private individuals having the right to demand that their statements be conveyed to the centre.

Yegorov thought it would not be in accordance with the democratic character of the Party if everyone were not to have the right to bring his statements to the notice of the centre.

Lenin favoured keeping this passage: nobody ought to be barred from taking his appeal to the centre. This was a necessary condition of centralisation.

Lyadov considered that Lenin’s desire was unrealisable.

Deutsch quoted the example that in the days of Narodnaya Volya outside persons, such as schismatics,[41] were able to approach the centre. Similar cases might arise today. For instance, a military organisation might wish to have talks with the centre.

Martov’s amendment, to delete the words ‘and everyone who has any dealings with the Party’ was rejected by 25 to 13.

Yegorov’s amendment, to add ‘and to the Party Council’, was rejected by 24 to 14.

Paragraph 10 as a whole was adopted by 38 to one, with seven abstentions.

The congress proceeded to discuss Paragraph 11.

Glebov defended the right of the editorial board of the Central Organ to have direct knowledge of the membership of local committees. In the event of the entire Central Committee disappearing it would then be known who was available to replace them. In addition, the editorial board needed to know everything in order to have a clear idea of the Party’s forces and situation.

Lieber: I don’t understand why the editorial board needs to know that in a particular town Ivan Ivanovich is living and working. I am amazed that such a proposal can be made. It is impossible.

Karsky: Lieber took advantage of Glebov’s unfortunate presentation. I don’t think that the point here is the personnel. What is more important is the reports on the movement which the committees ought to send to the editorial board.

Lange: I see nothing odd in this proposal. It means that the editorial board should possess the addresses and code-words.

Kostrov: The editorial board should know everything, but that is a matter for its own discretion. For it to be acquainted with the entire personnel is a fantastic notion.

Trotsky: It is not a matter of regular periodical reports—if the editorial board needs reports it will ask for them. And they may be useful in order to throw light on some interesting developments.

Lieber’s proposal, to delete the whole of the point under discussion, was rejected by 24 to 19.

A proposal to omit the words ‘and all its members’ was rejected by 23 to 19.

Paragraph 11 as a whole was adopted by 27 to 12, with seven abstentions.

The rapporteur read paragraph 12 and proposed that co-option to the CC should take place on a basis of unanimity. It was necessary that in such a close organisation there should be complete unanimity.

Yegorov considered ‘four-fifths’ was illogical: why not ‘threequarters’? In general, it was impossible to express what was needed by means of an arithmetical fraction. As he saw it, what was needed was that there should be no dissonances: it would be enough to require a simple majority without a reasoned veto by any member.

Popov was against ‘four-fifths’ and against a reasoned veto. He thought there should be either a simple majority or else unanimity.

Martov could not agree either with Comrade Glebov or with Comrade Yegorov. The requirement of complete unanimity could make the CC an exclusive group. I agree that there should be no friction, and for that reason I am against a qualified majority. I admit the Psychological impossibility of working with unpleasant persons. But it is also important to us that our organisation be viable and effectual. I think that provision for a single reasoned protest, such as Comrade Yegorov suggests, is not enough to safeguard us against the caprice of one individual inspired by personal antipathy, and so I advocate that two such protests must be required. The right of the CC and the editorial board to mutual control in cases of co-option is unnecessary. It is not because I think that one is not competent in the sphere of the other that I am against it. No; the editorial board might be able, for instance, to give the CC sound advice as to whether Mr Nadezhdin,[42] say, should be admitted to the CC. I object because I don’t want to create mutually exasperating ‘red tape’.

Lenin: There are two questions here. The first is that of the qualified majority, and I am against lowering it from four-fifths to two-thirds. The introduction of a reasoned protest would show a lack of foresight and I am against it. Incomparably more important is the second question, the right of the Central Committee and the Central Organ to mutual control over co-option. The mutual accord of the two central bodies is an essential condition for harmony. What is involved here is a possible rupture between the two central bodies. Whoever does not want a split should be concerned to safeguard harmony. We know from the history of the Party that there have been people who have caused splits. It is a question of principle, a very important question, one on which the whole future of the Party may depend.

Trotsky: As regards the majority required for co-option, I favour two-thirds, because then, with three members, two will have the right to co-opt. As for mutual control, the fact that this requirement was not included in the preliminary draft, but has appeared subsequently, makes it clear that Lenin is not quite in the right on the matter. It is obvious that this point does not possess such universal preventive significance as some here are trying to ascribe to it. The right of mutual control places the CC and the Central Organ in unequal conditions. The editorial board is a group of persons who are already well practised in working together, and it will rarely need to seek the approval of the CC, whereas the CC will constantly be needing to consult the editorial board. The Party Council exists to co ordinate the activity of the two centres. The autonomous status of each centre has been talked of, and has been endorsed, but what sort of autonomy is it that doesn’t include the centre’s right to decide its own composition?

Kostich: We cannot expel so easily as we can co-opt, and so a larger majority is required for the expulsion of members.

Lange considered that there was a contradiction in the arguments of some of the speakers, in that they were now speaking in favour of what previously they had opposed.

Martov: In relation to the question as it has arisen now, the point about autonomy is deprived of any meaning. Control is necessary: I agree with that. But this control is also effected by the Party Council. As a member of the editorial board, I do not understand how a simple majority of the members of another institution can be decisive in this question which has been decided by four-fifths of the given organisation. The aim which Lenin seeks to achieve will be accomplished by the Council. Mutual control, mutual surveillance, can only create unnecessary occasions for misunderstanding and ill-will.

Yegorov: I understand why Lenin is skipping from one leg to the other: the reason is that the rules themselves are lame. If the Council can reconstitute the entire CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ, why can it not be trusted in the matter of co-option?

Deutsch: The question about whether the required majority should be four-fifths or two-thirds is not important. What is important is the question of mutual control. I am against such control, which would give rise to a lot of ‘red tape’. This motion is undoubtedly designed for the given moment. But with the passage of time, when the CC is established in position and at work, this rule will cause impossible delays. I would remind comrades of the muddle that occurred when we were corresponding with the Borba group.

Lenin: If the rules are lame in one leg, Comrade Yegorov is making them lame in both. The Council co-opts only in exceptional cases. Complete confidence is needed by both sides, both centres, precisely because this is a complicated mechanism. Without complete mutual confidence, successful joint work is not possible and the whole question of correct functioning together is closely bound up with the right of co-option. The problem of technical difficulties is being exaggerated to no purpose by Comrade Deutsch.

Martov: The question is not at all such a matter of principle as Lenin makes it out to be. This delicate point presupposes that which has to be achieved. We must not count on there always being an ideal state of agreement. We have an institution that will not allow differences to grow into constant conflict.

The congress proceeded to vote. By 25 to 19 it adopted Glebov’s proposal to add, after the phrase ‘for co-option of new members, and for their expulsion, four-fifths of the votes are needed’, the words: ‘except in the case of the CC, co-option to which requires unanimity’.

Fomin’s amendment, for ‘a majority of two-thirds, without two reasoned protests’, was adopted by 27 to 21.

Lenin moved an amendment to Fomin’s amendment: ‘without one reasoned protest’. This was adopted by 21 to 19.

Pavlovich’s amendment—‘co-option to the editorial board of the Central Organ is to take place on a basis of unanimity’– was adopted by 23 to 21.

Martov’s proposal [Martov’s resolution: ‘A reasoned protest against a decision by any Party organisation on co-option or expulsion of members is appealable to the Party Council, which is given the right to countermand it.’] was adopted by 24 to 22.

The session was closed.

Twenty-seventh Session[edit source]

(Present: 43 delegates with 51 mandates and 12 persons with consultative voice.)

Voting on Paragraph 12 of the rules continued.

Martov’s proposal on co-option [Martov’s resolution: ‘Co-option of new members to either body is to be effected only by a majority and in the absence of more than one reasoned protest. The point about mutual co-option is deleted.’] was voted on and adopted by 26 to 24.

Lenin moved an amendment. [Lenin’s resolution: ‘Co-option of members to the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ is admissible only with the agreement of all members of the Party Council.’]

Panin asked that the arguments for this proposal be presented.

Martov proposed that a discussion take place on Lenin’s amendment, with two speakers allowed on each side.

Martov’s proposal was voted on and adopted by 27 to 16.

Trotsky: I cannot say that Lenin’s amendment was not clear. Comrade Lenin proposes that the Council re-decide the decisions of one of the central bodies, and that means interfering in their field of work. Considering that the CC and the editorial board must be autonomous and independent, I think that principles of unity should exist between them, and that moral unity should exist within them.

Martov: I agree with what Trotsky has said. Our original draft is being altered to an increasing extent, and in a very undesirable direction. We started out with two centres, and then we reverted to the idea of a single centre. We have arrived at the point where not only does a member have to be accepted unanimously, but co-option is to require unanimity of both bodies. In this way we lay the basis for constant war between the bodies, and war, moreover, about questions concerning individuals. If in all the CC not one righteous man is to be found to prevent acceptance, and if no such righteous man is to be found in the Council either, where then can an appeal be lodged? From the standpoint of the tasks which the supporters of unanimity wish to accomplish, we are going too far. Why introduce unanimity into the Central Organ and the CC when we consider this inadequate?

Lenin: I will reply briefly to both objections. Comrade Martov says I propose unanimity of both bodies for co-option of members: that is not true. The congress decided not to give the right of veto to every one of the members of two perhaps rather large bodies, but this does not mean that we cannot give this power to the institution which co-ordinates all the activity involved in the combined work of the two centres. Such combined work by the two centres calls for complete unanimity and even unity at the personal level, and this is possible only if co-option is unanimous. After all, if two members consider that co-option is necessary, they can convene the Party Council.[43]

By roll-call vote Comrade Lenin’s amendment was rejected by 27 to 22. [This roll-call vote is not in the minutes.]

Deutsch moved a resolution [Deutsch’s resolution: ‘The Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ must inform each other of the co-option of members.’] which was adopted by 22 to 2. Martov moved another resolution. [Martov’s resolution: ‘In a case when unanimity on the co-option of new members to the Central Committee or the editorial board of the Central Organ has not been attained, the question of the acceptance of a member may be referred to the Council, and in the event of its cassation of the decision by the body in question, the latter’s final decision is to be taken by a simple majority.’]

Lenin: Martov’s amendment contradicts the point already adopted about unanimity in co-option to the CC and the Central Organ.

Martynov considered that the amendment did not in any way contradict the point which had been adopted, as that had stated that the CC and the Central Organ could not decide otherwise than unanimously, but this did not rule out the possibility of an appeal to the Council.

Martov: The explanation given by Comrade Lenin runs counter to his interpretation of the amendment which he has moved. I propose that a minority which is dissatisfied with the decision of a majority be given the right to appeal for a decision to the Party Council.

Lenin: Comrade Martov’s interpretation is wrong, for such an exception contradicts unanimity. I appeal to the congress and ask it to decide whether Comrade Martov’s amendment should be put to the vote.

By a majority of 25 to 19 it was decided to vote on Martov’s amendment, which was then adopted by 24 to 23.

Paragraph 12 as a whole was then adopted, by 38 to 2.

The rapporteur of the rules commission read paragraph 13, and in his résumé advocated omitting this point from that day’s discussion, and referring it to the CC.

Yegorov supported Glebov: Since the rules do not list all the organisations, I do not understand why preference should be given to one of them. I propose that the question be dropped now and brought up again when we discuss organisations.

Deutsch supported Glebov’s proposal, but thought the CC could not be given the task of deciding the question, and proposed that it be passed to the Party Council.

Akimov spoke against paragraph 13, as it seemed to him strange that only the League was mentioned, whereas the Union of Russian Social-Democrats existed, and had been endorsed by the First Congress. For this reason the question must be presented not as the question of the League but as that of the Foreign Committee of the Party.

Deutsch considered Comrade Akimov’s objection groundless, as the organisation of the League was continually enlarging its activity, while that of the Union was continually declining. Therefore Comrade Deutsch proposed that the question of the League of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, or of the Party’s Foreign Committee, be referred to the Council.

Lenin: I am not going to argue with Comrades Glebov and Deutsch on the substance of the matter, but I thought we needed to mention the League in the rules; first, because everyone knows that it exists; secondly, so as to take note of the representation of the League in the Party under the old rules; thirdly, because all the other organisations have the status of committees, and the League is brought in so as to indicate its special position.

Martov: I am in favour of the League being mentioned in the rules. Although there are several organisations in existence abroad, one cannot put the Union on a par with the League, which has alone in recent years been linked with the movement in Russia.

Akimov: It seems to me that alteration of paragraph 13 is so obviously necessary that it should be done without any dispute. But since, nevertheless, this paragraph has found defenders, I must say something about it. Let me first make the reservation that I do not attach any particular practical significance to which way the question is decided. The ideological struggle which has been going on in our Party is undoubtedly not over yet; but it will be continued on a different plane and with a different alignment of forces. For this reason the separate existence of the Union, which is impossible from the standpoint of Party unity, is also unnecessary from that of those who do not agree with the majority.

But this question has great significance for me from the standpoint of principle.

Paragraph 13 of the rules once more reflects, and in a very marked way, the tendency to convert our congress from a Party congress into a factional congress.

Instead of causing all Social-Democrats in Russia to defer to the decisions of the Party Congress in the name of Party unity, by uniting all Party organisations, it is proposed that the congress should destroy the organisation of the minority and make the minority disappear from the scene. Such is, in general, the tendency of the majority at this congress, and I want this to be exposed and given sufficiently clear expression, and that is why I am bringing up this question. If this is not the case, the congress must reject paragraph 13 of the draft rules or replace it with another. I propose the following wording: ‘All Party organisations abroad are united in the Foreign Committee of the Party, which (then, as in the draft rules) enjoys the rights all other committees, with the exception,’ and so on.

Trotsky: Comrade Akimov has done the Union an ill service. We thought paragraph 13 was a technical matter, and he has made it a matter of principle. And since it is so, then we must, of course, agree that the League ought to be included in the rules, since it is the bearer of the principle which united the majority at the congress.

Yegorov: While sympathising with Comrades Lenin and Trotsky, I nevertheless think that it would be better to put the question of the foreign organisations in a general way, and I repeat that paragraph 13 expresses the desire of the congress to declare officially that the League represents the Party abroad. I move this amendment: the organisations abroad have the right to communicate with the organisation in Russia through the CC.

Karsky: The comrades who have lived or are living outside Russia must know how important are our organisations that exist abroad. I think that the comrades will agree with me that now that the idea of unity is established in Russia, we must desire that outside Russia too this unity ought to be achieved, under the name of the League. This unity is needed both morally and materially, and not only the Union but also the Foreign Committee of the Bund should enter the League, so that we do not have a multitude of separate organisations.

Lieber: Comrade Akimov, as the representative of the Union, has the formal right to demand that the Union be included in the rules. We must not forget that this is the second congress, but this fact is being forgotten, when such forgetting is needed, and if we are not to repudiate beforehand the Union which was endorsed by the First Congress we cannot adopt a new representative. This same idea I thought proper to express in connection with Rabochaya Gazeta and Iskra, as well, and I do not understand why Trotsky should call on the separate organisations to bow down.

Martov: I do not understand the fervour with which Comrade Lieber discusses this question. If, however, Comrade Akimov wants to make the issue one of principle, we have nothing against it; especially as Comrade Akimov has spoken of possible combinations in a struggle between two trends. The victory of one trend must be sanctioned not in the sense that we make another bow to Iskra, but in the sense that we how a last farewell to all the possible ‘combinations’ Comrade Akimov spoke of.

It was proposed that the list of speakers be closed, and this was done.

Martynov: What Comrade Akimov said has been wrongly interpreted. It was claimed that Comrade Akimov made the question one of principle, and we are taking up this challenge. But Comrade Akimov said clearly that in so far as there will be a struggle in the future, too, between different trends, it will be fought out on other planes and with new combinations of forces, and will have nothing to do with the question of the Union. Nor did Comrade Akimov claim for the Union the right to be the representative of the Party abroad; he merely spoke against a decision that would exclude the Union from the Party.

Akimov: Comrade Trotsky considers that I did an ill service to my organisation by raising this question: it could have been settled later, without any fuls, but since I raised it, the congress must settle it to the disadvantage of the Union. But Comrade Trotsky is wrong in thinking that I only want to obtain some concessions or indulgences for the Union. I want it to be clearly stated whether or not the congress wishes to achieve unity of all Party forces, or admission by the dissidents that they have been vanquished; and Comrade Trotsky himself answered this question, when he said: ‘this congress must be the triumph of a trend’. Comrade Deutsch’s statement that in recent months the Union has done less and less, and the League more and more, cannot have any significance. The Union has been carrying on its activity not for a few months but for five years: the congress has not yet heard its report and cannot, without having discussed its activity, take a decision which indirectly closes down, without giving any reasons, an old Party organisation which, by the will of the First Congress, bears the title of a committee. Comrade Karsky’s arguments are even more groundless. This is not a dispute about whether the Union ought to exist independently of any other organisation abroad. We are all agreed that there ought to be only one, united organisation abroad; but this should be formed not by recognising one organisation and suppressing the others but by uniting them all into one. As to Comrade Martov’s opinion that my hopes of a new trend appearing in our Party are in vain, let me say that even he himself inspires me with such hopes.

Yegorov: I have modified my amendment so as to avoid misunderstanding. I am against the existence of two organisations abroad.

Lenin: It seems to me that the upshot of the discussion is that it is desirable for this point to be retained in the rules.

Brouckère: In my opinion the desire that all the organisations be united into one does not mean that this organisation should bear the name of one of the existing organisations, and I oppose this.

The amendments to Paragraph 13 were voted on.

Akimov’s amendment was rejected by the majority, with two votes in favour.

Yegorov’s proposal (‘The Organisation Abroad, endorsed by the congress or by the Party Council, renders support to the movement in Russia not otherwise than through persons and groups specially designated by the Central Committee’) was rejected by 27 to 15.

Glebov’s proposal to drop Paragraph 13 was rejected by 26 to 19.

Rusov proposed to insert the word ‘sole’ before ‘organisation abroad’.

Lieber considered that to adopt such an amendment would be irregular, since it would exclude from the Party all the other organisations abroad.

Rusov: I merely wanted to say that there should be only one organisation abroad.

Martynov: We shall be voting on what Comrade Rusov said, not on what he meant to say.

Yegorov: Rusov’s proposal is not acceptable because it would slaughter all the other organisations abroad whose representatives we have here. Those organisations should not be killed off until the last session, so as not to put their delegater in an awkward position.

Chairman: I do not see any slaughtering here, or any other dreadful thing, since I believe that agreement is possible, and that all sections can enter into a single organisation. The Bureau proposes that Rusov’s amendment be put to the vote.

Yegorov: I request the Bureau to record in the minutes that I not only did not take part in the voting but was not even present at it. [He then left the hall.]

Chairman: Please do not take offence. We have not yet put Comrade Rusov’s amendment to the vote.

Lieber: The Bureau has no right to put this amendment to the vote.

Chairman: Comrade Lieber’s objection that we have no right to put this amendment to the vote is unfounded. We appeal to the congress: who considers it inadmissible to put Comrade Rusov’s amendment to the vote?

By 27 to 15 Rusov’s amendment was accepted as admissible for voting

Karsky (on a point of order): Comrade Yegorov seems more sensitive to Comrade Rusov’s amendment than those whom this amendment affects.

The Chairman checked Karsky, as his speech had nothing to do with a point of order.

Lieber: I propose that the following be adopted: ‘All organisations abroad except the League are abolished.’

The vote was taken. Lieber’s proposal was rejected by all against nine. Rusov’s amendment was adopted by 25 to 17.

Brouckère’s proposal (‘All the organisations abroad to be united into one’) was rejected by the majority, with one vote in favour.

Paragraph 13 as a whole was adopted by 31 to 12, with six abstentions. (Comrade Yegorov was absent.)

The rules as a whole were adopted by 42 to six, with one abstention.

The congress proceeded to discuss the question of national organisations, and the Bund in particular.

The rapporteur of the rules commission: The commission has not discussed the question of national organisations, and so I propose that this question be discussed in the general assembly. As the basis for discussion I propose that we take the nine paragraphs of the rules pur forward by the Bund. [See notes to Seventh Session.]

Glebov: These nine points in the Bund’s rules are different in nature, and in order to facilitate the work of the congress I should like to group them in a certain way. I think that some of these points will not arouse any objection, whereas the second, third and fifth of them possess cardinal importance. The most cardinal of them is point two, and I suggest that the congress begin its discussion of the Bund question with this point.

Yegorov (as a formal statement): Comrade Glebov’s words do not express the view of the commission, which has not met to consider this matter.

Chairman: The Bureau finds that Comrade Glebov has the right, after reading the Bund’s rules, to express his personal opinion on the order in which the paragraphs should be discussed.

Popov: Comrade Yegorov is not blaming Comrade Glebov but merely explaining that what Comrade Glebov said was his own opinion and not that of the rules commission.

Chairman: I put it to the vote: who is against our proceeding to discuss point 2 first of all? Nobody.

Martov: In view of the fact that point 2 of the Bund’s draft rules is strongly marked by federalism, towards which we have already taken up our position of principle, in connection with the first item on our agenda, I will here merely tell the comrades of the experience of a federal organisation of the local proletariat, which took place in Riga. This letter was sent to our congress by the Riga comrades. [Reads the letter: see Appendix V . ]

The speaker then summarised another letter which clarified and supplemented the first, and drew the conclusion that the formula adopted by the Bund legitimised and perpetuated separatism, whereas we know that hundreds of thousands of Jewish workers are united in quite different organisations. ‘I propose that point 2 be completely deleted without being replaced by any corresponding point. I propose that the area of activity of the Bund be not defined, as this area cannot be defined.’

Lieber: First of all, I want to put a formal question to Comrade Martov about the letter he read to us. How could a ‘Riga Group of Russian Social-Democrats’ who had not been invited to the congress send a letter to this congress? I want him to answer regarding the essence of the matter, which was not dealt with either in this ‘letter’ or in Comrade Martov’s speech. What is this letter about? About a number of failures to form an organisation in Riga and get going a broad workers’ movement among the proletariat of all the nations living in Riga. But we could just as well blame Iskra for not having succeeded in organising a Russian movement in a whole number of towns—even, for example, in Moscow. The writers of this letter and Comrade Martov have, evidently, such a fantastic notion of the revolutionary might of the Jewish Social-Democrats that, as they see it, these ‘giants’, the Jewish Social-Democrats, would have only to turn their attention to the Russian proletariat in Riga for tens of thousands of these proletarians, as though by the waving of a magician’s wand, at once to become revolutionised. As for us, we do not consider that we need discuss any further the stupid fantasies which make up the essence of the accusations brought against us.

Instead of replying to the writers of the letter or to Comrade Martov regarding these accusations, I shall permit myself to make some little ‘historical allusions’. With the light touch of Iskra, a large section of our Russian comrades have kept on asserting that once upon a time ‘the Bund’ was ‘a good thing’, that, generally speaking, everything used to be fine, but that since that unlucky fourth congress of the Bund, everything has changed: since then, ‘of course’, our ‘nationalism’ and ‘separatism’, and so on and so forth, have appeared. This sort of statement is taken as truth, because a large section of our comrades, especially those working in Russia, have very little knowledge of the past history of the RSDLP. The historical documents from which I shall quote a few passages show best the utter unsoundness of the charge brought against us. In 1895, that is, two years before the foundation of the Bund, this was said in one of our pamphlets: ‘This is why we had firmly to recognise that our aim, the aim of the Social-Democrats working in the Jewish milieu, was to create a special Jewish workers’ organisation, which would be the leader and educator of the Jewish proletariat in the struggle for economic, civil and political emancipation’ (A Turning-Point in the History of the Jewish Labour Movement, page 19). In 1898, that is, directly after the founding of the Bund, there appeared our pamphlet The Struggle of the PPS Against the Jewish Labour Movement, which was printed in Rabotnik, no. 5-6. This pamphlet was a reply to a number of attacks made by the PPS against the Bund as soon as it came into existence, attacks which were almost identical with the accusations levelled against us by Iskra. Here is the resolution on the Bund which the PPS adopted at its Fourth Congress: ‘Since the Jewish proletariat can have as its tasks only tasks which are the same as those of the proletariat and of the people among whom it lives; since the activity of the Jewish groups under the common titles of "General Jewish Workers’ Union in Russia and Poland" is harmful to the movement, because its programmatic and organisational isolation frequently puts this union in a position of hostility to us—the congress therefore decides that the policy of this union is incorrect, that it is not in solidarity with the policy of the Polish and Lithuanian proletariat in its fight for liberation from the Russian yoke.’ (Rabotnik, no. 5-6, page 72.)

Thus, as you see, the same sort of accusation, just as unsubstantiated, as our adversaries bring against us now, was brought against us from the first day of our foundation. As everyone knows who has any knowledge at all of the history of the labour movement in Poland in recent years, all these insinuations have failed to prevent us (in spite of all the efforts of the PPS) from creating in Poland a very strong Social-Democratic movement among the Jewish proletariat, led by the Bund. The sharp rebuke, full of sarcasm and passion, in the charge levelled against us by the PPS, was published, as I mentioned, in the Rabotnik, which was edited by the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group, without any comments by the editors. Along with our protest there was also published the protest of the ‘Lithuanian Social-Democracy’ against the PPS, which had denied to the Lithuanian proletariat, as well, the right to an independent organisation, and this also appeared without any comments by the editors. Evidently, what now seems to our opponents from Iskra to be ‘nationalism’ and ‘separatism’, and so on, seemed then quite natural and legitimate to the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group, all of whom entered the Iskra organisation and took part in its editorial work. Moreover, in the same issue of Rabotnik there appeared a translation of an article from No. 11 of Arbeiterstimme, our central organ, under the title: ‘Our Aims’. This article set out the whole profession de foi of the Bund, showing the need for an independent organisation of the Jewish proletariat and its autonomous status in the Party. Our opponents have told us here that the need for the Bund was justified in the first years of its existence by merely technical considerations.

Quotations from this article, which appeared in 1898, immediately after the first congress of the Party—an article which, incidentally, was one of the results of that congress—show better than anything else can whether our opponents were right. Here is the first quotation: ‘What the Party’s attitude was to be towards organisations of whole nations is clear from the passage in the Manifesto which speaks of the conditions for the entry of the "Jewish Workers’ Union" into the Party: "The General Jewish Workers’ Union in Russia and Poland enters the Party as an autonomous organisation which retains its independence only as regards questions concerning the Jewish proletariat."

‘Or, putting it another way, we have to understand this in the following fashion: the position of the Jews in Russia, the policy of the Tsarist Government towards them, and other special features (as, for example, a distinct language) have given rise in the case of the Jewish proletariat to special interests requiring special defence. The defence of these special Jewish interests can be assumed by a separate Jewish organisation possessing the full right to defend them in whatever way it finds necessary, while the Party does not interfere in the activity of this Union. In respect of matters affecting the whole Russian proletariat, without distinction of nationality or religion, the "Jewish Union" is obliged, as a section of the Party, to submit to the CC.’ (Rabotnik, no. 5-6, p. 96.)

Just tell us what there is in the draft rules we have submitted that, in essentials, goes even a little way farther than what, in the opinion of those who took part in the First Congress, was expressed in its manifesto. And this understanding of the manifesto was, again, never objected to by our Russian comrades. I will give one more quotation, my last. This is how the article which I quoted concludes: ‘Thus, a separate Jewish workers’ organisation is desirable and necessary in the interests both of the Jewish and of the Christian proletariat. But only an organisation which has grown naturally out of the struggle of the Jewish proletariat against exploitation and is bound to it by thousands of ties can guard its interests and vigorously defend them, while at the same time facilitating the work of the Russian Party as a who le. The latter has understood that in these conditions its work can progress, and it is sufficiently developed politically to give independence, within certain limits, to a Jewish organisation.’ ‘The fact that the Russian Party understood its tasks correctly, that it did not merely promise but actually recognised the right of every nation to have its own independent workers’ organisation—all this provides the best guarantee that it will draw to itself all the live forces of the Russian proletariat and achieve through its activity the results that it expects.’

That is how we saw the question of the Bund’s position in the Party five years ago, just after the First Congress. These are the views we hold now, as well: these are the principles which underlie our draft rules. So it is not the Bund’s views that have changed, but views about the Bund. How are we to account for this? Why was it that until recently our Russian comrades did not notice these ‘harmful’ views of the Bund? The explanation is to be found in the tremendous growth of the Bund, on the one hand, and of the Russian labour movement, on the other. So long as we, to use the expression of our comrade from the Mining and Metallurgical Association, ‘stayed at home’, that is, in Poland and Lithuania, our comrades did not come into contact with the Bund. Now there has again arisen before us all, the Russian comrades and the Bund alike, the urgent task of uniting all the Social-Democratic forces in Russian into a single Party, and our comrades have sharply altered their attitude towards the Bund, denying its very right to exist. But our comrades should not forget that, while for them this question of the Bund is the first page in the story, for us, who have been through a struggle with the PPS on almost the same ground, the clash with our Russian comrades is the second page in our story. During all this time our comrades have evidently forgotten everything and learnt nothing, and so I think it pointless here, at the second congress of the Party, after five years of brilliant activity by the Bund, to prove its right to exist. It is enough that we can be asked to supply such proof at the second congress of a Party into which we entered and in whose ranks we have done so much for the entire Social-Democratic movement in Russia. I can only repeat, as categorically as possible, the demand expressed in the first point of our rules: the Bund is and must be the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat, in whatever part of the Russian state the Jewish proletariat lives and whatever language it speaks.

Martov: I am not clear on the answer to the question whether the Bund wishes to oblige all the local Russian committees to refrain from any dealings with even a single Jewish worker.

Lieber: I think the matter is clear. It is not a question of whether a particular organisation can work among the Jewish proletariat. Nobody denies that right. But the Bund is the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat in the Party.

The Chairman: The Bureau has been handed a statement from Comrades Akimov and Martynov: ‘Recognising that by the adoption of Paragraph 13, as amended, the congress has indirectly expressed its decision to close down the Union before hearing its report and before discussing the item of the agenda on the endorsement of existing Party organisations, we, delegates of the Union, refuse from now on to take Part in voting, and continue to be present at the congress only so as to hear the minutes of previous sessions and discuss how they are to be Published. Martynov, Akimov.’

Gorin proposed that point 2 of the Bund’s rules be split into two parts, which should be voted on separately.

Lieber: In the name of the Bund delegation I state that we shall not vote on the questions concerning the Bund.

Trotsky: Lieber’s statement seems to me incomprehensible. The comrades from the Bund might have refused to vote if they were simply an interested party. But we are all interested equally in the settlement of this problem, and therefore the Bund delegation’s refusal to vote on this question can only amount to a simple abstention.

Abramson: We do not want to make an incident out of this, and agree to vote.

Chairman: There are three ways in which you can vote: for, against, or abstention.

The first part of paragraph 2 of the Bund’s rules was voted on, and rejected by 39 to five, with eight abstentions, which included the two delegates from the Union. The second part of Paragraph 2 was also rejected by 39 to five, with eight abstentions. Paragraph 2 as a whole was rejected by 41 to five, with five abstentions. [Voters for Paragraph 2 of the Bund’s draft rules were: Hofman, Goldblatt, Yudin,Lieber, Abramson. Abstentions were: Makhov (2 votes), Brouckère, Martyrsov an Akimov. The rest voted against.]

Lieber: I ask to make a statement. On behalf of the whole Bund delegation I declare: in view of the fact that the congress has, by its last vote, rejected that point of principle, in the rules we presented, acceptance of which was made by our fifth congress the necessary condition for the Bund’s being in the Party, we, on the basis of this decision of the fifth congress of the Bund, depart from the Party congress and announce that the Bund leaves the RSDLP. We shall send a special reasoned statement in writing to the second congress.[44]

Makhov: When the second point of the Bund’s rules was voted on, a roll-call vote was taken, and so the best I could do was to abstain from voting. Since the result of this vote has been rejection of the entire point, and this was bound to have, and has had, the inevitable consequence of the departing of the Bund from the RSDLP, I think it necessary to explain to the congress the reasons why, in the given circumstances, I thought it best to abstain.

Proceeding from the consideration that, after we had, in the resolution adopted when we discussed the first item of the agenda, expressed our attitude of principle to the question of the Bund’s place in the RSDLP, we might again, in view of this, emphasise our negative attitude generally towards all national and territorial organisations when we came to discuss the question of such organisations, and would doubtless do this, I regarded the question of the place of the Bund in the RSDLP as having been disposed of from the standpoint of principle. Therefore, the question of the position of the Bund in the RSDLP had ceased to be for me a question of principle and had become a question of practical politics in relation to an historically evolved national organisation. Here I could not but take into account all the consequences that might follow from our vote, and would therefore have voted for Paragraph 2 in its entirety. But since my voting one way or the other would only have significance in principle and would not be of any practical importance, in view of the almost unanimous vote of all the other congress delegates, I preferred to abstain in order to bring out in principle the difference between my position on this question and the position of the Bund delegates, who voted in favour. Conversely, I would have voted in favour if the Bund delegates had abstained, as they had at first insisted.

Chairman: The representatives of the Bund told us more than once that they did not regard their conditions as constituting an ultimatum.

Brouckère: I abstained from voting on the rules put forward by the Bund, and I wish to explain why. I could not vote for the draft because I think it necessary in the interests of both the Jewish and the Russian proletariat that there should be one united Party organisation, in which none of the sections enjoys exclusive rights. But I could not vote against it because if the Bund entered the Party as a territorial organisation, in accordance with the rules the Party has just adopted, it would thereby deprive itself of the possibility of developing and continuing the useful activity it is now carrying on, since these rules make live work by local organisations impossible.

The session was closed.

Twenty-eighth Session[edit source]

(Present: 38 delegates with 46 mandates and 11 persons with consultative voice.)[45]

Lenin: The Bureau has discussed the statement by Comrades Martynov and Akimov which they submitted at the morning session. I shall not say anything about the reason they give, although it is wrong and extremely strange. Nobody anywhere has spoken of closing down the Union, and Comrades Martynov and Akimov have drawn an incorrect inference from the congress’s decision regarding the League. But even the closing down of the Union could not deprive delegates of their right to take part in the work of the congress. And in just the same way, the congress cannot permit refusal to take part in voting. A member of the congress cannot merely endorse the minutes without participating in the other work of the congress. The Bureau is, for the time being, not going to present any resolution, and submits the question for discussion by the congress. The statement by Martynov and Akimov is abnormal in the highest degree and is incompatible with the status of members of the congress.

Martynov: Lenin says that our statement is abnormal in the highest degree, but it is not we who have created this abnormal situation. We are present here as delegates of an organisation, possessing the right to vote. The congress, by abolishing the organisation, has abolished our right to be its delegation. In the agenda the question of the abolition and endorsement of organisations was held over to the very end. If the congress did not manage to settle this question it was to have passed it for decision to the CC. As regards the Union, however, this question has already been settled, by an exceptional procedure, without the congress having given itself the trouble even to hear our report. I repeat, the situation has been created not by us but by the congress. All that remains for us to do now is to listen to the minutes. If the minutes had already been confirmed, we should have left the congress at once.

Pavlovich: I do not understand Comrade Martynov at all. Adopting a certain principle does not mean immediately putting it into effect. We have adopted rules, but that does not mean that they come into force at once and that some organisation is thereby immediately abolished.

Trotsky: Martynov’s statement is strange in the highest degree. Even if we abolished an organisation, that would not mean that we thereby deprived its delegates of the right to vote. If the congress decided, for instance, that it was in the interests of the Party to abolish the Baku Committee, for the organisation of transport work at least, the delegates of that Committee, participating in this decision, would still remain members of the congress. The same applies to the Union. Since, in the view of Akimov and Martynov, we have abolished their organisation, we have abolished it completely and not just partially. And it would be more consistent on their part to leave the congress altogether appearing only in order to confirm the minutes. It is illogical to engage in partial suicide. They say they do not want to take part in the work of the congress, that is, they want to remain merely objective spectators, but there is no such role to be played at a Congress.

Karsky agreed with Trotsky. Martynov is creating an unnatural situation. At this congress Iskra, the League, the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group have all been suppressed as separate groups, yet none of the representatives of these organisations would think of walking out.

Brouckère: Lenin has interpreted wrongly the decision taken by the Congress, which was aimed directly at the Union. My proposal for merging all the organisations abroad into one was rejected by all against two. I do not agree with Trotsky that it would be more logical for them to leave completely. They do not want to do that, because they do not want to invalidate the minutes.

Martynov: By stating in the general Party rules that the League is the sole Party organisation abroad the congress has stated clearly enough that the Union has ceased to exist. Mention has been made here of Iskra, the League and the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group. But Iskra, as has been said more than once, is a Russian organisation, not an ‘organisation abroad’. The League has been recognised by the congress. As for the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group, it had ceased to exist as an organisation before the congress met, and was invited to the congress by the OC for the sake of its historical services. I agree with Comrade Trotsky that there can be no partial suicide. Therefore we do not aspire to the exceptional right of being present at the congress while not taking part in its work. If the congress finds this unnatural, we will leave at once.

Akimov: There is little for me to add to what Martynov has said. After the suppression of the Union I do not consider it possible to take part in the work of the congress. We have the right, and the obligation, to hear and confirm the minutes and also the arrangements for their publication. If it suits the congress we will attend only for the reading of the minutes. Otherwise we shall not have fulfilled the obligations incumbent on us as delegates of an organisation.

Martov: Akimov understands the tasks of the Party in a way that is more than strange. If our congress had been a constituent congress, one at which agreements were to be made between different groups, then the minutes would have been binding only on those organisations whose delegates took part in confirming them. But our congress is an ordinary one, not a constituent one, and its minutes, when confirmed by the majority, are binding on all. Either you are delegates to the congress, in which case you must take part in all its proceedings, or you are not delegates, in which case you cannot remain at the session. The assertion that the rules adopted by the congress deprives some of the delegates of their right to vote is false. Iskra, too, has been abolished as a separate organisation, and yet I, as its delegate, remain at the congress. The procedure for putting into effect the decisions of the congress has not yet been laid down, and only at the end of this congress will the CC be authorised to take particular measures for this purpose. The statement of the Union delegares compels me to ask two questions: are they members of the Party, and are they delegates to the Congress?

Akimov: I must reply to Comrade Martov. We did not say that we were not members of the Party, though with the abolition of our organisation our position in the Party has become indefinite. We have even been deprived of the possibility of working ‘under the direction of one of the Party organisations’, as is required by the rules. We do not think it possible to continue to take part in the proceedings of the congress. You can, of course, deprive us of the right to check our minutes.

Trotsky (on a point of order): The Bund walked out of the congress without the minutes having been read. If we give the minutes to the delegates of the Union we shall be creating a precedent which is undesirable for the Party.

Martynov said that all the explanations that had been given here had been given by particular comrades and not by the congress. We interpret differently the decision taken by the congress regarding Paragraph 13 of the rules.

Chairman: This dispute is based on a sheer misunderstanding. Between the adoption of a decision of principle and the implementation of this decision a certain period of time elapses. The decision will acquire legal force when the CC is authorised to wind up the affairs of the Union. Then, not only will the Union’s report be read, but anything else the Union wants. This is how I interpret the decision taken, and I think the congress will agree with me. You, comrades, have no grounds for thinking that you have been deprived of your right to be present at the congress, and you have no grounds for quitting it. The awkwardness can be disposed of if the congress agrees with my interpretation.

Akimov: Part of our statement relates to the discontinuance of the Union. The Union has resolved to submit unconditionally to the decisions of the congress, and the fact that the Union has been closed down has no importance for us in itself. Our principal motivation is the exceptional character of the decision taken regarding the Union. Our organisation has been dissolved without being heard, and with-out waiting for the question to be reached on the agenda. That is why we cannot continue to remain at the congress. If you will allow us, we will attend for the reading of the minutes.

Lenin: What an absurd and abnormal situation has been created here! On the one hand we are told that they submit to the decisions of the congress, while on the other they are walking out because of the decision taken about the rules. By being present here as a delegate of an organisation invited by the OC, every one of us has become a member of the congress. No dissolution of any organisation cancels that title. How are we, the Bureau, to proceed when a vote is to be taken? To ignore altogether those who have walked out is impossible, for the congress has already confirmed its composition. There is only one logical conclusion here, for them to leave the ranks of the Party completely. We can invite the comrades from the Union specially to come and take part in confirming the minutes, though the congress is entitled to confirm its minutes even without their being present.

Plekhanov asked Akimov and Martynov to withdraw the statement - they had submitted.

[Martynov and Akimov went out to confer.]

Brouckère: Lenin interprets the congress decision wrongly. Comrade Rusov’s resolution did away with all the other organisations abroad, leaving the league as the only one surviving.

Lenin: The Bureau has been handed a resolution from Martov which reads as follows:

Martov’s resolution (not voted on): ‘Considering (1) that the delegates of the Bund definitely informed the congress that their organisational proposals did not constitute an ultimatum, and (2) that, after the proposal put to the congress by the comrades from the Bund had been rejected by the congress, the comrades from the Bund left the congress and said that their organisation was leaving the Party—the congress notes with deep regret that the leaders of the Bund have made a big political mistake ín breaking the Party connection between a part of the Jewish proletariat and the rest of the organised proletariat of Russia. At the same time the congress is convinced that this mistake by the Bund will not seriously hinder the future progress of Russian Social-Democracy.’

Posadovsky proposed that the word ‘hopes’ in this resolution be replaced by ‘is convinced’.

Yegorov: The resolution speaks of the leaders of the Bund, but, after all, they were acting in accordance with a decision of the fifth congress of the Bund. Perhaps it is not the leaders who are to blame, but the Bund itself. It is not for us to go into that. We ourselves here are not leaders, but the whole Party.

Muravyov: Although the comrades from the Bund said that they had no imperative mandates, actually that was not the case. They were bound by the decision of their fifth congress, which they had not told us about.

Koltsov considered that the words ‘leaders of the Bund’ could remain in the resolution. They kept saying that their proposal was not an ultimatum, but it turned out to the contrary.

Pavlovich proposed that the word ‘leaders’ be replaced by ‘delegates’. The behaviour of these delegates was juridically improper, and it might be that the organisation of the Bund would regard its representatives’ behaviour as a wrong move.

Yuzhin proposed that the resolution on the Bund be held over until the reasoned statement about their departure from the Party had been received from the Bund delegates.

Popov: The comrades who have spoken about Martov’s resolution have dealt exclusively, except for Yegorov, with the ultimate question: they have talked about whether a mistake was made by the Bund or by its delegates. In my view, a resolution about the departure of the Bund should not concentrate on that trifling matter. The departure of the Bund is an important historic moment in the life of the Party. The action taken by the Bund will have extremely important consequences. That is why the Congress should concentrate on this event, and it seems to me that in our resolution we should express regret at the Bund’s leaving the Party, and confidence that the Bund will not long remain outside of the Party, and that the Jewish workers’ movement will soon merge once more with the general movement of the proletariat in a single Party. That is what we should do—not argue about what sort of a blunder was made by the Bund delegation.

Trotsky: I agree with Comrade Popov. What faces us is not a juridical error but a definite historical fact. Consequently, the reasoned statement by the Bund cannot alter in any way our appreciation of this fact. Our duty to the Jewish proletariat is to express our regret regarding the breaking of the organisational tie between the Jewish and the Russian proletariat. Therefore, we ought to pass the resolution without waiting for the Bund’s statement.

By 30 votes to seven the congress adopted Yuzhin’s proposal.

Akimov: If the congress understands paragraph 13 in a sense different from ours, it should change the way its decision is formulated, and then we shall not interpret it as being directed particularly against the Union.

Martynov: I want to elucidate certain things that Comrade Akimov said. The explanation given us has not made it clear whether the decision was one of principle or an exceptional measure directed against the Union. If it was the latter then we consider that the Union has been insulted. Comrade Yegorov got the same impression as we did, namely, that it was an exceptional law against the Union, and so even he left the meeting.

Plekhanov: I do not understand this way of looking at the maner, The resolution says that the League will henceforth be the sole organisation of the Party abroad. What insult to the Union can there be in this? The comrades can consider themselves satisfied with the explanations given, and withdraw their statement.

Brouckère: The Union was insulted. The congress took a decision that all the organisations abroad, except the League, were worthless.

Plekhanov: I admit that the decision could be disagreeable to the representatives of the Union, but no insult is involved here.

Martynov: When paragraph 13 was being discussed we spoke against it, but we saw no insult in it. Later, however, a special amendment was introduced, which was aimed at the Union. That was a special insult to us.

Martov: The Bureau has explained that there was no insult involved here, and the delegates of the Union would behave more logically and more wisely if they were to withdraw their resolution and thereby allow the congress to proceed to next business.

Lyadov: There is nothing here to discuss. I propose that we go straight on to next business.

Trotsky moved the following resolution: ‘The congress, finding that Comrades Martynov and Akimov can consider themselves fully satisfied with the explanations given them by the Presidium, proposes that they withdraw their statement, which will enable the congress to proceed to next business.’

Trotsky’s resolution was passed, with 32 votes.

Brouckère proposed, in order to clear up the incident with the Union, that a resolution be passed explaining the paragraph of the rules and saying that all organisations abroad were to be merged into one and to take the title of the League.

Martov denied the Bureau’s right to accept a resolution.

Lenin: We cannot touch on the rules, but we do not consider that the Bureau has the right to reject a resolution without discussion. In any case, that right belonged to the congress.

Karsky: Adoption of the new resolution would cancel the previous one, that is why we cannot allow it to be put.

Martov: If my definition was wrong, that given by the Bureau was also wrong. We have passed a resolution about the incident, with 32 votes in its favour, and there is no need for another one.

It was decided by 26 to seven not to discuss Comrade Brouckère’s resolution.

Plekhanov moved a new resolution about the incident, saying: ‘The congress, deciaring that when it adopted paragraph 13 of the rules it was not guided by any intention of insulting the "Union of Russian Social-Democrats", invites the representatives of that organisation to withdraw their proposal and proceed to next business.’

Trotsky: Our resolution is one of principle, and not a philistine one, and it is no concern of ours if somebody takes offence at it.

Plekhanov: If the comrades saw an insult here, why should the congress not dispel this misunderstanding?

Akimov: An insult is being talked about here merely because my comrade happened to let fall that word …

Plekhanov: In that case I withdraw my resolution.

Akimov (continuing): The point here is not at all the offensive attitude that was shown. I, for example, have been called an opportunist here. I personally consider this an abusive and offensive term, and I believe that I have done nothing to deserve it. However, I am not protesting. [Laughter.]

Plekhanov: I withdraw my resolution and apologise for having moved it.

Martynov: The word ‘insult’ was not uttered lightly by me, and I stand by it. The exceptional measure taken in relation to the Union is unquestionably an insult.

Akimov and Martynov rejected the Bureau’s proposal that they withdraw their statement.

Trotsky: I think the delegates of the Union ought either to withdraw their statement or else in some other way enable the congress to get on with its business.

Lenin: We have been put in an abnormal and hopeless situation. We cannot continue any longer to discuss this matter.

Akimov: We are leaving the congress. [Voices: ‘Absolutely unwarranted!’]

Comrades Akimov and Martynov left.

Lenin: We now come to the sixth item on the agenda. Who wishes to speak?

Rusov: We have to settle the question of territorial and national organisations. The Bund having left, there are none of the latter type in the Party. The question of the former type of organisation remains. According to the formulation of the relevant paragraph in the Party rules, the typical form of these organisations is to be an association of committees. Among the areas in which the Russian Party works, Caucasia presents such exceptional conditions that it is necessary to establish a territorial organisation there. We already have the rudiments of such an organisation, and its further development will depend on the congress. I propose, therefore, that when the comrades discuss the question of territorial organisations they also keep Caucasia in mind. The typical form of this organisation can be an association of already existing committees.

Posadovsky: For me the major problem is whether we need to form associations of committees or separate committees for each particular region, such as, for example, the existing Siberian Association. The congress must say which type of organisation it prefers.

Karsky: Comrade Posadovsky did not answer the question but merely posed it. It is a complex question and the way it is to be answered depends on local circumstances. Where no committees exist as yet, I would propose that, first of all, associations of committees should be established, and then, as necessary, local committees should be formed. But this cannot be done where a movement already exists. We must start from what is. In Caucasia an attempt was made to unite the local committees, and this was partially successful. All association was established and this began to work. But since it was not completely organised it did not succeed in becoming the representative of the entire local movement at the congress. Caucasia is cut off from all the rest of Russia, and this isolation has not been reduced by the appearance of the OC, which has not supplied Caucasia with literature. Owing to the need for agitation to be carried on in the local languages it is necessary to set up a centre in Caucasia which will direct the entire movement there. The CC can have its representative there. The association needs to be given wide authority, as it is not always possible to arrive in time from places far to the north. I present draft rules for the association.

Panin: The problem before us is not the setting up of special organisations but clarification as to whether territorial organisations are needed.

Lange: From the example of our North we can see that in some cases territorial organisations are needed. If we consider the concentration of all the principal factory centres within a short distance of each other, and if we have in mind the identical nature of industrial conditions and the type of industry in the area of the Northern Workers’ Association[46], and the lack of local revolutionary forces and similar difficulties which make it almost impossible for revolutionaries to settle in many factory towns and localities in the North, it will become clear why local work cannot proceed without the presence of a local revolutionary centre. Only such a centre, being a concentration of the best forces in the area, forces which are distributed far from evenly in the North, but only in one or two places in the area which are most convenient for them—only such a centre would be capable of organising planned work in the North, supplying the various Social-Democratic and workers’ organisations with personnel, resources, technical devices, publications, and so on. This sort of centralisation of work in the North was brought about not artificially but in response to the demands of life itself. The original initiators of it were the local revolutionaries, who were well acquainted with the conditions of local work: they gave fixed form only to what had come into being already, though only in a chaotic, amorphous state. By means of this centralisation it at once became possible to get work going in localities where it had previously been impossible to organise. However, the type of organisation of committees in associations, which was applied at the beginning of the existence of the Northern Workers’ Association, subsequently proved insufficiently expedient and practical. Subsequent developments, especially after the large scale arrests of 1902 throughout the area, which were preceded by a period in which the work flourished in the North, showed that despite the existence of the organised forces which were at the disposal of the North, in many very important centres (such as Ivanovo, Shuya, Orekhovo, and to some extent even in Kostroma, at certain times), effective committees could not function. This circumstance again evoked the idea of giving fixed form to what we had created in the last year of work, that is, properly organising a single centre (the Northern Committee), with all the other organisations reduced to the role of territorial organisations, deprived of the status of committees. Therefore I want to say first, that in certain circumstances, the existence of territorial organisations is desirable, and, secondly, that it would not be desirable for all territorial organisations to be of one and the same type.

Rusov (on a point of order): What we have to discuss is the question of principle, whether it is permissible in general for the Party to have territorial organisations, and I propose that the Bureau ask speakers not to talk about particular organisations.

Chairman: The item before us is territorial organisations.

Trotsky (on a point of order): We have an item on the agenda about the endorsement of organisations, including territorial ones. What we need to discuss now is the question of principle.

Chairman: We are discussing the sixth item of the agenda, and I do not understand why there should be points of order. It seems to me that everyone who has spoken has spoken to the point.

Zasulich: We cannot discuss this question in abstract terms, it can be settled only concretely, in application to each given locality.

Kostrov: On the question of territorial and national organisations I must say this: the existence of such organisations is necessary for the development of our Party. Russia, after all, is a big country, and it includes extensive borderlands, which in their population and cultural features are markedly different from the centre of Russia. It will be physically impossible for our Central Committee to be all over the place, looking into all local affairs, giving guidance in every locality. It would be easier for the CC to deal with associations of committees than with a multitude of separate committees working in different languages. The establishment of such associations has already been evoked by the demands of life, as can be seen from the fact that they have arisen in various parts of the empire. I am not in favour of associations being formed as a matter of course, here, there and everywhere. No, I am in favour only of the existence of associations in those places which by the make-up of the population and national peculiarities are distinct from the strictly Russian areas. The borderlands belong to this category. In Caucasia we have an association of local committees known as the ‘Caucasian Association’. Within its field of responsibility are not only the general direction of the local labour movement but also the production of literature in Georgian and Armenian, and perhaps soon also in the Tatar language. Who will do that for us, if the Association is abolished? The Central Committee? But it won’t be able to perform this task, its members won’t know our languages, our literature and our local needs. Nor can this be done by our local committees, acting separately: in the first place this would be a waste of both material and literary forces, and, secondly, one of them won’t know what the others are doing, and chaos in the field of publication will result. We don’t want that. Just as Russian Social-Democrats now have their central organ, so we too want Georgian and Armenian Social-Democrats to have theirs. Such organs exist already and are the business of the ‘Association’. Failure to recognise this association will inevitably lead to the weakening of our forces and the disorganising of our movement.

Posadovsky: Comrade Karsky is right. I merely posed the question. Now I will answer it. Rusov’s proposal regarding associations of committees is unacceptable. A gathering of delegates from different committees gives less of a guarantee that the association will not become absorbed in local interests and forget the wider tasks of the Party. Each delegate will only seek to promote the cause of his own corner. Where the CC can fulfil all functions, territorial organisations are not required. In remote places or places distinguished by specific conditions, special committees must be appointed, with the task of bringing the given area into line with the all-Russia movement.

Rusov: I cannot entirely agree with Comrade Posadovsky’s arguments and conclusions even though I proceed from the same basic considerations as he does. The purpose of forming territorial organisations must be to organise on a broad scale the work of agitation and Propaganda in localities where an exceptional situation exists, but at the same time we must endeavour to form a type of organisation that cannot degenerate into a separatist or an old-type amateur local organisation. What Posadovsky proposes is dangerous because strict centralisation in a certain area creates a strong force in the shape of the territorial committee, a compact force in which separatist tendencies will be much stronger than in an association of committees, which in extreme cases it would not be hard for the CC to disband. Moreover, I should be in favour of representatives of the separate committees of the territorial organisations being present at every Party congress, so that we may become acquainted with all the trends within the organisation. If this had been done in the case of the Bund we should now be aware of the balance of different trends in the Bund and would not have had to deal at the congress with a single organised force. This is why, proceeding from the same considerations as Comrade Posadovsky, I arrive at the completely opposite conclusion. As for those areas where for technical reasons it is not possible to form associations of committees, such as the area of the Northern Association[47], the Urals, or the Mining and Metallurgical area, what we have there are, in essence, not territorial organisations but simply Party committees working in a number of factory centres adjacent to each other.

Kostich: As has been made clear here, there are two types of association. One type, such as the Northern Association, the Association of Mining and Metallurgical workers, and to some extent the Crimean Association, consists really of a single committee, a single centre, which directs the movement in a wide area made up of a number of insignificant towns and townlets which are inhabited by a significant population of workers, these towns and settlements not having been able to establish their own independent centres. This variety of territorial organisation is very similar in type to the local committee, and there is no need to say any more about it here.

The other type, such as the Caucasian Association, is an association of a number of local committees, each of which directs the local movement in complete independence of the others, and here the creation of a special directing centre other than the CC is quite superfluous. In so far as these committees have common technical and agitational tasks, that is, special conditions of language and way of life which are common to them all, what they are to do must be determined by an agency of the CC, and in order to carry out their tasks these committees can set up a special group without leadership functions. Thus, Posadovsky’s proposal is acceptable for territorial organisations of the first kind, and Comrade Gorin’s for associations of committees.

Gorin: This question must be considered first from the standpoint of principle—do we need regional organisations?—and not approached from the existing organisations, as Comrade Zasulich proposes. The existing organisations have arisen as surrogates for the Central Committee, during the time of disorder in the Party. Generally speaking, regional organisations are an evil which can be tolerated so long as it is impossible immediately to make a radical break. Regional organisations must be merely agencies of the CC and not delegations of local committees. A certain degree of autonomy can for the time being be allowed to these agencies. Speakers have referred here to the fear of destroying organisations. The Caucasian Association exists not as an embryo but as a real fact. It has merely not yet assumed finished form.

Lyadov: With the departure of the Bund this question has, alas, lost its acuteness. We cannot reduce all territorial organisations to a single uniform pattern. There are big differences between the towns of Caucasia, the Donets Basin and the Urals. In Siberia and in Caucasia it may be possible for associations to exist on an elected basis. There they have big towns, with an intelligentsia and a mass of workers. In such God-forsaken spots as our Donets Basin everything has to be built from above, and concentrated in a single nucleus. That is how our organisation has arisen: the centre first, then the periphery. Comrade Posadovsky’s resolution is not applicable to every area, but only to such areas as the Urals, the Vladimir textile area, and the Donets Basin.

Karsky: Comrade Gorin, as a man with a radical cast of mind, always talks in a bold, sweeping way. He says that territorial organisations are an evil but if there is evil here, we do not lag behind Comrade Gorin in combating it. However, this is not a case of evil but of the logical development of our movement …

Gorin (interrupting): Under abnormal conditions.

Karsky (continuing):… with an abnormal logic. We have a number of conditions which prevent the CC from carrying on fruitful work: (1) language (2) distance (3) distinct way of life. How can the CC organise agitation in the Georgian language? To do that you need to know the language, the whole literature, to understand the people’s psychology. To abolish the Association of Caucasian Committees by one stroke of the pen would be, not to put too fine a point on it, a misunderstanding of the situation. As for the technical aspect, that is true only in part. To have a central technical apparatus is useful and advantageous, but that is not where the tasks of the Association lie. It has to direct the movement of a whole region. It must have its own centre on the spot, even though this be subordinate to the CC. The expression ‘agency’ is not a happy one, but I have nothing against it. [Reads his resolution, which is then handed to the Bureau.]

The list of speakers was closed.

Lange: It is self-evident that, in principle, it is absolutely undesirable for there to be any intermediate links between the individual committees and the Central Committee. Such a barrier may fix and maintain in a particular association nationalist differences and programmatic heresies in general. But so long as we do not possess a strong Central Committee that can itself organise the work in every more or less important centre, communicate properly with it, and meet all its needs, so long will it be impossible and undesirable to suppress associations by decree. As to the negative aspects of associations, these can to a certain degree be weakened by that passage in the rules under which every organisation has the right to communicate directly with the CC and the Central Organ, and the right of the CC in certain cases to disband organisations—which means associations as well. I am handing to the Bureau a resolution which formulates my ideas on this matter.

Yegorov: After the Bund had left, one of our esteemed comrades said something to the effect that we had performed a very serious operation, we had cut out a cancer, but then he suddenly remembered something, and added that with cancer there can be a relapse. Yes, there can be relapses of cancer. But I did not expect that we should have to deal so soon with a relapse, and not even just with a relapse but with a real embryo cancer. If you listen carefully to the arguments of the Caucasian comrades you will hear just the same melodies that the comrades from the Bund sang to us: peculiarity of social structure, locality, nationality, and language, and need to combat nationalist trends. Caveant consules! If the Caucasian comrades are now speaking so modestly and quietly, this is because, in respect of their forces and degree of organisation, they are as yet only infants in comparison with the Bund. Let them grow, and you will see arise before you, if not a real Bund then at least a ‘mini-Bund’. I say again, take care, comrades. I want to add a factual correction. It was said here that the Caucasian Association is an established fact. As a member of the former OC I declare that the Caucasian comrades officially informed the OC that the Association does not exist. If it had, Caucasia would have been given two votes, not six.

Rusov: I must first apologise to the meeting for having once again to speak about the movement in Caucasia, although enough has been said about it here. Comrade Yegorov’s speech has impelled me to speak. He has alerted us all to manifest symptoms of nascent neoBundism. Let us analyse this. First of all, Comrade Yegorov, the Bund is a national organisation, whereas the Caucasian Association is a territorial one, an association of committees. These are two quite different things. Moreover, the need for the existence of this organisation, as has been shown several times throughout the proceedings of the congress, especially during the polemic with the Bund, is justified not by a desire for special representation of the proletariat of the borderlands in relation to the Party, but exclusively by the agitational and organisational peculiarities of the local movement. That can be confused with Bundism only by persons for whom it is not at all clear what the problem was that the Bund presented.

I will explain again why it is that we need a territorial organisation. What do you think, Comrade Yegorov, do we not need to give the Georgian, Armenian and Tatar workers literature in languages they understand, so that they may read and master the principles of our Party? Don’t we need to produce for them periodical publications which will introduce them to the all-Russia field of proletarian struggle and acquaint them with our movement as a whole? Of course we need these things. But will the editorial board of our Central Organ, or the Central Committee, take on this work? If so, then, of course, no special organisation for doing it will be needed. But I think that, at present, our central bodies cannot take on this work. Can they assume the task of undertaking extensive treatment of local affairs or, what is even more important, waging a broad struggle against various local nationalist trends? Again, I say they cannot do this; and in order that it may be done I propose that an association of those committees directly concerned in this work be set up. Perhaps Comrade Yegorov wants each separate committee to provide what is necessary for its own agitation? In that event, comrades, instead of going forward, we shall be dragged back. We shall return to that amateurism we had grown out of, that expending of forces on the local production of what more productively can be done by a large body. These are our arguments, Comrade Yegorov. If, after this, you still perceive Bundism, you are simply suffering from persecution mania. As for Comrade Gorin’s proposals about ‘agencies’, I think that inasmuch as every local committee is an agency of the CC, so also is an Association of Committees such an agency.

Kostrov: Comrade Yegorov sees in the defence of the Caucasian Association a new form of Bundism. Clearly, he is not familiar either with our part of the country or with our committees. In the first place, we have no national organisations but are an all-Caucasia body, including Georgians, Armenians and other nations of the Caucasus. In this respect we are radically different from the Bund, which concerns itself only with the Jewish proletariat and doesn’t want to know the others. Secondly, we occupy a clearly defined territory, which is markedly different from Russia in its peculiarities of everyday lite and requires special forms of activity. If Yegorov and other Russian comrades think they can do better in our part of the country than we and our Caucasian comrades are doing—please be so kind as to come along, the door is open, we will offer a field of activity. But I already see astonishment written on Comrade Yegorov’s face, from which I conclude that he would not think of doing that, and would not be able to. Comrade Posadovsky said that the organisation of territorial associations must be taken out of the sphere of local interests and brought into the general Party sphere. This is, in my view, unthinkable and undesirable. It is unthinkable because it is local questions that necessarily give rise to a movement and thereby merge it with the general Party movement: a local strike impels the workers along the path of general political struggle. It is undesirable because such organisations will be unsound, they will be built on sand, and consequently will lead to the weakening of the Party as a whole. It is the streams constituted by all the various local movements that will merge and form that mighty Party which will lead us to victory.

The session was closed.

Twenty-ninth Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates and 11 persons with consultative voice.)

The minutes of the 17th session were read.

Plekhanov (commenting on the minutes) said that his proposal to accept the original version of point 6 of the general-political demands of the programme, and hold over the remainder, concerning equality of languages, to the next congress, as this question was evidently not clear to most of the delegates, had been interpreted wrongly. He had not at all wished to suggest that the whole of this question was unclear to the Party generally, and he could not have suggested this if only because, having himself taken part in working out the draft programme, he considered that it was quite clear to him and to those who had been involved in the whole draft. He had merely supposed, in view of the difficulties the congress had experienced in voting on this point as a whole, that the question was insufficiently clear to the majority of delegates, and that therefore it needed to be clarified first, in the press.

Yegorov remarked that he personally had nothing against the explanation which Comrade Plekhanov had now given, but he was obliged to observe that at the session at which Comrade Plekhanov made his proposal, nobody had understood it in that sense, and even Plekhanov himself had not at the time given it that meaning.

Plekhanov said that he himself, of course, best knew what he had in mind when arguing in favour of his resolution, and that he was now merely using his right to give an explanation.

Yegorov said that, in the absence of a stenographic record of the Proceedings it was not possible to re-establish the actual meaning of what speakers had said. By his remarks he merely wished to emphasise that, at the actual session at which Plekhanov made this proposal, it had possessed a quite different shade of meaning, one of irony. [Plekhanov: ‘Quite true!’] and this had given a certain tone to the entire session.

The minutes of the 20th session were read and, after a few amendments had been made, were confirmed.

The congress proceeded to vote on the resolution concerning territorial organisations.

The resolutions moved by Lange, Posadovsky, Koltsov and Gorin were rejected:

Lange’s resolution: ‘The congress, while declaring in principle against the uniting of committees into associations, permits this to be done in certain cases. These cases are conditioned, on the one hand, by the weak functioning of the Central Committee in certain areas (borderlands, factory localities without important urban centres, and so on), and, on the other, by the impossibility, in the absence of such associations, of properly organising the work to be done. The drawing up of rules for territorial organisations is left for them to carry out jointly with the CC.’

Karsky’s resolution [Resolution moved by Karsky and Kostrov: ‘The congress recognises as permissible the establishment of territorial organisations, in the form of associations of committees, in those regions of Russia which are distinguished by important special features in respect of language, make-up of the population, and so on. Responsibility for approv ing the rules governing such organisations is assigned to the Party’s Central Committee.’] was adopted by 28 votes to two, with seven abstentions.

Posadovsky’s resolution: ‘Of the two existing types of united organisations: (1) the association of committees at the centre of which is an organisation elected by these committees, and (2) the united organisation which is independent of local organisations but, on the contrary, directs and regulates their work, the congress pronounces in favour of the second, since this type of organisation is derived directly from the function which this united organisation has to perform, that is, to link local work with work which is common to all Russia, not allowing it to become confined to local tasks. For this reason a united organisation should not grow out of local organisations.’

Koltsov’s resolution: ‘The congress recognises as permissible the formation of territorial organisations. The pattern of these organisations is to be established by local organisations in agreement with the Central Committee.’

Gorin’s resolution: ‘Where necessary, the Central Committee establishes regional agencies. Where possible these are to be composed by the Central Committee from local forces which enjoy the confidence of the committees. Part of this work of establishing regional committees can be entrusted by the Central Committee to the local committees.

Amendments to this resolution moved by Muravyov, [Muravyov’s resolution: ‘Declaring in principle against associations of committees, the congress nevertheless allows the formation of territorial organisation’, and so on (see Karsky’s resolution).] Pavlovich (to insert the words: ‘and in the form of united territorial organisations’) and Kostrov (to replace ‘admissible’ by ‘desirable’ were all rejected.

The congress then turned to the last item of the agenda, namely, the questions of particular organisations of the Party.

The deputy chairman, Lenin, explained that the purpose of this item was to discuss both the general question of all those organisations which might lie outside the rules of Party organisation and, in particular, each of the organisations which existed at present.

After this the Bureau asked if anyone wished to speak on this subject. Nobody wished to speak.

Kostich (on a point of order): I propose that we discuss the question of a popular organ.

Rusov: The question of a popular organ has nothing to do with the question on the agenda. I propose that we discuss the fate of those groups which stand outside the Party, and disband them.

Martov: In the name of the Iskra organisation I announce that I can save you the trouble of disbanding it. After the confirmation of the Party rules and the recognition of Iskra as the Party organ, the Iskra organisation ceased to exist as such.

Trotsky proposed discussing the question of Yuzhny Rabochy. Byelov proposed that each organisation be considered separately.

The chairman said that the proposals by Trotsky and Byelov coincided, since they both amounted to giving each organisation separate consideration.

Byelov proposed that a special resolution be passed in relation to each organisation, such as the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group, the Union, and so on.

Deutsch said that the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group had taken part in the congress, but it had been given two votes only on account of its historical services to the Party. The Group as such had merged with the League and had ceased to exist as a separate organisation.

Deutsch submitted a written statement on this matter, saying: ‘The "Emancipation of Labour" Group, as such, is dissolved in the Party organisation.’

Posadovsky: Since the Siberian Association represents the type of association envisaged by Pavlovich’s amendment, which was rejected when we voted, we need to make a specific declaration regarding the Siberian Association.

Lange: According to the sense of the resolution adopted by the congress it is not at all obvious that committees whose activity extends over more than one province have no right to exist. The area of activity of a committee is not defined in the rules, and so the Siberian Association has not been suppressed, but has been brought under the classification of an ordinary committee.

Lenin: This is not relevant.

Lange: I was answering Posadovsky.

Brouckère: I think we should make our resolution a general one, not particularising about this or that organisation. I have heard of many organisations which do not belong to the committee type, but I have no detailed information about them. I believe there are many organisations which nobody here knows about, and we ought to express only the general view of the congress regarding organisations which do not belong to the Party organisation.

Chairman: The one does not rule out the other. About some organisations we can express our view in principle, while about others, known to those present at the congress, we can speak particularly.

Karsky: We need to draw up a list of all organisations requiring to be either endorsed or disbanded. In Caucasia there is an association of committees which publishes an organ and so on. This needs to be sanctioned.

Gorin: I do not understand how we can take up an attitude to a particular organisation when we do not yet know the general principle which should guide us.

Chairman: Since we have adopted general rules for the Party we have thereby adopted a general principle. All the organisations of which we wish to speak have come into being precisely because of the absence of Party organisation. We have now adopted a certain form of organisation, and by doing this we have given our general decision.

Karsky: The organisations of which I speak serve local needs. If Gorin does not want to sanction them individually, then he thereby says that these organisations ought not to exist within the Party.

Rusov: It is clear that what we are concerned with here is organisations which do not enter into the Party’s hierarchy. We cannot deal with each organisation separately.

Lyadov moved his resolution.

Gusev: Lyadov’s resolution related to organisations which exist in Russia, whereas we are concerned with organisations abroad. I think there are a sufficient number of groups (Borba, Volya, Zhizn, etc.) about which the congress ought to record its view.

Lenin (Deputy Chairman): The Bureau has been handed a list of organisations compiled by Comrade Fomin. [Reads out the list.]

Muravyov: What is this Volya mentioned in the list? Its exact name should be given.

Makhov pointed out that Svoboda had been omitted from the list. Lvov supported Makhov, since Volya, etc., had been included.

Orlov: There is no point in moving a resolution about Volya and so forth. After all, they don’t put ‘RSDLP’ at the top of the page.

Lenin (Chairman) : Some of them do.

Martov: Whether they do or they don’t is not important. We need to compose a resolution about all the organisations to which this is relevant.

Kostrov proposed that the list include a paper published in the Armenian and Georgian languages, Borba Proletariata, etc.[48]

Lyadov proposed that the list include the PPS, the Bund and the Union of Lettish Social-Democrats.

Karsky: We are concerned with organisations belonging to the Party. Those mentioned by Lyadov don”t belong.

Lyadov: In any case I insist on the Bund being included.

Gorin: I propose that we do not include the editorial board of Borba Proletariata, since there is no such organisation. This paper is published by the Caucasian Association and its publishers do not constitute a separate organisation.

Karsky: Comrade Gorin has spent only a few days in Caucasia, and regularly, whenever he tries to speak as an expert on the subject, he says something that does not square with the facts. I insist on the need to include the editorial board of Borba Proletariata.

Koltsov: It won”t do to argue in that spirit about all the organisations, one after the other. We shall get drawn into matters of detail, and never finish.

Gorin: I did not deny the existence of the publication of which Kostrov and Karsky spoke. I merely said that it was published in the name of the Association.

Martov: We should authorise the CC to go into the Caucasian situation. Either there are three organisations there or there is none. We cannot make any sense of it here from what the Caucasian delegates have said. I now propose a resolution about the Borba group. [Reads it.] I do not agree that there should be a general resolution dealing with the Borba group and also with the Kuklin and Volya groups. One of these groups has principles, even if these are not sufficiently mature, whereas others have absolutely none, and with some we have differences of principle.

Plekhanov: Lack of principfes also means a difference of principle with us.

Martov: Absence of principles, immaturity and difference of principles are all quite different things.

Karsky: There are not three organisations in Caucasia. There is only. one organisation, which has to publish its material in three languages.

Rusov: The question of Armenian, Georgian and other publications is closely connected with the question of territorial organisations. These organisations, too, will publish everything that may be required.

Martov proposed a special resolution on Caucasia.

Rusov: It is quite unnecessary to have a resolution on each particular case, since we have a general resolution.

Gorin: I propose that the Caucasian organisation be deleted altogether from the list.

Karsky: We can”t delete what isn”t there.

Kostrov: We are not talking about the Caucasian committees but about the editorial board of Borba Proletariata, and that needs to be included in the list.

Lensky moved that discussion on the Caucasian Association and the editorial board be terminated.

Lenin proposed an adjournment so that a resolution could be composed.

Martov insisted on a vote being taken on his resolution about the Borba group.

Pavlovich proposed that the task of disbanding all organisations that needed to be disbanded be left to the CC.

Muravyov proposed that the whole question be handed over to a commission, and insisted that his resolution be voted on at once.

(A vote was taken on Muravyov’s resolution and it was rejected by a big majority.)

Byelov demanded that the general resolution should not include Yuzhny Rabochy, since one could not compare committees and suchlike organisations with this group.

Lenin (Deputy Chairman) read Koltsov’s resolution. Lyadov then withdrew his resolution.

Kostrov: Koltsov’s resolution contradicts the resolution which we have already adopted on territorial organisations.

Byelov: Some call for a general resolution dealing with all organisations, others for each one to be dealt with separately. We need first of all to settle that question.

Plekhanov (Chairman): The Bureau takes note of your observation, and appeals to the congress to settle the question.

Byelov proposed that a separate resolution be composed for each organisation.

Plekhanov (Chairman): I put Comrade Byelov’s proposal to the vote.

The majority expressed themselves in favour, though the votes were not counted.

Lenin (Deputy Chairman): Comrade Byelov proposes that Koltsov’s resolution be rejected.

Byelov protested.

Lenin: So, then, we will put Byelov’s proposal to the vote.

Byelov: It has already been passed.

Lenin: The votes were not counted. You have not submitted your resolution in writing. Please do that.

Byelov handed up a written resolution.

Lenin read the resolution and said that it was quite vague, and that with such a wording the supporters of Koltsov’s resolution could vote for it, too. He therefore asked Byelov to make his resolution more precise.

Fomin: The congress can express itself in favour of adopting a general resolution and then proceed to examine particular cases.

Yegorov said that nothing was said in the agenda about the congress giving instructions about how the CC was to act: that the agenda had in view not working out instructions for the CC, but defining its attitude to particular organisations. Yet the resolution which had been moved was more like an instruction to the CC.

Koltsov: Every question talls for a general resolution first: particular decisions can be taken subsequently.

Lange: Koltsov’s resolution does not embrace such organisations as those in Riga and elsewhere which do not want to join the local committees. We need to adopt some sort of general resolution, but after that we must look at the question in detail.

Yegorov: Since the agenda includes the question of endorsing existing organisations there is no point in deferring the endorsement of these organisations and charging the CC with this responsibility.

Martov: The discussion has become absolutely chaotic. We have been talking for two hours, first of all arguing about whether an organisation exists in Caucasia, then about my resolutions, and now again everybody is talking about whatever occurs to him. It is impossible to conduct a discussion like this.

The secretaries said that owing to the many brief remarks made and the chaotic character of the discussion it was almost impossible to take minutes.

Fomin: The trouble is that there has been a misunderstanding. A general resolution does not rule out a considerate attitude by the congress towards those organisations which are regarded as existing at present. It has been proposed that a vote be taken on a resolution of principle regarding item 8 of the agenda, and that we then proceed to discuss the question of the separate organisations.

Ivanov : How are we to understand item 8?

Lenin explained that the agenda provided for both general resolutions and for resolutions on the particular organisations which were outside the Party organisation. Whether the congress adopted or rejected Koltsov’s resolution, it could then proceed to examine the particular organisations according to the list which the Bureau possessed. Comrade Yegorov’s objection was unfounded.

Yegorov: If Comrade Koltsov agrees with Comrade Lenin’s explanation, I regard that as the end of the matter.

Koltsov’s resolution [Koltsov’s resolution: “As regards local organisations, the congress recognises it as necessary that only one leading organisation should exist in the centres of Party activity, and authorises the Central Committee to take measures to establish this unity. Where non-local organisations are concerned—military organisations, publishing organisations, etc.—the congress regards the existence of such organisations as possible provided they are endorsed by the Party’s CC.”] was voted on and passed, all voting in favour except for two abstentions.

Lange’s resolution [Lange’s resolution: “Regarding the so-called Social-Democratic groups (unformed committees) which exist in certain towns, where there are no Party committees, the congress proposes to the CC that it take measures to ensure that all these organisations either formalise their existence by declaring themselves Party committees, or else, should this form some reason be impossible, that they all enter the Party on conditions defined by agreement with the CC.”] was rejected. The congress then proceeded to discuss resolutions on the attitude towards particular organisations.

Martov’s resolution on the Borba group [Martov’s resolution: “Considering that the literary group called Borba regards itself as belonging to the RSDLP and has expressed its intention of submitting to the decisions of the Party congress, the congress authorises the CC to approach the Borba group with the proposal that it disband its organisation as such, for the separate existence of which there is no need, and that its members join a Party organisation.”] was passed, all voting in favour except for one against and one abstention.

Next came a resolution on the “Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad”.

Rusov: I suggest we pass Martov’s resolution again, merely substituting “the Union” for Borba.

Martov: I don”t agree. It is impossible to put Borba and the Union on a par. The Union is an organisation which was endorsed by the First Congress. Besides, the Union is not a literary group, of the Borba type.

Plekhanov moved a resolution about the Union [Plekhanov’s resolution: “The Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad is considered to be disbanded. Its members are invited to join one of the organisations which have been endorsed by the Party.”] which was passed (all voting in favour, except for two abstentions) after the words “has ceased to exist” had been replaced by “is considered to be disbanded”.

The session was closed.

Thirtieth Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates and 55 persons with consultative voice.)

Martov’s resolution on the Kuklin Press group (formerly Zhizn) and the Borba group was voted on. [Martov’s resolution: “Considering (a) that the Kuklin Press group (formerly Zhizn) does not regard itself as being part of the RSDLP and has no organisational relations with the Party organisation, and that the draft of a Social-Democratic programme which it presented was offered by it for some unknown congress of “a Russian Social-Democratic Party”; (b) that the group called the “Revolutionary Social-Democratic organisation Volya” similarly does not regard itself as being part of the RSDLP, and sets itself the task, as is clear from its manifesto, of uniting the Social-Democrats with the Socialist-Revolutionaries—the congress places on record that neither of these organisations belongs to the Party or has anything in common with the organised Russian Social-Democratic movement. The question of the future relationship of these groups with the Party is to be decided by the CC of the Party, if these groups make application to it.”] The resolution was passed, all voting in favour, except for two abstentions.

Chairman: We have before us the question of the Yuzhny Rabochy group.

Gusev proposed that the comrade from Yuzhny Rabochy should speak.

Popov: When other organisations were being dealt with nobody obliged them to speak. The congress has, without that, enough material to judge whether or not we should be disbanded. The congress has also been adequately informed about the Yuzhny Rabochy group. We gave a report at the right time. Everything now depends on the congress alone, and I don”t understand what it is that is wanted from us.

Gusev: Yuzhny Rabochy performed two functions, literary and technical (conveyance of literature, etc.) So far as its literary role is concerned it would be appropriate, perhaps, to shift this question to the item on publications. So far as the technical side is concerned, the establishment of the Central Committee renders unnecessary the further existence of the Yuzhny Rabochy group. Still, it might be better to leave this question to be dealt with by the CC.

Yegorov: The congress found it necessary to declare itself regarding all the other groups, which also performed various functions. Why make an exception of us? The congress should pronounce its opinion definitely.

Lyadov: One can”t confuse those groups with Yuzhny Rabochy. They were not present here, but Yuzhny Rabochy is present, has taken part in our debates—in other words, has undertaken to submit to the CC. This question should be shifted to the item about Party publications.

Kostich: I have already brought up the question of the close link between the question of Yuzhny Rabochy and that of the popular organ. Yuzhny Rabochy performed that function for all Russia. It was read and disseminated in large numbers not only in the South but also in Central Russia and everywhere else. I propose that this question be transferred to the item in Party publications.

Yegorov: Which will not be discussed!

Chairman: You are interpreting wrongly our resolution of yesterday. This question can be discussed if only ten persons request it.

Muravyov: These questions are not connected in any way. The question of popular literature is one thing and the question of Yuzhny Rabochy as a technical group is another. When the Iskra group was found to be dissolved, no doubts about that were raised here. It should be the same with Yuzhny Rabochy.

Kostich moved a resolution for the question of a popular organ to be discussed.

Chairman (Lenin):[49] This proposal cannot be adopted without the signature of ten persons.

Plekhanov: The resolution we adopted yesterday makes it impossible for this question to be discussed.

Yegorov: We ask that this question be decided immediately, “yes” or “no”. If it is moved to the item on publications that will mean removing it from discussion altogether.

Orlov: Yuzhny Rabochy fulfilled two functions. In practice, its work amounted to uniting the Party. Yuzhny Rabochy gave vigorous help to the OC in its preparatory work. In view of the establishment of the Central Organ and the Central Committee these functions have become entirely superfluous. As regards the literary functions of Yuzhny Rabochy, the collaboration of the members of this group in Iskra will be very fruitful. He then moved a resolution. [Orlov’s resolution: “Noting the fruitful literary and organisational activity of the Yuzhny Rabochy group for the unification and restoration of the Party; expressing, further, its confidence that the chaos in respect of principles and organisation which for so long divided Russia’s Social-Democrats will, with the setting-up of the highest Party institutions, come to an end; and recognising that, in the present state of the Party’s forces the existence of two all-Russia Party organs is undesirable—the second congress of the RSDLP considers that the continued existence of the Yuzhny Rabochy group as a collective entity is unnecessary, declares it to be disbanded, and proposes to its members that they join the appropriate Party organisations.”]

Chairman: We have two resolutions before us. Which shall we discuss?

Lyadov: Comrade Kostich’s resolution is out of order. The question of the popular organ should be deferred.

The Chairman proposed that Kostich’s resolution be voted on. He asked the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy to express their views about the future, so that the matter might be settled to mutual satisfaction.

Popov: I say again: if the congress finds it necessary for Yuzhny Rabochy to continue, we shall go on publishing it: if otherwise, we shall not. We have delivered our report, and, besides, many organisations have had very active relations with us and know us very well. The congress has quite enough material with which to settle the question. The congress has decisively and definitively given its view regarding the Union, Borba and so on. It remains for the congress to do the same in relation to us.

Yegorov: Although we are all individually members of the Party, it nevertheless consists of a number of organisations with which we have to reckon as historical entities. They can either be broken up or they can continue. But if such an organisation is not detrimental to the

Party, there is no need to dissolve it. Iskra ” considered that it was necessary for it to disband. Yuzhny Rabochy does not consider this necessary. I repeat, there is no point in linking this question with that of a popular organ.

Gusev: The question is not one of treating Yuzhny Rabochy as being detrimental, and so on, in order to dissolve it. Everyone has already said enough about how useful Yuzhny Rabochy has been. Iskra was even more useful, but it considered it necessary to declare itself disbanded and assimilated into the Party. We expect the same of Yuzhny Rabochy.

Rusov: I must give a straight answer to Comrade Yegorov’s question. Yuzhny Rabochy stated quite definitely in its time that it was in complete solidarity with Iskra. That is why the question of Yuzhny Rabochy is a bit ticklish. But we must speak bluntly. The question is this: do we need, in addition to the Party organ, other, local organs, such as Rabochaya Mysl, Yuzhny Rabochy, or Nashe Dyelo? I am not comparing them as regards quality. I am opposed in general to the existence of local organs. Yuzhny Rabochy is unnecessary, like Rabochaya Mysl and Nashe Dyelo.

Yegorov: That’s a lie! Yuzhny Rabochy can”t be put on a level with Rabochaya Mysl.

Chairman: I cannot allow you to talk like that. Withdraw what you said.

Rusov: I was not thinking at all of putting Yuzhny Rabochy on a level with Rabochaya Mysl. I meant something different. [General commotion in the hall and shouts of: “Point of order!” and “Withdraw!” The chairman rings his bell.]

Yegorov: All right! After Rusov’s explanation I am willing to withdraw what I said.

Rusov (continuing): All the Party’s existing forces must be directed into the Party organ. All non-Party and local organs are superfluous. The local publications in Yiddish, Armenian and Georgian are a different matter: we can”t get by without them. Yuzhny Rabochy was very useful, but we can”t take account here of Party sympathies.

Lange: Comrade Yegorov’s point of departure, which is that “what is not harmful is useful,” or, “if Yuzhny Rabochy was useful, then it should be left alone,” is not a position of principle. It is permeated with that very spirit against which the congress has been fighting all along. We must approach the question of Yuzhny Rabochy from a different angle. If the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy had adhered more strictly to principle earlier, a year or two ago, the unity of the Party and the triumph of the programmatic principles which we have sanctioned here would have been achieved earlier. Yes, indeed: if the talented literary forces of Yuzhny Rabochy, instead of being spent on producing a popular organ which was published in one, two or three thousand copies and which appeared once in every two or three months, had joined together with the forces of Iskra, then we should have had an even richer content and Iskra would have been even more readable for the workers, and, furthermore, we should have had a large quantity of popular literature, of which we stand in such great need, and this literature would have reached the North and other parts more abundantly than it did. Consequently, all the more so now, when we have met together to unite our forces, to put an end to all survivals of amateurism, all the more so now must we not allow any dispersion, and therefore the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy ought to devote their forces to that institution which by the will of the congress has been designated for the production of our literature in general and our popular literature in particular. For this reason I am definitely in favour of Yuzhny Rabochy ceasing to exist.

Deutsch: The previous speakers have said essentially all that there is to say. The position the congress is in is very ticklish, since Yuzhny Rabochy does not want to disband, but Comrade Gusev has very aptly reminded us of what happened with the “Emancipation of Labour” group and Iskra. They realised that with the setting-up of Party institutions their further existence was unnecessary, and so they put an end to it. Yes, it is hard, but we have to say to you, comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy, that your existence as a group is unnecessary. I am very grateful to Rusov for the blunt way he put the question. For a second organ besides Iskra to exist, in our state of poverty, is a luxury we can”t afford. Only organisational chaos accounts for the fact that the two exist simultaneously. I have waited in vain for an answer to the question as to what line on general Party publications the Yuzhny Rabochy group would take up. I think, therefore, that it is logical to discuss the question of the Yuzhny Rabochy group in connection with that of Party publications. Since they protest against disbandment, I am at a loss, and I say bluntly that the Yuzhny Rabochy group is not needed as a separate organisation.

Muravyov: When Comrade Gusev mentioned Iskra in his speech, somebody exclaimed: “But it hasn”t been abolished!” That is true.

But did Comrade Yegorov and all the others who voted for Iskra to be endorsed as the Party’s Central Organ do that because Iskra was harmless? No, of course not. In endorsing Iskra we all assumed that it would, as the Central Organ, be in the highest degree useful to the Party.

Pavlovich: I propose that the discussion be ended. Why have we spent two hours trying to get an answer from Yuzhny Rabochy ? The Yuzhny Rabochy comrades have quite properly remained silent. It is wrong to interrogate them. What would be best would be to settle the question of the Yuzhny Rabochy group as an organisation. At the same time we can talk about a popular organ, since Yuzhny Rabochy was very useful in that connection.

Plekhanov (Chairman): Nobody has subjected Yuzhny Rabochy to interrogation. In the interests of mutual agreement I wanted to clarify matters with the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy, to learn what their views about the future were.

Pavlovich’s proposal for closure of the discussion was rejected.

Glebov: While esteeming Yuzhny Rabochy highly, I should like to see all our forces united around the Central Organ. If the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy are in complete solidarity with Iskra, it is to be desired that they take part in the work of the Central Organ. That would be very useful for Iskra. I am strongly in favour of the disbandment of Yuzhny Rabochy, out of concern for concentrating our forces.

Popov: I don”t understand why the chairman, after Comrade Rusov’s speech, which took a very correct line, had to go back to the beginning of the debate. I am speaking on the item of the agenda we are supposed to be discussing—the place of different groups in the Party, not Party publications. It remains to be decided whether we need the Yuzhny Rabochy group. The question of the Union and that of Borba have already been settled. They have been deemed superfluous and invited to work in the Party. Now, after the speeches by Comrades Rusov and Orlov everything is clear. The question of Yuzhny Rabochy should be decided without any relation to Party publications.

Lyadov: The question of Yuzhny Rabochy cannot be separated from that of Party publications. The Yuzhny Rabochy group is at the same time the editorial board of Yuzhny Rabochy. If we decide against having a popular organ we decide that the existence of Yuzhny Rabochy is unnecessary. But bringing Yuzhny Rabochy into conjunction with the question of a popular organ is essentially incorrect. Yuzhny Rabochy was not at all a popular organ. It was a surrogate for Iskra, and an unsuccessful one at that. The question of Yuzhny Rabochy needs to be taken along with the question of local organs.

Lenin: After all these explanations I find it most expedient to adopt Kostich’s resolution on the popular organ. It has been said that Yuzhny Rabochy wanted to be a popular organ, and occupied a corresponding position in the Party. In the interests of the cause, in view of the delicate situation into which we have fallen, it is right to recognise this “case” as deserving special attention and to allow ourselves to make a departure from the rule we adopted yesterday. We should proceed to discuss the question of the popular organ, although this is irregular, This ought to be allowed, and I favour making this one exception.

Trotsky: These questions are indeed very much connected, and for that very reason Lenin’s proposal should be decisively rejected. We have more important questions to discuss and ought not to waste time. I am for rejecting Lenin’s proposal.

Martov: I agree with Trotsky. Two departures from rules which have been permitted by the Bureau need to be mentioned here. First, Kostich’s resolution, which had not been signed by ten delegates, should not even have been read, and second, discussion of it should not have been allowed. Although these questions are connected, the comrades from Yuzhny Rabochy will probably not insist that this question be discussed before the elections. 5 move that Kostich’s resolution be rejected, since it runs counter to our decision of yesterday. Not much time is left, and if we get on to the question of the popular organ, which, according to our decision taken yesterday, can be considered only after the elections, we run the risk that the most important items on the agenda will have to be decided in haste.

Byelov: Without having discussed the question of the popular organ we cannot answer the question as to whether we need Yuzhny Rabochy. I agree with Lenin’s proposal.

Deutsch: I am against Lenin’s proposal. Let me remind the congress that we have to disperse on Saturday.

Trotsky: Only four can speak on a point of order: you are letting them speak. [Shouts: “You”re wrong!”]

Martov: Only four can speak on the question of discussing Kostich’s resolution.

Chairman: Our list of speakers has not been closed.

Lenin: I can”t stop the speakers. Speak, Comrade Gorin!

Gorin: By virtue of the decision to recognise Iskra as the central organ, all other organs performing a similar role were dissolved. If Yuzhny Rabochy was a general organ, then it was ipso facto suppressed. If it was a district paper, the question will be gone into later. What we have to deal with here is the disbandment of the Yuzhny Rabochy group, without predetermining the question of the popular organ.

Posadovsky: I propose that the discussion be ended.

This proposal was passed.

Martov moved a resolution for the question of Yuzhny Rabochy to be left open until the question of Party publications came up for discussion, and to proceed immediately to the elections.

Chairman (Lenin) (having read the resolution): Martov’s resolution puts us in a completely impossible position. [Great commotion, shouts, protests.][50]

Martov withdrew his resolution, vigorously protesting at Lenin’s statement. [The up roar in the hall grows louder.]

Lenin: Comrades! Let me say this: I spoke only of the impossible position in which we are put by Martov’s proposal that we transfer the question to another item of the agenda. I was fully entitled, and even obliged, as Chairman, to refer to the incompatibility of Martov’s proposal with the agenda. I admit guilt only, perhaps, in showing partiality to the agenda. I repeat, I could not have acted otherwise.

Trotsky: After leaving to the will of fate the question of the popular organ we can with equal justification treat the question of Yuzhny Rabochy in the same way. More important questions remain for us to deal with. Lenin is wrong. He did not explain Martov’s resolution but started a polemic against it. He had no right to do that! Adopting Kostich’s resolution also means a direct breach of the rules we adopted.

Lenin: The Bureau states that it considers itself justified in putting Kostich’s resolution to the vote.

Popov asked that Orlov’s resolution be voted on.

Martov moved the following resolution: “In view of the fact that the question of elections to the central institutions is one without settling which the congress cannot break up, and in view of the fact that introducing into the agenda questions other than those provided for in yesterday’s decision might prevent a decision being taken on the most urgent task, the congress rules that the question of the Yuzhny Rabochy group will be considered in connection with the question of Party publications, in accordance with the agenda, and proceeds to discuss the other parts of the agenda.”

Lenin: The Bureau considers that we cannot proceed to the elections before finishing with item 8. It is indeed necessary to get to the elections as soon as possible, and Martov’s proposal would be acceptable if it did not propose to omit part of item 8. This would be another departure from the rule adopted.

Martov: May I speak? I must say, in reply, that, under the pretext of giving an explanation, the Bureau is arguing against my resolution. [Commotion and protests in the hall.] I propose that we discuss the remaining parts of item 8, but I categorically refuse to discuss immediately the question of a popular organ. I insist on my right to explain… [The shouts and protests are intensified.]

Popov: I don”t understand how it is that our modest group has caused such passionate debate. I ask that Comrade Orlov’s resolution be voted on.

Lenin proposed that Martov’s resolution be voted on, though the Bureau did not agree.

Martov’s resolution was rejected by 24 to 55.

Lenin: I put Kostich’s resolution to the vote. [Uproar and protests in the hall.]

Deutsch: I propose that the session be closed.

Martov: Lenin is wrong in referring to the voting on my resolution as a departure from rule. This does not justify him in making a further departure. I hope that the Bureau will not refuse to answer this question.

Lenin: I will answer. Martov departed from the rule in that he postponed part of item 8 to an indefinite future. Comrade Kostich, on the contrary, wants to bring in here, under ítem 8, a question which is inseparably connected with this item. We are not justified in leaving part of item 8 undiscussed. I affirm that to vote on Comrade Kostich’s resolution will not in any way go against the rule.

Popov: Owing to the strong feeling shown in the debate the Bureau has again made a mistake. It has agreed to put to the vote a resolution which is contrary to rule, since it lacks the signatures of ten persons. This is inadmissible.

Lenin: Not at all. Since a departure from the rules was allowed in putting Martov’s resolution to the vote, the Bureau is justified in similarly putting Kostich’s resolution to the vote.

Deutsch: I doubt whether the Bureau can decide this controversial point. It should appeal to the congress.

Kostich: I withdraw my resolution.

Lenin: In that case I give it my backing.

Kostich: And I move a different resolution, for the settlement of this problem to be referred to the Central Committee.

A discussion took place on which resolution should be taken first. Eventually, by 35 votes to five, with five abstentions, Orlov’s resolution, as amended by Martov, was adopted. Martov’s amendment was to delete the phrase beginning with the word “expressing” and ending with the words “come to an end”, and substitute another phrase.

Chairman: Let us pass to the resolutions about other groups. On the list we have: (5) the Borba group, (2) the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad, (3) the Kuklin press group (formerly Zhizn ), (4) the Yuzhny Rabochy group, (5) the Revolutionary Social-Democratic Organisation Volya. Does anyone wish to add other organisations to the list?

Karsky: I propose adding Borba Proletariata, in Caucasia. Pavlovich: I propose adding Rabochaya Volya, in Odessa. Glebov: I propose adding the Voronezh Fighting Fund”. Lvov: I propose adding Svoboda.

Rusov: I propose deleting the editorial board of the Caucasian organ.

Karsky: I protest against Rusov’s proposal and insist that the editorial board of Borba Proletariata be included in the list.

The congress agreed with Rusov’s proposal.

Karsky: I ask that a vote be taken on my proposal that Borba Proletariata be recognised as the party organ of the Caucasian Social-Democratic Association.

The Chairman declined to accept Karsky’s proposal, on the grounds that the editorial board of Borba Proletariata had already been deleted from the list.

The congress also decided not to include in the list the other organisations which had been mentioned: Rabochaya Volya, the Voronezh Fighting Fund, and Svoboda. The rapporteur of the commission which had been discussing the proposed agreement with the Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania then spoke.

Fomin (rapporteur) reported on the results of the talks and presented the commission’s resolution for discussion. [The commission’s resolution: “Expressing regret that the departure of the Polish comrades from the congress, due to accidental circumstances, has deprived the congress of the possibility of concluding the discussion of the question of the Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania joining the RSDLP, and hoping that it will only be a matter of time before they join, the congress authorises the Central Committee to continue the talks begun at the congress.”]

Yegorov proposed that a special resolution be introduced regarding the Polish comrades” demand on the “self-determination” point.

Lenin considered that it was clear enough from the minutes what the views of the congress were on this matter. There was no need to renew discussion on it.

The resolution was passed with 33 votes, four delegates abstaining.

The congress expressed itself further in the sense that confirmation of the list of local and non-local organisations was a task for the CC, on the basis of the decisions taken earlier, passed to consideration of item 58 of the agenda, the elections to the Party’s central institutions.

Rusov: We now have to deal, comrades, with important questions affecting the whole Party, namely, the creation of the Party centres. All the enormous amount of work we have done at the congress, the programme and rules we have worked out, will come to nothing if we do not elect an effective body. But, before we proceed to the elections themselves, we must decide on the actual methods of election. I should think the best method would be to elect two trios, one for the Central Committee and the other for the editorial board of the Central Organ. This election, as also all elections of functionaries, should be carried out by secret written vote. For greater security I think it would be a good idea, as regards the election to the CC, that determination of the results of the voting should be entrusted to the chairman, and then only one person out of those elected will be made known to the congress. I put a proposal to this effect to the Bureau.

Trotsky: I support Comrade Rusov’s proposal. The question of the editorial board of the Central Organ is easier, simpler, and can be disposed of at once.

I therefore propose that the question of the appointment of the editorial board be separated from that of the appointment of the Central Committee, and that the former be taken first.

Koltsov: Our rules, which are in general not distinguished by particular indulgence towards so-called democratism”, make an exception, for some reason, where the editorial board is concerned. If I did not challenge this point when the rules were being discussed, this was only because the word “appoints” has a wider meaning than the word “elects”. As far as I am aware of the practice of West-European Social-Democratic Parties, I know of two possibilities: either (5) the organ is created after the party has been constituted, and then the party’s executive committee is given the task of “appointing” the editorial board of the central organ, or (2) the organ existed previously, as is the case with us, and in such a case the party, in endorsing a particular organ endorses at the same time its editorial board. I move a resolution to that effect.

Posadovsky: Comrades! It is proposed that we elect three editors for our central organ, Iskra. I regard that proposal of Comrade Rusov’s as unacceptable. We know, comrades, one, integral Iskra. This entity we have recognised as our Party organ, because we know it. But how can we know which of the old editorial board played what role in creating that harmonious whole which we possessed in Iskra ? What arguments can be adduced in support of Comrade Rusov’s proposal? Only one, that in the editorial board as it was composed there might have been some dissonances, and in order to get rid of these dissonances it is necessary to reduce the number of editors, and choose three. But what assurance have we that Iskra would be better without these dissonances? Why is it not possible to suppose that it is just because of them that Iskra has become what it is? I think that we cannot go into an analysis of which members of the old board played what role in creating Iskra, and since it seems to me impossible to choose three persons without such an analysis, I am against Comrade Rusov’s proposal, and support the proposal the the old editorial board of Iskra, complete, be recognised as the editorial board of our Central Organ.

Lvov agreed with Comrade Rusov’s proposal that the question of the Central Organ be taken first. A special commission should be elected to count the votes.

Muravyov: Comrade Koltsov says that the rules speak of “appointing” the editorial board, and that, in his view, it would be most natural to interpret this passage, in its application to the question now before us, as meaning that the old editorial board should be confirmed in office. I cannot agree with this interpretation. The term “appointment”, as was, I think, made clear when the rules were being worked out, was preferred precisely because it covers both election and confirmation. I cannot agree, either, with Comrade Trotsky’s proposal, that we first appoint the editorial board and then talk about elections to the CC. This would only take up more of our time, and it has been said here more than once how undesirable it is to drag out the session of the congress. Comrade Posadovsky, in proposing that the old editorial board be confirmed, says that “if there are some minor dissonances”, the congress is not competent to undertake an examination of such circumstances. In my opinion it is now quite clear to the majority of the congress that such “dissonances” undoubtedly do exist. And just because of that, I support Comrade Rusov’s proposal that an editorial board consisting of three persons be elected by the congress, by secret written vote.

Martov: Since Comrade Muravyov has frankly raised the question of internal relations among the members of the former editorial board of Iskra, in order to eliminate which a board of three should be established, three other editors of Iskra and myself consider that it would be more convenient if this question were to be discussed without our being present. We are therefore leaving the meeting so that in our absence comrades can express their views on this matter with greater freedom and lack of restraint. [General commotion and uproar in the hall. Martov, Starover, Zasulich and Akselrod make their way to the exit.]

Plekhanov: As chairman I would not allow anyone to talk here about the internal affairs of the editorial board. But I agree that our presence might embarrass the congress, and I think the other members of the board will leave as well. We shall also leave. I entrust you, Comrade Pavlovich, with the responsibility of taking the chair. [All the members of the editorial board leave.]

Pavlovich proposed that the congress express its view as to whether the editors should be present during the discussion.

[Incredible uproar in the hall—impossible to hear anything.]

Trotsky spoke about Comrade Muravyov’s statement regarding the internal relations of the editorial board.

Muravyov protested that his meaning had been misrepresented by Trotsky.

Trotsky (continuing): It was enough for one person to feel embarrassed by such a statement for the entire editorial board to leave the hall in corpore, so as to ensure a calm discussion. We have now considerably facilitated our task of discussing this question.

Lange: I don”t agree with Trotsky. I don”t understand why the editorial board should have felt embarrassed. These dissonances are not our concern. We shall decide the question purely on a basis of principle, and to do this we need to have the editors participating in our discussion.

Tsaryov proposed that the discussion be closed.

Popov: I think, comrades, that the question of procedure can be settled quickly by a decision on the substance of the matter. In this connection I should like to repeat what Comrade Posadovsky said. I should not have wished to touch on those “dissonances” of which Comrade Muravyov spoke, but since they have been mentioned, I would advise Comrade Muravyov, considering his particular cast of mind, not to undertake such delicate commissions. [Stormy applause.] Let me remind you, comrades, of the day when we discussed item 3 of our agenda. On that occasion the speeches of Comrade Yegorov and myself were met with loud applause—and not, of course, because of what we said, but because Iskra, endorsement of which as the central organ we were proposing, merited that applause. Remembering that day now, I am amazed at the change which has taken place. Now, Comrade Rusov does not favour the editorial board with his confidence, and demands that it submit to re-election, and this meets with the backing of a considerable section of the comrades. For my part, I am not at all satisfied with the reasons given by Comrade Rusov, and I consider that to go into the internal relations of the editorial board and evaluate individual members of it would be both useless and unworthy of the congress. I propose therefore that we do what we have already done once—confirm the editorial board of Iskra as at present composed.

[Popov’s speech was several times interrupted by stormy applause. When he finished, general commotion reigned in the hall once more.]

Yegorov: Order will be restored if we confirm the editorial board in corpore.

Pan in (on a point of order) asked that the proposal already made to close the discussion be voted on.

The proposal was rejected.

Lange moved the following resolution: “In our discussion of the question of electing the editorial board, which we now have to do, there can be nothing that would render undesirable the presence of the editorial board here at this moment.”

Pavlovich proposed that this resolution be voted on, and expressed hope that it would clear the atmosphere.

Fomin: We must proceed to discuss the substance of the matter, without bringing pressure to bear on the editors, who have left.

Rusov: There is nothing delicate in what we have to discuss. The editorial board should be asked to return.

Lange: We shall not say anything that would be uncomfortable for the editors to hear.

Kostich asked that a vote be taken on the admissibility of Lange’s resolution.

Gusev: Voting on Comrade Kostich’s proposal would be a complete waste of time, since those who will vote for not allowing this resolution to be considered will also vote against the resolution itself.

Makhov: And perhaps I shall find it improper that such a question should even be put to the vote.

Kostich’s proposal was adopted by 59 to 56, with two abstentions.

The Chairman read some resolutions which had been handed in to the Bureau. [Several persons spoke at the same time about resolutions they had submitted. General disorder.]

Popov: I propose that we confirm the editorial board as a whole.

Koltsov asked several times to raise a point of order, but owing to the uproar nobody heard him.

Trotsky: Comrades! I draw your attention to that fact that our time is being lost in a dialogue between the chairman and Comrade Rusov. We should proceed at once to vote on the question whether to elect the editorial board or to appoint it.

The Chairman read the resolutions by Koltsov [Koltsov’s resolution: “Having recognised Iskra as the Party’s central organ, the congress has thereby also recognised its editorial board.”] and Trotsky [Trotsky’s resolution: “The congress considers it necessary to confirm the former editorial board of Iskra as a whole, without any elections.”] and invited discussion of the latter.

Kostich: The newspaper Iskra has done tremendous constructive work, as everybody has said at this congress. Everyone has said: “The present congress is to a very great extent the work of Iskra. ” Nobody has said, or could have said, how much of a contribution to this achievement was made by this person or that person. We in Russia recognised Iskra, as the leading organ, as an integral body. We endorsed it at the congress as the Party’s central organ, as an integral body, and we in Russia understood the appointment of the editorial board as a confirmation of the editors as a body. And now we are being asked to choose three persons to edit the Central Organ, because of fiction among the editors, says Comrade Muravyov. I regard Comrade Muravyov’s statement, which shifted the focus of attention to the question of relations between individuals, as being, at the very least, extremely misplaced. We are not concerned with personal relations between the editors, and we have no right to meddle in these relations. If there is friction, an independent body will be able, on its own, to eliminate this. We have known the editorial board as an integral body, and as such we should confirm it.

Tsaryov: Comrade Rusov said that election of Party functionaries is a highly responsible task and difficult to carry out. That is quite true. Why, then, does he want to complicate this task still further, by proposing that we not only elect the CC, but also select a group of three out of the membership of the editorial board? What need is there to do this? Hitherto we have known not different individual members of the editorial board, but a harmonious collective which played such an outstanding role in the life of our Party, brilliantly proved its capacity for work, and won general approval. Why does Rusov want to select a trio of “the best”? Which of us who has not been initiated into the intimate life of the editorial board is able, so to speak, to decide the relative weight of each member of the editorial board in the work they perform together? And how will the editors who are not re-elected feel about the fact that the congress does not want to see them on the board any more? Hitherto we have known a single entity, the editorial board. Almost all the committees recognised it as their leading organ. And we too, by recognising Iskra as our Party organ, recognised it, of course, with that composition of the editorial board which has prevailed up to now. I propose that we leave this composition unchanged in the future, as well, and I express profound conviction that our decision will meet with great rejoicing in all parts and every corner of Russia.

Popov: The question has been made clear. I propose that the discussion be ended. We have already discussed item 3 of the agenda. Our recognition of Iskra as the leading organ has settled the question. Going into their internal dissonances is out of place and unworthy of the congress.

Chairman: The question cannot be put like that. Why does this have to be seen as an expression of disrespect?

Gusev: Comrade Popov is afraid that we are going to investigate the personal relations of the members of the editorial board. Let him not worry. We are not going to touch on that. We have tact and know how to conduct a discussion.

The congress voted on and adopted with 20 votes a proposal to close the list of speakers. [During the voting a rather sharp interchange took place between comrades Deutsch and Orlov.]

It was proposed that the time allowed to speakers be restricted to three minutes (Yegorov), two minutes (Fomin) and five minutes (the Chairman). The proposal for two minutes received 56 votes, that for three received 20, and that for five received eight.

Gorin: The proposal that the editorial board be elected has not been understood here at all. This question is a purely technical one. I look upon it as a way of simplifying the editors” work through an election. We could let them carry out the election themselves, but it would be better for us to do it.

Posadovsky: Something that 5 said, in a conditional way, was used very irrelevantly by Comrade Muravyov, and raised quite a storm. I will try to explain my meaning. By electing three members of the old board and discarding three others, we thereby undertake, and cannot but undertake an analysis and a judgement of the role of particular editors in the creation of Iskra, we enter into that evaluation of “dissonances” which Comrade Muravyov engaged in. In that harmonious whole, homogeneous as crystal, that was Iskra, I do not think it possible to distinguish what was created by this editor or by that. 5 warn you, comrades, against breaking into that entity, I protest against the meddling in that entity which has been proposed to us. If you follow the advice that has been suggested to you, what certainty have you that, in suppressing dissonances, you will not lose what is most valuable? By electing three of the six members of the old editorial board, you pronounce the other three to be unnecessary and superfluous. And you have neither any right to do that nor any grounds for doing it.

Rusov: The nervous excitement and the impassioned atmosphere which has been created here by the discussion of the question of electing members of the editorial board has resulted in our hearing strange speeches from the lips of revolutionaries, speeches that are in marked disharmony with the concepts of Party work and Party ethics. The basic argument of those opposed to electing trios amounts to a purely philistine conception of Party affairs. If you do not elect Ivan Ivanovich, a prominent Party worker, you are expressing lack of confidence in him, and thereby insulting him. After all, they keep telling us, you don”t know whether such and such a person is able to carry out the functions of such and such a Party institution—you can”t investigate the internal life of the organisations in which a given individual formerly worked, so how can you choose amongst them? In such circumstances the removal of these persons signifies an expression by the congress of no confidence in them, something quite undeserved and therefore inadmissible. And this is said not only by young revolutionaries but also by such an experienced revolutionary as Comrade Deutsch. [General commotion, protests, threatening cries.] If we adopt this standpoint, which is a philistine and not a Party stand-point, we shall at every election have to consider: will not Petrov be offended if Ivanov is elected and not he, will not some member of the former Organising Committee be offended if another member, and not he, is elected to the Central Committee? Where is this going to land us, comrades? If we have gathered here for the purpose of creating a Party, and not of indulging in mutual compliments and philistine sentimentality, then we can never agree to such a view. We are about to elect functionaries, and there can be no talk of lack of confidence in any person not elected; our only consideration should be the interests of the work and a person’s suitability for the post to which he is being elected. This is why I urgently bring it to comrades” attention that they should not let themselves be drawn into the delusion of philistinely tender speeches about lack of confidence being shown in those not elected, but in all their elections, just as in all else that they do, take the standpoint of the interests of the Party, of the common cause. I am surprised that none other than Comrade Trotsky attacks the election of trios. Did he not, at the preliminary meetings, defend, foaming at the mouth, the agenda we adopted? And not a word did he utter about there being heresy in it in the shape of the election of trios.

Lyadov: The editorial board themselves proposed the election of trios. We must get rid once for all of this question of confidence.

Trotsky: I want to reply to the “young revolutionary” Rusov. [Uproar. Bekov: “Please do not use such expressions as "young revolutionary"!”] Please be quiet, comrades, as I have only three minutes, and I want to use them in order to explain that the words “young revolutionary” cannot be insulting to anybody. Rusov himself used them when he attacked the old revolutionary Deutsch. Comrade Rusov alleged that I defended the so-called idea of two trios. That is not so. Comrade Rusov might say, however, simply that I defended, as a whole, the agenda, apparently drawn up by the editors, which included a mention of “two trios”. That, I hope, is something quite different. It has been said several times here that the plan to elect “two trios” was the editors” plan. And that is not true. It was the plan of only one of the editors. But even if this plan had been drawn up by the whole board, that would not have altered anything. The editorial board could place itself completely at the disposal of the congress, but the congress itself should set limits to its interference. The congress has neither the moral nor the political right to refashion the editorial board. Such a right is not given us, of course, by the impressions we might form, during the sessions of the congress, of persons more or less “susceptible to dissonances”, to use Comrade Muravyov’s words. The editorial board worked together as a whole, for three years, and we know what this collective entity achieved. Let us allow the board to make its own changes in composition, if it finds need for any. This is too delicate a question for the congress to get its hands on. The congress will do better from both the moral and the political angle if it votes unanimously for the collective entity whose name is Iskra ! [Prolonged applause.]

Gusev: If the proposal[51] for an editorial trio angers Comrade Trotsky so much today, we can only wonder why, previously, it not only did not anger him but, on the contrary, caused him to make fervent speeches in its defence. And those who, earlier, warmly defended the “trio” have now greeted Comrade Trotsky with stormy applause when he spoke of the congress laying its paw on that “harmonious whole”, the former editorial board of Iskra, which Trotsky defended. Comrade Tsaryov waxed indignant in his speech today against the proposal by Comrade Rusov that a trio be elected, but not so long ago Comrade Lenin’s proposal failed to anger him, although Comrade Rusov’s proposal is quite literally a repetition of Comrade Lenin’s. How quickly everything has changed. As to the proposal by Comrades Trotsky and Koltsov, to confirm the old editorial board, I say that it is tactless. It is tactless, first, because it turns the important question of electing the editorial board of the Party organ into a question of confidence. And to make this question of confidence the centre of attention is already tactless, in itself, because it puts the members of the old board in an awkward position. It is tactless, in the second place, because by turning the question of electing the editorial board into a question of confidence, it constitutes a restriction on the freedom in electing the editorial board of the Party organ which the congress must possess. We are faced with an important task, the election of the editorial board. And for the editorial board of the Party organ, for the body which, according to our rules, is not only to bear literary responsibilities but also to fulfil a number of other important functions, we need not only writers but also administrators. This right to elect suitable persons to the editorial board you want to take away from us, turning the question of elections into a question of confidence. We already expressed confidence once, when we recognised Iskra as the Party organ. And we mentioned in that resolution not only the literary services but also a number of other services, organisational and practical, rendered by Iskra, which you have now forgotten. You were the first to bring up the question of confidence, and you are responsible for the results that have followed from that error of tact. And by raising the question of confidence you revealed that, as Comrade Rusov quite rightly said, you are not Party people but philistines.

Lange: Why all this pathos, these just-shed tears? After all, nobody wants to murder anyone here! Besides, this maternal concern for the honour of Iskra on the part of certain persons is astonishing. What, actually, do we want? We only want the congress, the supreme organ of the Party, to declare, quite deliberately and definitely who it wishes to see in charge of its central organ. Bear in mind that our Central Organ is something more than a literary group—it is part of our CC, of our revolutionary practical centre, and it will exercise influence in the Party Council. What is there offensive about it if the congress, in view of this, wants the central organ to be headed by quite definite persons, persons known to the congress, persons meeting the requirements I have mentioned? I think it would be more offensive to Iskra if we were to shut our eyes to this important task, owing to the “delicacy” of the question.

Brouckère: I think that the majority will be consistent only if it endorses the previous editorial board of Iskra, and thereby confirms what was pre-determined by it when we discussed item 3 of the agenda. I only wanted to mention that, when item 3 was under discussion, this same majority—including, if I am not mistaken, Comrade Trotsky - denied that by endorsing Iskra as the Central Organ we were thereby pre-determining the election of the editorial board.

Pavlovich: I don”t understand why such pathetic speeches are being made here. Mention was made of the harmonious composition of the editorial board. The draft rules were presented by a member of the board, with the authority of the rest of the members. Comrade Trotsky warmly defended them only a few days ago. The editorial board consists of six persons. A body of six may prove, as a body, to be ineffectual. [Uproar.] If, placed in unfavourable circumstances, the editorial board of Iskra achieved tremendous results in its work, this happened not thanks to the abnormal size of the board but despite this abnormality. All the more are we obliged, in the interests of the work, to provide a normal setting for it through a free election. There is no insult to anybody in an election. We cannot perpetuate a form of statute which is inconvenient for the editorial workers themselves. Besides, let me recall that there is the right of co-option.

Glebov: The conduct of the newspaper is a task for the Party. I think that a large body is too unwieldy to do the work. Editorial work by six persons holds things up. [Protests.] It would be better if the board consisted of three only. That’s not a big number. If six persons formed a harmonious entity, then why could not three do the same? If Iskra was well run, why should it not be just as well-run in the future?

Sorokin: I fully understand the strong feeling shown in this dispute. But why resort to practices against which we have always protested? Why this poking into someone else’s soul indulged in by Comrade Popov? Was it permissible for Comrade Deutsch to try demonstratively to pillory comrades who did not agree with him? In that way an impossible atmosphere is created. We have been told more than once that we are here as Party members, and must, therefore, be guided exclusively by political considerations. And yet at the present moment everything is being brought down to the personal level, to a question of confidence, or lack of it, in particular editors. And even the numerous mentions of the fact that the draft agenda was put together by only one of the editors have assumed a very undesirable character. I must mention therefore a conversation I had with Comrade Martov, from which I learnt that the draft in question was approved by himself and the other editors. I say again, all concepts are muddled here. For my part I say that, in declaring myself in favour of elections to the editorial board, I am not expressing lack of confidence in the composition of the Iskra board and I do not believe I am lowering the dignity of a member of the congress.

Makhov: When we dealt with item 3 of the agenda we recognised Iskra as the central organ of the RSDLP, and the question was then asked as to what it was that we were proclaiming to be our central organ—just a signboard over an empty space, or that which was hidden beneath the signboard. I think it was the latter. Now we have presented to us an unequivocal proposal to change everything that was hidden beneath that signboard, leaving only the signboard itself. You have heard what miserable arguments are used in support of this proposal. These arguments do not deserve detailed consideration. But since a certain proposal has been put forward, since arguments have been advanced in favour of it, it would be more consistent to remove at one and the same time the proposal and the signboard itself, and, consequently, to recognise that our decision under item 3 of the agenda was mistaken and ought to be rescinded.

Lensky moved a resolution that the meeting be closed. This was adopted by 25 to 58.

The session was closed.

Thirty-first Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates and 11 persons with consultative voice.)

Trotsky: In view of the fact that endorsement of the old editorial board of Iskra is merely equivalent to the election of certain persons, I demand that we have a secret ballot, in accordance with the rules.

Hertz asked that a vote be taken on inviting the editorial board to return to the hall.

The Chairman (Pavlovich) considered that Comrade Trotsky had misinterpreted the rules, and proposed that the congress decide on the way the editorial board should be appointed.

Trotsky’s proposal (for secret ballot) was put to the vote and rejected by 19 to 17, with three abstentions. Trotsky’s proposal that the old editorial board be confirmed in its entirety was also noted on and rejected.

Rusov put down a resolution to invite the old editorial board to take part in deciding the question of the election of an editorial board.

This proposal was adopted, and the editorial board were invited to return to the hall.

Pavlovich informed the editors of the result of the discussion and the votes taken.

Fomin: I think it necessary to add something to what Comrade Pavlovich said, since it was extremely incomplete. While the editorial comrades were away, we took a vote on Comrade Trotsky’s proposal that we endorse the whole of the editorial board. According to the strict sense of the congress standing orders, elections of functionaries should be carried out by secret ballot. The endorsement of the editorial board as a whole amounts, of course, to electing certain persons, known to the congress, to the editorial board of the Central Organ. And yet, despite the requirement of the standing orders, and regardless of the insistence of Comrade Trotsky, myself and other comrades, the majority of the congress rejected the demand of the minority for a secret ballot on Comrade Trotsky’s proposal, and thereby deliberately violated the congress standing orders.

Pavlovich: What Fomin says is true, but the congress is sovereign and can do anything it likes.

Plekhanov considered it unnecessary to argue about this matter.

Martov (making a statement on behalf of the majority of the former editorial board): Now, comrades, after the proposal to endorse the old editorial board of the organ which has become the Party organ has been rejected, it is my duty to state the significance of this act. From now on, the old Iskra does not exist, and it would be more consistent to change the paper’s name. At any rate, we see in the new resolution of the congress a substantial qualification of the vote of confidence in Iskra which was passed at one of the first sessions of the congress. Since it has now been decided to elect an editorial board of three, I must declare on my own behalf and that of the three other comrades that none of us will sit on this new editorial board. For myself, I must add that, if it be true that certain comrades wanted to include my name in the list of candidates for this ‘trio’, I must regard that as an insult which I have done nothing to deserve. I say this in view of the circumstances under which it has been decided to change the editorial board. The decision was taken on the grounds of some kind of ‘friction’, of the former editorial board having been ineffectual; moreover, the congress decided the matter along certain lines without questioning the editorial board about this friction or even appointing a commission to report on whether it had been ineffectual. Under the circumstances, I must regard the assumption of certain comrades that I would agree to sit on an editorial board reformed in this manner as a slur on my political reputation. Ryazanov might agree to such a role, but not the Martov whom, I think, you know from his work.

To finish with the personal aspect of the matter, I say further, regard ing the statement made yesterday by Comrade Sorokin that the proposal for a ‘trio’ came from a section of the former editorial board, that this does not correspond to the truth, as the proposal came from Lenin alone. And now I turn to the political aspect of the matter …

The Chairman (Plekhanov) said that he could not allow Martov to continue, as this would mean engaging in discussion of a matter which the congress had already decided.

Fomin proposed that the congress be asked whether it wished to hear Martov.

Popov: Since Martov is making a statement about the departure of the majority of the members from the editorial board of Iskra, it seems to me that this is an event of extraordinary importance, and I consider that the congress ought to allow Martov to say all that he wants to say.

The great majority of the delegates expressed themselves in favour of Martov continuing his speech.

Martov: What has now taken place is the last act of the struggle which has raged during the second half of the congress. It is no secret to anyone that the issue involved in this reform is not ‘efficiency’ but a struggle for influence on the Central Committee. The majority of the editorial board showed that they did not want the Central Committee to be converted into a tool of the editorial board. That is why it was found necessary to reduce the number of members of the editorial board. And that is why I cannot join such an editorial board. Together with the majority of the old editorial board, I thought that the congress would put an end to the ‘state of siege’ in the Party and would establish normal conditions. But in fact the state of siege, with its exceptional laws against particular groups, is being continued and even stepped up. Only if the old editorial board remains in its entirety can we guarantee that the rights conferred on the editorial board by the rules will not be used to the detriment of the Party. We hope that the congress will entrust to worthy hands the organ which we have conducted for two and a half years, and with this hope I will conclude my ‘farewell’ statement.

Sorokin: I ask to speak, to make a personal observation.

Trotsky: We have adopted a procedure by which personal observations are relegated to the end of a session.

The Chairman called on Sorokin to speak.

Sorokin: Comrade Martov said that I distorted the facts. My correction related to the fact that Comrade Martov knew about Lenin’s plan and did not protest at the time. [Shouts: ‘He knew? He didn’t protest?’]

Martov: The Bureau allows private conversations to be reported, without the agreement of the interested parties and in their absence. I declare that what Comrade Sorokin said about yesterday’s session does not correspond to the truth.

Lenin: [The beginning of Lenin’s speech is reproduced here not in the form in which it was witten but as it was corrected, with Lenin’s agreement, during the reading of the minutes of this session (see Session 35).] I ask the congress to allow me to reply to Martov.

Comrade Martov said that the vote in question cast a slur on his political reputation. The election has nothing to do with an insult to a political reputation. [Shouts: ‘Wrong! Not true!’ Plekhanov and Lenin protested, against the interruptions. Lenin asked the secretaries to enter in the minutes that Zasulich, Martov and Trotsky interrupted him, and asked that the number of times they interrupted him be recorded.]

To take up this point of view is to deny the right of the congress to hold new elections, to make changes of any kind in the appointment of functionaries, or to alter the composition of the corporate bodies which derive their authority from the congress. The confusion resulting from such an approach is plain, if only from the example provided by the Organising Committee. We expressed to it the congress’s complete confidence and gratitude, but at the same time we ridiculed the very idea that the congress had no right to examine the internal relations of the OC, and dismissed any assumption that the old composition of the OC would be a hindrance to us in effecting an ‘uncomradely’ change in this composition and forming a new Central Committee out of whatever elements we chose. I repeat: Comrade Martov’s views on the permissibility of electing part of the previous body reveal an extreme state of confusion in his political ideas.

I now come to the question of the ‘two trios’. Comrade Martov said that this whole plan for ‘two trios’ was the work of one person, one member of the editorial board (that it was, in fact, my plan) and that nobody else bore any responsibility for it. I categorically protest against this assertion and declare that it is simply untrue. Let me remind Comrade Martov that, several weeks before the congress, I plainly told him and another member of the editorial board that at the congress I would demand the free election of the editorial board. I gave up this plan only because Comrade Martov himself suggested to me the more convenient plan of electing ‘two trios’. I thereupon formulated this plan on paper and sent it first of all to Comrade Martov himself, who returned it to me with some corrections—here it is, I have the very copy, with Martov’s corrections in red ink.[52] A number of comrades subsequently saw this plan dozens of times, all the members of the editorial board saw it too, and no one at any time formally protested against it. I say ‘formally’ because, if I am not mistaken, Comrade Akselrod did on one occasion drop some private remark to the effect that he had no liking for this plan. But it is obvious that, for a protest, the editorial board required something more than a private remark.

It was not without reason that, even before the congress, the editorial board took a formal decision to invite a definite seventh person to join it, so that, in the event that it became necessary to make any sort of joint statement at the congress, a firm decision could be taken, such as so often we failed to reach in our board of six. And all the members of the editorial board know that the addition of a seventh permanent member to the board of six was a matter of constant concern to us for a very long time. And so, I repeat, the solution by way of electing ‘two trios’ was a perfectly natural one, and I included it in my plan, with the knowledge and consent of Comrade Martov. And on many subsequent occasions Comrade Martov, together with Comrade Trotsky and others, at a number of private meetings of Iskra supporters, advocated this system of electing ‘two trios’. In correcting Martov’s statement about the personal character of the plan for ‘two trios’, however, I do not intend to say anything against Martov’s statement regarding the ‘political significance’ of the step we took in not confirming the old editorial board. On the contrary, I fully and unreservedly agree with Comrade Martov that this is a step of great political significance—but not the significance which Martov ascribes to it. He said that it is an act in a struggle for influence on the CC in Russia. I go farther than Martov. All the activity of Iskra has up to now been a struggle for influence, as a separate group, but now it is something more, namely, a matter of organisational consolidation of this influence, and not merely of struggle for it.

The extent to which Comrade Martov and I differ on this point, politically, can be seen from the fact that he blames me for this desire to influence the CC, whereas I count it to my credit that I have striven and am striving to consolidate this influence by organisational means. It turns out that we even talk different languages. What would be the point of all our work, all our efforts, if they culminated in the same old struggle for influence, and not in complete acquisition and consolidation of influence? Yes, Comrade Martov is absolutely right: the step we have taken is undoubtedly a major political ste p, testifying that one of the trends which have now taken “shape has been chosen for the future work of our Party. And I am not in the least frightened by the dreadful words about ‘a state of siege in the Party’, about exceptional laws against particular persons and groups’, and so on. We not only can but must create a ‘state of siege’ in relation to unstable and vacillating elements, and all our Party rules, the whole system of centralism which the congress has now approved, are nothing but a ‘state of siege’ with regard to the so numerous sources of political diffuseness. Against diffuseness special laws are needed, even if they be exceptional laws, and the step taken by the congress has correctly indicated the political direction to be followed, by creating a firm basis for such laws and such measures.

Martov: In view of the complete distortion of my words by Comrade Lenin, I ask the secretary to read the relevant passage from the minutes.

The Secretary, with the Chairman’s permission, read from the minutes: ‘For myself, I must add that by including my name in the list of three you have cast a slur on my political reputation. Only a Ryazanov, perhaps, would take part in such a combination, but not I.’

Martov said that he was quite satisfied.

A vote was taken on Rusov’s proposal [Rusov’s resolution: “The congress resolves to elect three persons to the editorial board of the central organ, by secret ballot.’] and it was adopted by 25 to 2, with 17 abstentions. Kostrov’s proposal [Kostrov’s resolution: ‘The congress will elect one member of the editorial board, who will co-opt the others.’] was rejected by 22 to 3 with 19 abstentions.

Panin: Since, after Martov’s statement, only two candidates for the editorship of the central organ remain, I ask whether there are any more candidates besides these.

Lenin said that there would be a secret ballot.

Fomin: Secret ballot does not exclude the presentation of a candidature.

Lyadov: All agitation and presentation of candidatures must end with the distribution of voting papers.

Martov: Nobody is forbidden to present candidates.

Plekhanov: The congress is sovereign and can, of course, decide to allow this, but the practice of other congresses does not permit it to be done.

The results of the elections were: 23 votes for Plekhanov, 22 for Martov, 20 for Lenin and three for Koltsov.

Plekhanov, Martov and Lenin were thus elected editors.

Martov: Since, despite my statement that I declined to be a candidate, I have nevertheless been elected, I must state that I decline the honour that has been offered me. Once again I say that I cannot assume responsibility for the policy of a group of three persons who, in accordance with the rules adopted, are to exercise decisive influence on the course of events in Russia. I do not want to be the ‘third man’ in an institution to which the CC will be a mere appendage, and the point that was inserted in the rules about unanimity in co-option removes all hope of broadening this narrow composition. In practice, all power in the Party is being handed over to two persons, and I think too little of the title of editor to agree to sit with them as third man.

Chairman: In that case, the next candidate in line is Koltsov.

Koltsov: I first proposed that the old editorial board be retained in its entirety, and that is what I still advocate. As regards my own position, I consider myself not competent to edit the central organ of the Party, and so decline to accept the post of editor.

Lyadov: I propose that the two elected editors co-opt the third.

Deutsch mentioned the decision by the congress according to which three editors should be elected.

Lyadov withdrew his proposal.

Dyedov also made a proposal, but quickly withdrew it, after which Pavlovich made a proposal.

Gusev: I have a proposal to make which is like Pavlovich’s, but worded a little differently.

Tsaryov proposed that one editor be elected, who should co-opt the rest of the board.

Byelov: Can Comrade Tsaryov’s proposal be voted on, seeing that a similar proposal by Comrade Kostrov has already been rejected?

Plekhanov: In view of the altered conditions, Comrade Tsaryov’s proposal does not exclude Comrade Popov’s, that fresh elections be held. In case of another failure we shall have to vote on Comrade Tsaryov’s proposal.

Rusov: It is objected that the two members of the editorial board whom we have elected cannot co-opt because they do not constitute a corporate body, but those who say this forget that co-option requires unanimity, and so whether or not they are a corporate body does not come into it here.

Trotsky: Rusov forgets that in the event that unanimity is not achieved, the question is to be referred to the Party Council, which can quash the decision of the board, and then the question is decided afresh, by simple majority of votes. Consequently, a complete board is not needed for further co-option to the post of editor.

Lange: The previous editorial board also had an even number of members.

Byelov: The comrade chairman has explained that a decision which the congress decided at one moment can be reconsidered by it at another moment. I think that the present moment is one when we should raise again the question of endorsing the editorial board as a whole, since I am convinced that only if this question is settled affirmatively shall we dissipate the impossible atmosphere which has been created here. I am presenting a written resolution to the Bureau and I request that it be put to the vote.

Plekhanov suggested that Comrade Byelov ask the four members of the editorial board who had been rejected whether they were agreeable to fresh elections.

Deutsch: Plekhanov’s proposal is not consistent. After all, the two editors who were elected were not asked whether they agreed to co-option.

Chairman: Two proposals have been put forward which the congress has previously rejected. I put to the vote the question whether it is permissible to vote on these proposals.

The majority, by 22 to 19, with three abstentions, declared against allowing Byelov’s proposal to be noted on, and by 22 to 21, with one abstentions, took the same decision regarding Tsaryov’s proposal.

Popov’s proposal (for the third editor to be elected) was rejected by 22 to 21, with one abstention, and Pavlovich’s proposal (for the third editor to be co-opted by the two elected ones) was adopted by 24 to 10, with 10 abstentions.

Trotsky (on the voting): Comrade Lenin described to us very eloquently the difficult situation in which the four members of the Party Council would find themselves if they were not in a position to invite a fifth to join them. In order not to leave Comrades Lenin and Plekhanov in that difficult situation which he described so eloquently, I abstained from voting.

Rusov proposed to proceed to the election of the CC.

Martov: We cannot carry out an election by secret ballot without having asked whether a particular candidate agrees to join the board. Besides, candidates who are absent may, at the time of election, owing to the activities of the police in Russia, prove to be withdrawn from circulation or, as a result, may abandon work in the CC. We should thus find we had elected only fragments of the Party’s highest institutions. In view of this, I propose the following. [Martov’s resolution: ‘Elections for the Central Committee to be carried out as follows. Lists of three candidates to be submitted to the Bureau, signed by no fewer than six sponsors. Not later than two sessions after the reading of these lists, voting to take place. Voting to be for complete lists and not for individuals. Decision to be by absolute majority. If no absolute majority is obtained, a second ballot to be held, to decide between the two lists which received the largest number of votes. The result of this second ballot to be accepted as final.’]

Lyadov: I protest strongly, for security reasons, against the reading of lists of candidates.

Rusov: I am amazed at Comrade Martov’s argument. The members of the CC elected here may be arrested this very day and in that case we should find ourselves in exactly the same situation that Comrade Martov has described. He knows that the comrades from the Bund, the members of the CC of the Bund remain unknown—even their number is not known. We need to follow the example of that organisation, which has had much experience in security matters. I reiterate my own proposal and ask that the ballots be handed to the chairman. If you don’t trust the chairman, let somebody else be chosen, though I don’t suppose you will do this.

Plekhanov: Comrade Martov’s proposal cannot even be discussed, since it does not conform to the requirements of security. Comrade Martov mentioned the difficult situation in which the editorial board has been placed. I hope, however, that the RSDLP is not yet bereft of literarv forces.

Martov (on a point of order): I heard the chairman say that my proposal cannot even be discussed. Is that his personal opinion, or that of the Bureau?

Plekhanov: That is my personal opinion.

Trotsky: I think that Comrade Martov’s proposal which the chairman Said could not even be discussed, and which he proceeded to discuss, is the only acceptable one. I think that we cannot form a CC without election by lists. Otherwise combinations could occur here that would make the CC ineffectual.

Martov: To imitate does not mean to ape. While pursuing the same aim as the Bund, we can nevertheless draw up preliminary lists. Only the narres of the candidates would be announced: which if them were elected would remain unknown. We have elected an ineffectual editorial board. Conditions in Russia are such that the Central Committee may find itself with only one member, or even none. According to the Party rules, the CC and the central organ send two members each to the Party Council. If, after these elections, we are left without a CC, then our two editors will have, together with the member of the Council elected by the congress, to appoint a new CC.

Yegorov: I am exceedingly surprised to hear reference to principles again being made in the debate. I think it is clear to everyone that during the last few days the debate has not revolved around any question of principle, but exclusively around ensuring or preventing the inclusion of one or other person in the central institutions. Let us acknowledge that principles have long since been lost sight of at this congress, and call things by their right names. [General Laughter. Muravyov: ‘I request to have it recorded in the minutes that Comrade Martov smiled.’] What is the issue before us? The issue is, does the Congress want to put the task of organisation and conduct of all Party work into the hands of the two elected persons, or doesn’t it? That is the question before the congress. It may happen that the CC will not agree to enter into the combination which has been brought about by the new state of affairs, and in that event the editorial board of the Central Organ will form the Party Council, compose the CC and be the omnipotent ruler of the Party’s fate. The congress has to decide whether it will confide the entire fate of the Party to these two persons. This question is so important that arguments about security cannot figure here: when what is at stake is the Party’s life we can’t talk about security. But the question of security is redundant here also because the ‘compact majority’ of 24 votes, voting as one man, at a signal from their leader, knows and will know the whole composition of the CC. It would be unjust to the minority to put them in an inferior position. However, I am against Comrade Martov’s proposal, because I have not yet lost my principles, and I consider voting by lists to be a restriction on individual freedom in elections.

Rusov: Comrades Yegorov and Martov claim to possess powers of clairvoyance, but all the rest of us are also serious in our way of looking at matters. The question of the election of the CC is one that concerns all. Whether we elect individuals or whole lists, what is involved is in either case an idea regarding the effectual character of the CC. According to Comrade Martov’s proposal, instead of a single person, nine persons will be known. I don’t know where Comrade Martov gets his certainty that there will be only three lists. Many more lists than that may be presented, and at the congress there will be revealed not just nine but a much larger number of active revolutionaries working in Russia. That I regard as very bad security.

Trotsky: Comrade Rusov has not understood the simple practical considerations that I referred to. To elect otherwise than by lists is possible only when among the majority of the delegates an unofficial, and, of course, fully admissible, agreement has been arrived at as to the combination of candidates in the CC. But since such an agreement has been made it would be hypocritical to conceal it, and hypocrisy is, of course, something worse than that clairvoyance of which Comrade Rusov spoke. As for what Comrade Plekhanov said about the RSDLP not being short of literary forces, so that we should have no fear regarding the fate of the editorial board, that was merely a ceremonial phrase in a certain pseudo-classical style, and should be treated as such.

Lenin: We have been reproached with forming a compact majority. There is nothing bad about that. Since a compact majority has been formed here, the question whether the CC to be elected will be effectual has already been settled. There can be no question of accidents. The guarantee is complete. The elections cannot be postponed. Very little time is left. Comrade Martov’s proposal that the elections be put off is unjustified. I support Comrade Rusov’s proposal.

The proposal to close the discussion was passed, with 24 votes.

Martov proposed that, for voting, his resolution be split into two parts: (1) the whole proposal about voting procedure, except the proposal for voting by lists, and (2) the proposal for voting by lists.

Martov’s proposal was rejected by 22 votes to 17, with five abstentions.

Fomin moved a resolution to elect three comrades to count the votes.

This proposal was rejected by 23 to 15.

Rusov’s resolution [Rusov’s resolution: ‘The chairman is to determine the results of the voting and to announce to the congress the name of only one member of the CC.’] was voted on and passed by 24 to 6, with 14 abstentions.

Popov (as a statement): As a rumour has reached me that some comrades want to elect me to the CC, I must say this. I am convinced that given the conditions in which the elections are now being held, the CC will turn out to be a completely ineffectual body. Therefore I ask the comrades not to elect me.

The elections to the CC, by secret ballot, then took place, and afterwards Comrade Sorokin was given the floor to make his personal observation.

Sorokin (personal observation): I was obliged by exceptional circumstances to refer to a private conversation. As a result of statements by some speakers, and, especially, of interjections, to the effect that the plan for the agenda had been drawn up by only one of the editors, an incorrect impression was given regarding the intentions of the author of this plan in including the item about the election of the editorial board. It was only then that I decided to refer to my conversation with Comrade Martov, from which I learnt that the agenda in question had been approved by him and the other editors. By doing this I merely wished to show that there was no malicious intent on Comrade Lenin’s part in this matter.

This session was closed.

Thirty-second Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates and 11 with consultative voice.)

Chairman: Before announcing the results of the elections to the CC I wish, in accordance with a request from Comrade Trotsky, to ask the congress to state whether it wishes to have the number of votes announced.

Fomin: I think this question is easily answered. It was decided, for security reasons, that only one of the persons elected to the CC should be named. From the security point of view there are no grounds for not announcing the number of votes cast for each delegate.

The Chairman read a proposal by Comrade Pavlovich: ‘The congress does not require the number of votes to be announced.’

Pavlovich argued as follows in favour of his proposal. The ‘compact minority’ wishes, by publishing the number of votes cast for each delegate, to make public thereby the relations established at the end of the congress between the minority and the majority. When Comrade Fomin advocated publishing the results he gave no reason why he wants this. He said that there is no reason why they should not be announced, but at the same time he offered no grounds for announcing them. I am not going to speculate here about the purposes for which this minority wishes, perhaps, to use the voting figures … This is my personal opinion.

Trotsky: I did not suppose that Comrade Pavlovich would misunderstand. As for Comrade Pavlovich’s reasons, I leave it to his conscience to judge them. This idea is unworthy of that compact majority which Comrade Pavlovich is defending. As for the fear that the CC would lose by having the votes cast announced, that is unworthy of the CC. I hope that it is above such considerations and will brush aside such defenders as Comrade Pavlovich. The congress has the right to demand to know the results of its own voting.

Martov: I agree with what Comrade Trotsky has said. I must add that the Bureau must have agreed with Comrade Pavlovich’s proposal. We have heard this proposal coming not only from the compact majority but also from a representative of the Bureau. But if Comrade Pavlovich’s understanding is not of the highest order, the Bureau ought not to agree with him. I propose an appeal to the congress.

Pavlovich: I repeat that I was speaking for myself. Comrade Fomin did not explain why he favours announcement. Comrade Trotsky speculates and, on the same basis, I too have the right to speculate. I do not understand on what grounds announcement is being asked for.

The Chairman read the following statement which had been handed to the Bureau: ‘In view of the conditions under which the elections to the CC were held, the delegates of the following organisations represented at the congress did not take part in them: (1)Iskra organisation, two mandates (delegate, Martov);[53]] (2) Crimean Association, 2 mandates (delegate, Panin); (3) Nikolayev Committee, 2 mandates (delegate, Makhov); (4) Siberian Association, 2 mandates (delegates, Posadovsky and Trotsky); (5) ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group, one of two mandates (delegate, Deutsch); (6) Ufa Committee, one of the two mandates (delegate, Fomin); (7) social-Democratic Association of Mining and Metallurgical Workers, 2 mandates (delegate, Lvov); (8) Odessa Committee, one of the two mandates (delegate, Kostich); (9) Don Committee, one of the two mandates (delegate, Tsaryov); (10) Yuzhny Rabochy group, two mandates (delegates, Popov and Yegorov); (11) Kharkov Committee, two mandates (delegates Ivanov and Medvedev); (12) Moscow Committee, one mandate (delegate, Byelov).

‘The following persons, invited to attend the congress with consultative voice, agree in principle with the above-named: V.I. Zasulich, P.B. Akselrod, Starover, members of the former Organising Committee Stein and Fischer, D. Koltsov, and Kostrov.’

Brouckère: I abstained because I refused to vote when the rules were voted on as a whole. I cannot therefore vote now.

Plekhanov: Among the signatures is that of Comrade Deutsch, as delegate of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group. I would ask him to mention alongside his signature that this is the signature of only one of the group’s delegates.

Deutsch: I agree: that is what I wish, too.

Chairman: I propose that the congress decide whether the results of the voting should be announced.

Comrade Pavlovich’s resolution was voted on: 22 votes were cast for it and 22 against.

Trotsky: Let me recall the resolution which the congress adopted that, in cases when an equal number of votes are cast ‘for’ and ‘against’, the resolution is to be considered rejected.

Yegorov: Comrade Pavlovich’s proposal restricts the competence of the congress. The congress is sovereign and must know everything about what it was decided, excepting only whatever it has specially excepted. Comrade Pavlovich’s proposal restricts the rights of the congress, and there can be no question of such restriction.

The Chairman read the results of the voting. Of the 24 votes cast, 24 were cast for the three comrades who were elected to the CC. Of these three, I name, with his agreement, Comrade Glebov. [Applause.][54]

Fomin: Let me point out that 20 of the 44 delegates abstained from voting.

Lenin: Let us proceed to elect the fifth member of the Party Council.

Rusov: I propose that we vote by secret ballot and that the name of the person elected be announced.[55]

Martov: I don’t understand why Comrade Rusov thinks it appropriate to announce the name of the fifth member of the Council. If we are observing security regarding the names of the members of the CC it would be more consistent to maintain the same procedure where the name of the fifth member of the Council is concerned.

Rusov: I have nothing against that.

Lyadov: We decided to observe security regarding the names of the members of the CC because they have to live and work in Russia, whereas the fifth member of the Party Council, by virtue of his function, has to live abroad. Hence it is clear that there is no security reason for concealing his identity.

Trotsky: The Party Council is not doomed to exile in perpetuity. Comrade Lyadov’s wish is not substantiated.[56]

Martov: Comrade Lyadov said that the question of the fifth member had already been decided. [Protest.]

Yegorov: Since the congress is electing a person who is unknown to it, and since we do not know whether he agrees, I do not know how we are to continue with the election if the first person elected refuses to accept.

Lenin: The congress will decide this question only in principle. If this is not possible, we have nothing against announcing the names of those who have refused to accept.

Kostich asked if the number of votes could be announced.

Lenin: That will be seen from the decision of the Bureau of the congress.

Comrade Rusov’s proposal (‘not to announce the name of the fifth member’) was voted on and adopted by 22 to 21, with one abstention.

Kostrov’s proposal (‘to announce the name of the fifth member if he is living abroad’) was rejected by 22 to 22.

Orlov proposed that Comrade Lenin be elected to count the votes. Plekhanov asked that he be not elected for this task.

Popov asked Comrade Plekhanov to say why he was refusing election.

Plekhanov: I did not refuse, I merely asked that I be not elected.

A secret vote was then taken: 18 votes were cast for Lenin, two for Pavlovich, two for Plekhanov, and one for Fomin: 21 delegates refused to vote.

The election of the fifth member of the Council was then held. Lenin, announcing the result of this election, said: ‘Of the 24 votes cast, 20 were cast for one person, two for another, and two were blank.’[57]

Popov: Is the Bureau certain that the decision of the congress is valid and in order when half the delegates refused to vote?

Lenin: I ask that it be noted that a section of the congress abstained, but did not refuse to vote.

The Chairman: When a similar question was raised by Comrades Martynov and Akimov, I explained to them, with the approval of the congress generally, that practice knows of only three ways of participating in a vote: for, against and abstention. No fourth way is known, and it does not exist. The Bureau remains farm in this opinion.

Martov: Comrade Popov is mistaken. The matter does indeed stand as the Bureau has put it. Legally, of course, our refusal to vote has the same significance as abstention, but because of the secrecy of the voting, in this instance we were obliged to choose a special way of abstaining. As regards the validity of the congress’s decision, that requires an absolute majority of those voting. This majority was obtained, and so the decisions of the congress are valid.

It was decided that the next session should be devoted to reading the minutes, and that the comrades from the Bund and Comrades Akimov and Martynov should be invited to attend, as they had requested.

The session was closed.[58]

Thirty-third Session[edit source]

(Present: 38 delegates with 46 mandates and 11 persons with consultative voice.)

The minutes of the 28th and 26th sessions were read and, after a few corrections, confirmed.

The minutes of the 17th session were read. Comrade Martynov noted that in these minutes his speech was described as long’. ‘A secretary,’ said Comrade Martynov, ‘is not a newspaper reporter, and therefore his comments ought not to appear in the minutes.’ After the corresponding correction had been made, the minutes were adopted . The second part of the minutes of the 28th session was also read and confirmed.

The session was closed.

Thirty-fourth Session[edit source]

(Present: 38 delegates with 46 mandates and 11 with consultative voice.)

The minutes of the 14th session were read and, after some minor corrections, confirmed .

The minutes of the 10th session were read.

Gorin made a correction to his speech.

Trotsky asked that Comrade Pavlovich’s speech be read a second time, as it seemed to him meaningless in the form in which it had been read . He asked whether this was the speech as written or as handed in, and asked that his question be recorded in the minutes.

Posadovsky: In view of the fact that a long time has passed since the session the minutes of which we have now heard, it is hard to remember today whether a particular phrase was used by a particular speaker. But I am sure that if Comrade Pavlovich had actually delivered his speech in the form in which it has now been read to us, I could not but have noticed the phrase about the ‘operation’ of the future Party organ, since this phrase is so cynical. I affirm, therefore, that it was not spoken in that form. I ask that this be recorded in the minutes.

Osipov said that he had checked Comrade Pavlovich’s speech and it corresponded to the note taken.

Martov said that he did not remember the phrase about the ‘operation’ which might be carried out on the Party organ being uttered.

Pavlovich: I handed my speech in immediately after delivering it, as I request the secretary to recall. I was replying to Comrade Akimov, who did not understand what was meant by ‘choosing a central organ’. Comrade Akimov had asked whether this implied the complicated work which had to be performed in organ is ing editorial activity. From this it is clear that if Comrade Posadovsky’s thoughts run in the direction of a medical operation, that’s his affair. I used this word in the business, commercial, technical sense, however you prefer to put it, and not at all in the medical sense.

Lyadov said that he had been secretary for the 10th session and remembered that Comrade Pavlovich had made his speech on that day.

Makhov: I remember that Comrade Pavlovich did indeed speak about an operation, but this related to Comrade Akimov, and we did not know what was meant by others who wanted to effect an operation, because we were not paying attention to this point.

Gusev said that he remembered Comrade Pavlovich’s speech quite clearly and it had been correctly reported in the minutes.

Trotsky said that he had not expressed any doubt but merely asked for information. He reminded the presidium that Gorin’s correction had not been read.

The Chairman (Plekhanov) said that the presidium knew what its responsibilities were.

Osipov read Gorin’s correction.

Martov asked that it be recorded in the minutes that, after Pavlovich’s explanation, he remained doubtful as to exactly what the speech written by Pavlovich had contained.

The chairman said that he was not clear as to whether members of the congress had the right to make such observations. Since neither the Bureau nor the congress were present that day in full complement, it would be better to hold the matter over till the next day.

Pavlovich: Every statement must conclude with some juridical act. I propose, therefore, we take this way out of the incident we are discussing, namely, that we do not confirm these minutes, if that is the will of the congress, until I have supplied Comrade Martov with information sufficient to convince him.

Gorin asked that it be entered in the minutes that Comrade Trotsky had expressed doubt concerning his correction.

Trotsky denied this, saying that he had made use of his right as a member of the congress to check and confirm the minutes.

Gorin reaffirmed his statement: Trotsky had been able to put forward his demand after the Bureau itself had failed to fulfil its obligations.

Fomin clarified this incident by saying that the secretary, after receiving the correction, had omitted to read it out, and declared that the reading of the minutes was incomplete.

Osipov asked that it be recorded in the minutes that Pavlovich’s speech had been checked by him.

Pavlovich handed over the conduct of the discussion to Comrade Plekhanov. He asked that it be recorded in the minutes that throughout his period as chairman of the congress that day he had seen to it that corrections were read, and so he considered that Comrade Trotsky’s inquiry regarding Gorin’s correction was un-called-for.

Trotsky: The incident was closed with the chairman’s explanation and the recording in the minutes of all the statements made. We had already gone over to other matters, when one of the members of the presidium had what I will call the tactlessness to revive the incident by describing my inquiry as out of place.

The minutes of the 10th session were confirmed.

The minutes of the 23rd session were then read.

Plekhanov: I have written down here a phrase from Comrade Trotsky’s speech: ‘opportunism is engendered by the objective conditions of the development of the proletariat’. I should like this phrase, which was omitted in the minutes, to be retained.

Trotsky: I deny that I used such a phrase in my speech. What I said was: ‘In my view, opportunism is determined by deeper causes than one or another clause in the rules: no, it is brought about by the relative level of development of bourgeois democracy and of the proletariat, by the influence of the former upon the latter, and by other complex causes.’

Plekhanov did not deny that the phrase Trotsky had just mentioned had been spoken, but he declared that Trotsky had also spoken the phrase which he had read out. In confirmation of his statement, he referred to Comrade Akimov, who, after Trotsky had spoken, said that he fully agreed with Trotsky.

Akimov said that though he certainly remembered agreeing with Trotsky, he did not remember those words.

Martynov confirmed that Comrade Trotsky had spoken only the words which he had quoted, and had not used the phrase ascribed to him by Comrade Plekhanov.

Plekhanov drew Comrade Martynov’s attention to the point that the meaning of the phrase ascribed by him to Comrade Trotsky was absolutely identical with the meaning of the explanation given by Comrade Trotsky.

Martov: Karsky, Koltsov and I confirm that Comrade Trotsky did not utter the phrase of which Comrade Plekhanov speaks.

Akimov: I can state that if Comrade Trotsky had uttered such a phrase, I could not have said that I agreed with him.

Lyadov: I ask that it be recorded in the minutes that the phrase Comrade Trotsky read out just now was omitted from the report of his speech.

Trotsky: In the speech I handed in I left out much more than that. I left out, for example, a criticism of Comrade Plekhanov’s phrase about fourth-level agents. I don’t regard it as so important that everything I said should be immortalised. If Comrade Plekhanov thinks otherwise, I can insert these words, too, in the minutes. I declare that I did not use the phrase that has been attributed to me. I consider that the entire incident can be disposed of if Comrade Plekhanov’s question and my answer are included in the minutes of today’s session.

The chairman (Plekhanov) asked Trotsky to supply the Bureau with this phrase in writing.

Trotsky said that he was not obliged to do this. He gave his speech to the secretary.

The incident was closed.

The chairman (Plekhanov) asked the secretary to read out Trotsky’s explanation.

The secretary (Yegorov) said that the secretary was not obliged to read out his notes immediately. He would read them at the session at which the minutes were confirmed. After this, the minutes of the 23rd session were confirmed.

The minutes of the 24th, 25th, 16th and 33rd sessions were read and confirmed.

The session was closed.

Thirty-fifth Session[edit source]

Present: 43 delegates—including the delegates of the Bund and the Union, to hear the minutes—with 51 mandates, and 11 with consultative voice)

At Lenin’s suggestion the Congress divided into two groups so as to speed up he confirmation of the minutes. A section of the delegates went into another room, these including the delegates of the Bund and the Union.

The minutes of the 34th session were read and confirmed.

The minutes of the 32th session were read.

Fomin, Marlov and some others protests against the use of the word ‘abstained’ (from voting), instead of ‘refused’ (to take part in the voting).

Martov Said that it would have been abstention if they had handed in blank papers, as had in fact been done by one or two delegates. The refusal by the rest of the delegates to hand in papers at all was not abstentiors but refusal.

Karsky, Kostrov and Koltsov look the same view. Posadovsky confirmed, as a matter of fact, that some delegates had said that they were refusing to vote. Comrade Lyadov also confirmed this.

Lenin confirmed the fact [see the statements by Lyadov and Posadovsky] that some had actually said they were refusing to vote, and not abstaining. From the juridical standpoint, however, for members of the Congress who were present in the meeting-hall there were only three ways in which they could vote—for, against, and abstention—and he assigned failure to hand in voting papers to the last-mentioned category.

Gusev said that some delegates—who, exactly, they were, he did not remember—had abstained. He said that the statement of both sides could be entered in the minutes, and expressed surprise that an incident could be caused by such a trifle.

Fomin said that as many as 20 persons had refused to vote, and not abstained. He mentioned that, when the editorial board was elected, 20 persons had abstained. He supposed that these two forms of abstention should be distinguished. He asked that everything that happened be recorded in the minutes, without any sort of qualification of the facts.

Posadovsky agreed with this view.

Yegorov could not agree with Comrade Gusev that what had brought this question up was a mere trifle. As many as 20 had said ‘I refuse to vote’, and Comrade Brouckère had said ‘I refused to vote’.

Martov asked that the incident be finished with quickly, saying that although, of course, the minority must submit to the majority, it nevertheless had the right to demand that the majority compile the minutes correctly.

Lenin asked the secretary to make the appropriate alteration in the minutes.

Trotsky proposed the following correction to Pavlovich’s speech. ‘Comrade Pavlovich said: “I am not going to seek out [to make suppositions about] the purposes for which the compact minority which has undoubtedly been formed here wished to use the figures of the voting.” When Comrade Pavlovich said this, there was uproar in the hall, and Comrade Pavlovich added: “That is my subjective opinion.” ‘

Pavlovich insisted on the wording given in the minutes. The minutes of the 32nd session were confirmed.

The minutes of the 31 st session were read.

Martov: Regarding the passage in Comrade Lenin’s speech where he says that I attributed to him the plan for an editorial trio, I declare that I have no recollection of this passage. If I had heard it I would have protested against it. I ask that this be included in the minutes.

Orlov and Gusev confirmed that Comrade Lenin had said in his speech that the plan had been put to him by two of the editors ofIskra.

Lenin asked that this be included in the minutes.

Lenin: Agreeing with the correction made by Comrades Kostich and Panin, [The beginning of Lenin’s speech [see Session 31] went like this, according to the manuscript: ‘Martov’s speech was so strange that I find myself obliged to protest emphatically against the way he presented the question. Let me recall, in the first place, that Martov’s protest against the election of the editorial board, his refusal and that of his comrades to participate in the editorial board which is to be elected, is in crying contradiction to what we all said (Martov included) when Iskra was recognised as the Party organ. The objection was then put forward that such recognition was pointless, since one cannot endorse a mere title without endorsing an editorial board, and Comrade Martov himself explained to the objectors that this was not true, that it was a certain political trend that was being endorsed, that the composition of the editorial board was not being predetermined in any way and that the election of the editors would come up later, under point 18 of our agenda. Comrade Martov therefore had no right whatever to talk now about the recognition of Iskra being a limited one.’] I affirm that what I meant was that Comrade Martov considered it an insult for him to be included in the editorial trio without the rest of his comrades.

Martov proposed that the minutes include Gorin’s proposal that the names of all the members of the CC be kept secret.

Trotsky: Lenin insists that he was not understood owing to interruptions. But he was being interrupted precisely because we understood him well. I ask that this be included in the minutes.

Gusev proposed that the minutes should mention that after Comrade Popov’s statement that he did not wish to take part in the CC there was applause from all sides.

Lenin proposed that it be mentioned that among those applauding was Comrade Plekhanov.

Martov proposed that it be mentioned that Comrades Plekhanov and Lenin voted against the question of the editorial board being brought up again, and for the two elected editors to be given the right to co-opt the third.

Makhov proposed that it be entered in the minutes that, on the question of confirming the old editorial board (Byelov’s proposal), Comrades Plekhanov and Lenin at first abstained, and then, when the voting went in favour of the proposal, and a second vote was taken, they participated in this, voting against. Also, he wanted it mentioned that Martov abstained on both occasions.

Panin mentioned that when a vote was taken on whether to allow Comrade Martov to give an explanation to the congress, only Comrade Plekhanov voted against.

Plekhanov stated on behalf of the Bureau that he regarded it as incorrect and contrary to standing orders to publish the results of non-roll-call votes and to make investigations into these votes, but that he personally, and Lenin as well, assumed full moral responsibility for what he had done, and therefore made no objection, for his part, to publication of the way he had voted.

The session was closed.

Thirty-sixth Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates, and 11 persons with consultative voice.)

The minutes of the 30th session were read.

Deutsch: In the minutes which have been read, where Comrade Rusov’s speech is quoted, he says that ‘an old revolutionary like Deutsch saw lack of confidence in the members of the editorial board in the fact that the congress wanted to subject them to election’. However, as can be seen from these same minutes, I did not take part in the discussion, and refrained from speaking. Comrade Rusov can have formed a conclusion as to my attitude to his proposal that three members of the board be elected only from my interjections. But that does not signify, either, since when I interjected I spoke not of ‘lack of confidence’ but of something more than that—of the criminality of his proposal, because bringing forward such a proposal seemed to me to be committing a crime against the future of our movement. I foresaw that Comrade Rusov’s proposal would lead to the very consequences that have now ensued, namely, to the departure from the editorial board of the majority of its members. Comrade Sorokin is also wrong when he alleges that I said we should ‘nail to the pillory those who voted for Rusov’s proposal’. I said nothing like that.

Rusov: What was read out here was what I actually said. Therefore I do not find it possible to alter the contents of my speech. Deutsch’s observation can be included in the minutes of today’s session.

Deutsch: That’s all I want.

Sorokin: My comments did not refer to Deutsch’s words but to his conduct. Comrade Deutsch stood up and said: Let us see who is daring.’

Deutsch: I did not say ‘Who is daring’. I said: ‘I am interested to see who the persons are who dare to support such a criminal proposal as the election of a board of three.’ The point here was not cowardice, gentlemen, but your short-sightedness, your lack of foresight.

Gusev: I do not insist on the exactitude of the speech I presented; perhaps it is not photographically accurate, since I was ill at the time, and so I request the comrades, if it is inaccurate, to help me to restore it to its authentic form.

Kostrov: I wanted to ask Gusev about something, but the statement he has now made puts me in a difficult position. One would like to know which is to be regarded as more correct: the extract which the secretary began reading, or Comrade Gusev’s own manuscript, in which he is dealing with the functionaries of the editorial board.

Gusev: If any of the comrades will confirm that I used the words ‘functionaries’ and not ‘administration’, I agree to correct this. I don’t believe Kostrov on his own.

Kostrov: I am not speaking from memory, but about the papers in the possession of the secretary.

Trotsky: Comrade Pavlovich’s speech has been incorrectly compiled. Some very important expressions are missing. In the first place he said, and this phrase is not here, that ‘the corporate body of Iskra, thanks to great efforts, accomplished something respectable, so this is not “thanks to” but “in spite of“.’ Then, later: ‘by putting forward the plan for a trio, the authors declared that these were the conditions and this the combination in which alone they agreed to work.’

Pavlovich: How Comrade Trotsky construes me is of no interest to me, but it is important to me that I was thinking when I spoke. I said that in spite of the imperfect organisation of the editorial board, it had achieved great results. I am not afraid of being suspected and accused of ill-will towards Iskra. I was merely stress ing that we have not only the right but also the duty to give it the forms suitable for its work.

Deutsch, Popov and Panin confirmed what Trotsky had said.

Pavlovich: I insist that no changes be made in the extract from my speech which alter the meaning of this extract. These changes can be included in the minutes.

Deutsch: I do not understand how Comrade Pavlovich can repudiate words which he undoubtedly spoke, and which were heard by 20 persons.

Bekov: And which 20 persons did not hear. Pavlovich asked that this be entered in the minutes.

Karsky: It may be that those 20 did not hear because they were not authorised to.

Chairman (Plekhanov): Your remarks do not comply with the dignity of the congress and I cannot allow them.

Bekov: I do not understand how we can reckon up how many persons heard and how many did not. I say that it is not possible to draw from Comrade Pavlovich’s speech such a conclusion as follows from Trotsky’s correction, and so I consider that Trotsky’s correction is wrong.

Chairman (Plekhanov): I do not regard it as possible to turn this congress session into a session of a court. It is unworthy of the congress. Corrections are being proposed and evidence for them produced.

Pavlovich: I welcome the Comrade Chairman’s words, reminding some comrades that we are at a congress and not a judicial investigation. However, I do not share his optimism that this reminder is unnecessary. I ask Comrade Karsky when it was that he managed to collect such precise figures (that 20 persons heard). Kostrov is sure that the extract from my speech does not contain the phrase he remembered. To him and to Comrade Trotsky I would recommend that in that case they reconstruct the whole of my speech, when, perhaps, those particular phrases will acquire the meaning which I intended to give them. Everyone knows that a phrase torn out of its context can be interpreted in any way you like. I think it is clear to everyone that they are here trying to foist on me a tendency which I could never possess.

Trotsky: In his speech Muravyov said: ‘We know who is more and who is less susceptible to such dissonances.’ I consider this correction very important, since it was this that led to Comrade Martov and the whole editorial board of Iskra leaving the hall.

Panin: What was said was: ‘The dissonances which existed in the editorial board have been revealed at the congress: the majority are already clear as to who is inclined to dissonances.’

Muravyov: I want to bring it to the notice of the congress that the renderings of what I said which were given by Comrades Trotsky and Panin are far from identical in meaning and bear even less resemblance to my actual words. Since what is at issue here is my words alone, I will permit myself to quote two versions of these words which were given in private conversation with persons very closely affected by the incident in question. One of them said that I had said, literally, the following: ‘and we (i.e., the majority at the congress) know who causes them (i.e., the “dissonances“).’ Another person said, no less categorically, that what I had said was: ‘we know how they are caused’. I invite the comrade delegates to try and reconcile these four versions so as to get something common from them which coincides with what I say I said. I meant precisely what I have written. I pointed to the fact that ‘dissonances’ among the editors existed and that these were obvious to the majority at the congress. But I did not say at all that it was a question of ‘dissonances’ of a personal order. I state this categorically, because—and I say this frankly—I have too much respect for the comrades of the editorial board to engage in analysis of that sort of ‘dissonance’. I was referring to the ‘dissonances’ which had been revealed in the congress debates on various points, dissonances over principle, the existence of which is now, unfortunately, a fact that nobody will deny. That is why I insisted that my formulation conveys precisely the sense and content of what I said.

Pavlovich: I understood Muravyov as saying that he did not deny the possibility of dissonances in any corporate body.

Martov agreed with the statement that there ought not to be any judicial investigations. The explanation given by Muravyov, clarifying what exactly he wanted to convey by the phrase he used, will, of course, appear in the minutes, and the incident will thereby be closed.

Muravyov: I again emphasise the point that four such different interpretations exist of those words of mine which I have quoted. On the basis of this fact I affirm that what I said about dissonances corresponds completely with the version given by me.

The minutes of the 29th session were read and confirmed.

The minutes of the 27th session (half of it) were read and confirmed.

The minutes of the 35th session were read and confirmed.

Lenin: It remains to be decided in the minutes of which session to include the names of those who took part in one way or another in the non-roll-call-votes.

Panin: Since Plekhanov’s applause was, on Lenin’s insistence, included in the minutes of the session when this happened, then the votes too should be recorded.

Martov also urged that either both be included or neither.

Lenin agreed with Martov that both should be included in the minutes of the last session.

The corrected Party rules were read and finally approved.

One of the amendments to the third article of the programme which had been adopted was read and approved.

The congress proceeded to the last item of the agenda: Procedure for publishing the decisions of the congress.’ [Part of the discussion on this point and some of the resolutions adopted have not been published, for reasons of security. [Note by the commission.]

Yegorov: In order to avoid any reproaches, I advocate that we elect to the commission for publishing the minutes representatives of both of the halves into which the congress has divided.

Lyadov proposed that the commission be composed of Deutsch, Fomin and Gorin.

Yegorov’s resolution was adopted. [Yegorov’s resolution: ‘A special commission for publishing the minutes to be elected, to consist of representatives of both halves of the congress.’]

Those elected to the commission were: Starover, Koltsov and Gorin.

The session was closed.

Thirty-seventh Session[edit source]

(Present: 36 delegates with 44 mandates and 11 persons with consultative voice)

Fomin read letters from the delegates of the Bund and also their declaration [see Appendix X].

A resolution regarding this declaration was adopted.

Yegorov made the following proposal: ‘I suggest that the Bund be allowed to use the minutes, subject to such restrictions as the commission finds it possible to make.’

Martov proposed the following amendment: ‘The Bund can be given permission to use the minutes only after the publication of chose sections which the commission decides to make public, and only that part of the proceedings when the Bund delegation were present at the congress. Use of minutes by the Bund presupposes an obligation on their part not to publish anything that is not going to be published by the RSDLP.’

Yegorov’s proposal and Martov’s amendment were adopted.

A resolution on the Bund was adopted:

Martov’s resolution: ‘Considering (a) that the second congress of the RSDLP set itself the aim of uniting into a single integrated Party all the Social-Democrats who are active in Russia; (b) that, in particular, one of its tasks was to establish the closest Lies between the General Jewish Workers’ Union and the other sections of our Party; (c) that, despite the Bund’s recognition of the general Party programme, such unification could not be realised owing to the difference of principle on the question of the Bund’s place in the Party, and appreciating the very serious loss to the cause of achieving unity which will inevitably be caused by the departure of the Bund from the Party—the second congress of the RSDLP expresses its most profound regret, and at the same time its firm confidence that with the future growth of the movement these differences will disappear and that that complete merging of the proletariat of all nationalities in a single RSDLP will take place which is needed in the interests of the struggle of the working class for emancipation.’ Popov, Ivanov, Yegorov, Medvedev, Byelov, Makhov, Tsaryov, Fomin, Lvov, Rusov, Lyadov, Gorsky, Muravyov, Bekov, Dyedov, Stepanov, Gusev, Yuzhin, Plekhanov.

Lenin and Plekhanov moved a resolution on the organ for the sectaries. [For discussion of each of the following resolutions two speakers were allowed ‘for’ and two ‘against’]

Yegorov: Since discussion is not possible now, I propose that no resolution be tabled for entrusting the publication of Social-Democratic literature to a single person.

Lenin: Bonch-Bruyevich is not an unknown person, he is a member of the League. It is possible to table a resolution since the organ will be published by way of an experiment and under the control of the Central Organ and the CC.

Yegorov: I ask that it be recorded in the minutes that when the question of Yuzhny Rabochy was discussed we were not asked at whose expense Yuzhny Rabochy was to be published. The consideration that publication of Yuzhny Rabochy could do no harm to the common cause was thought insufficient. Now Comrade Lenin regards that consideration as sufficient to justify accepting Comrade Bonch-Bruyevich’s proposal. As for control by the Central Organ, I must say that we did not refuse to put ourselves under the control of the central organ, the CC and any other central institutions.

Martov proposed a change in the last part of the resolution moved by Plekhanov and Lenin:

Resolution on the organ for the sectaries, moved by Lenin and Plekhanov: ‘Considering that the sectarian movement in Russia is, in many of its manifestations, one of the democratic tendencies directed against the prevailing order of things, the second congress draws the attention of all Party members to work among the sectaries with a view of drawing them towards Social-Democracy. By way of an experiment, the congress authorises Comrade V. Bonch-Bruyevich to publish, under the control of the editorial board of the Central Organ, a popular paper to be called Sredi Sektantov (‘Among the Sectaries’), and empowers the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ to take the measures needed for the realisation of this publication and the establishment of all the conditions for it to function correctly.’ Lenin, Plekhanov, Dyedov, Gorsky, Osipov, Lyadov, Hertz, Stepanov, Murazyov, Lange, Gusev, Pavlovich.

Martov’s amendment was adopted [Martov’s amendment: all the last part of the resolution, beginning with the words: BY way of experiment’ to be replaced by: ‘The congress empowers the CC to deal with the proposal contained in Comrade Bonch-Bruyevich’s report.’] and then also the Lenin-Plekhanov resolution, as so amended. Lenin’s resolution on the Georgian and Armenian newspaper was discussed. [This resolution was not found in the minutes, and neither was Kostrov’s proposal on the same subject. [Note by the commission.]

Brouckère: Does the Caucasian Association exist?

Rusov: It exists, but has not yet been given formal structure: its rules are being worked out.

Martov proposed deleting from the resolution the word ‘Party’.

Posadovsky: If this resolution restricts the rights of the CC it is harmful; if it does not place restrictions on the CC, it is unnecessary.

Karsky: An amendment is needed, since the Association has not been endorsed. [A clash with the chairman occurred here, as Karsky spoke against the resolution after being called upon to speak for it.]

Kostrov’s proposal on t his matter was adopted.

A resolution on giving testimony was discussed:

Pavlovich’s resolution on giving testimony under interrogation: ‘Considering: (a) that any testimony given by revolutionaries when under interrogation by the gendarmerie serves, in the hands of the interrogators, regardless of the intentions of the revolutionaries, as the principal means of charging more people and bringing them under interrogation; and (b) that refusal to testify, if carried out on a wide scale [while it cannot in any case worsen the position of the accused, and that such a tactic] will markedly help in the revolutionary education of the proletariat, the second congress of the RSDLP recommends all Party members to abstain from giving any kind of testimony when interrogated by the gendarmerie.’ Pavlovich, Stepanov, Plekhanov, Rusov, Glebov, Osipov, Dyedov, Strakhov, Brouckère, Braun, Gorsky, Lyadov, Muravyov, Gusev, Kostich, Lvov.

Yegorov was against the argument included in the resolution, which he thought should be omitted.

Deutsch proposed deletion of the phrase ‘cannot in any case worsen the position of the accused, and that such a tactic’.

Deutsch’s proposal was adopted.

An amendment was adopted for replacing the words ‘abstain from giving’ by ‘refuse to give’.

The resolution as a whole, as amended, was then adopted.

The congress passed to discussing two resolutions about the liberals: (1) Starover’s:

Starover’s resolution on the liberals: ‘The RSDLP, the independent political party of the proletariat, proceeding from the proposition contained in its programme which proclaims that the Party “supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the social and political order prevailing in Russia“, does not refuse to enter, and, should the need arise, will enter, through its central institutions, into temporary agreements with liberal or liberal-democratic trends; on condition, however, (a) that these trends clearly and unequivocally declare that in their struggle against the autocratic government they stand resolutely alongside the Russian Social-Democrats; (b) that they do not include in their programmes demands which run counter to the interests of the working class and of democracy generally, or obfuscating their consciousness, and (c) that they take as their battle-slogan: universal, equal, secret and direct suffrage.’ Starover, Trotsky, Stein, Koltsov, Martov, Fischer, Akselrod, Posadovsky, Panin, Braun, Orlov, Osipov.

…and (2) Plekhanov’s:

Plekhanov’s resolution on the liberals: ‘Considering that Social-Democrats must support the bourgeoisie in so far as it is revolutionary or even merely oppositional in its struggle against Tsardom; that, therefore, Social-Democrats must welcome the awakening of political consciousness in the Russian bourgeoisie; but that, on the other hand, they are obliged to unmask before the proletariat the limited and inadequate character of the bourgeois liberation movement, wherever this limitedness and inadequacy shows itself, the second ordinary congress of the RSDLP insistently recommends to all comrades that, in their propaganda, they direct the attention of workers to the anti-revolutionary and anti-proletarian character of the trend expressed in Mr P Struve’s organ, Osvobozhdenie. ’ Plekhanov, Lenin, Pavlovich, Gorsky, Bekov, Rusov, Muravyov, Lyadov, Gorin, Gusev, Stepanov, Sorokin, Orlov, Osipov, Braun.

Martov: I am for Starover’s resolution and against that of Plekhanov and Lenin. The former puts the question on a businesslike basis, while at the same time bringing out our antagonism to the Liberals on principie. The latter, having given a correct formulation of our attitude on principle to the bourgeoisie, ends with a paltry conclusion that a particular writer should be exposed. Would this not be ‘using a sledgehammer to kill a fly’? The congress of representatives of the Russian proletariat reducing their attitude to the liberal bourgeoisie to their attitude to a single writer!

Plekhanov: Our resolution has in view not Osvobozhdenie but a definite liberal trend of which Osvobozhdenie is the organ and not of any other trend. The attitude of the workers to this trend must be clear and definite. In Starover’s resolution there is no statement of general principle and attention is mainly focused on a possible agreement, as though such an agreement were on the agenda, which is not yet the case.

Kostrov: The resolution must emphasise the difference between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The name of Struve means nothing to the proletariat.

Starover: I think that at the present time it is important to lay down the conditions on which an agreement would be possible. Such an agreement is on the agenda. We have already given support to the student movement, and the question may arise of support for the Zemstvo-democratic movement.

Lenin: Starover’s resolution will be misconstrued: the student movement and Osvobozhdenie are two quite different things. To take the same attitude to both would be harmful. Struve’s name is all too well known, and the workers know it. Comrade Starover thinks that we need to give a definite directive; in my view what we need is to define an attitude on principle and on tactics.

Kostrov’s amendment to Plekhanov’s resolution was rejected. Both resolutions (Starover’s and Plekhanov’s) were adopted. Akselrod’s resolution on the Socialist-Revolutionaries was discussed:

Akselrod’s resolution on the Socialist-Revolutionaries: ‘Considering: (a) that the interests of the Russian proletariat generally and of its liberation movement in particular require it to act, in the struggle against absolutism, as a completely independent political force; (b) that only activity aimed at uniting the proletariat into such a force possesses socialist revolutionary content in the struggle against absolutism; and considering, further: (c) that the “Socialist-Revolutionaries” oppose, in theory and in practice, the efforts of the Social-Democrats to weld the workers into an independent political party, and strive, on the contrary, to keep them as a politically amorphous mass capable only of serving as a tool of the liberal bourgeoisie—the congress declares that the “Socialist-Revolutionaries” are nothing but a bourgeois-democratic faction, towards whom Social-Democrats can in principle have an attitude no different than towards liberal representatives of the bourgeoisie in general. Considering, further, that the “Socialist-Revolutionaries” pursue their bourgeois tendencies under the flag of socialism and that, in addition, or, rather, for this reason, they are utterly bankrupt as a bourgeois-revolutionary faction, the congress regards their activity as detrimental not only to the political development of the proletariat but allo to the overall democratic struggle against absolutism.

‘For all these reasons, the congress condemns unconditionally any attempt to hide the principled and political significance of the difference between “SocialistRevolutionaries” and their practical bankruptcy from the general democratic viewpoint.

‘In the light of the above-mentioned considerations the congress does not regard as possible any more or less continual alliance between the Social Democrats and the “Socialist-Revolutionaries“, even within the narrow framework of general-democratic tasks; but does not rule out the possibility of temporary agreements between them in those cases when the relation of fortes and the character of the attacks being undertaken against absolutism make such agreement necessary.—Akselrod, Fischer, Martov, Trotsky, Deutsch, Koltsov, Stein, Fomin, Starover, Karsky, Panin, Kostich, Popov, Posadovsky, Makhov.’

Yegorov: We say in the programme that we must support all oppositional and revolutionary movements. In Russia two such movements exist: the Liberal one and the Socialist-Revolutionary one. It turns out that we look negatively upon both of these movements. What this comes to is that as soon as an oppositional movement assumer concrete form, we say: away with it! How are we to escape from this contradiction?

Akselrod: Yegorov’s question actually embraces two questions: (a) how to reconcile in practice our principled attitude of hostility in general to all bourgeois oppositional and revolutionary factions with the tactical position of support for them in the struggle against reaction; and (b) how to reconcile the resolution I have moved against the ‘Socialist-Revolutionary’ Party with this tactical position in particular.

The first question is undoubtedly of very great importance for our Party. I expected that special attention would be given to it at our congress, and hoped that I should manage to deal thoroughly with this question here. Unfortunately, the congress has been left with no time for the discussion I had hoped for, and in the few minutes at my disposal I cannot deal with the question. I can only summarise, and then only in part, the conclusion I would have drawn if I had spoken specially on the question touched upon by Comrade Yegorov. This is the conclusion. Considering the political passivity of our liberal bourgeoisie there can as yet be no question of correct support for it, in the literal sense, by the RSDLP. At the present time, in order to ‘support’ it in practice we must systematically utilise the oppositional and revolutionary mood of the upper classes in the interests of the development of revolutionary initiative and political independence among the mass of the workers. This conclusion seems at first sight paradoxical. But this is only because I have expressed it in such a general way, without giving reasons or grounds for it.

As regards our attitude to the ‘Socialist-Revolutionary’ Party, this is directly determined by the circumstance that, while coming forward under the flag of socialism and competing with the Social-Democrats on the terrain of propaganda and agitation among the democratic intelligentsia and the proletariat, the ‘Socialist-Revolutionary’ party at the same time harms the cause of socialism and the liberation struggle against the autocracy. The revolutionary Narodnik movement strove to preserve Russia from capitalist development. This endeavour was recognised to be utopian and even reactionary, and in practice the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’ have renounced it. Its place has been taken, in the programme and activity of the Social-Democrats, by the striving to preserve the Russian proletariat from the intellectual and political tutelage of the bourgeois parties, through organising the active revolutionary sections of the proletariat, while still in the grip of absolutism, in an independent political party, through systematic development of class consciousness and political independence among the worker masses. Since the objective course of economic development has not enabled Russia to ‘leap over’ the capitalist phase directly into the realm of socialism, the Russian Socialists have been obliged to direct their forces to ensuring that the Russian proletariat at least leaps over’ the phase of subordination to the ideological and political leadership of the bourgeois political parties, in order that from the very outset of its appearance on the historical arena this proletariat should stand forth as an independent revolutionary force, under its own banner, led by a party which has arisen and which acts as the representative of its class interests, grouping and concentrating in itself the most conscious and actively revolutionary elements of the proletariat. This is the practical idea which has called the Russian Social-Democratic movement into existence, which underlies its programme, and which determines the content and direction of its activity.

In the West the workers took part in the struggle against the feudal-monarchical order as a formless socio-political element, a general homogeneous mass, led by bourgeois-democratic revolutionaries. The result was that even long after the feudal-monarchical order had been destroyed, the advanced strata of the proletariat followed blindly the left factions of the bourgeoisie, which relied upon the glorious traditions of the epoch of the bourgeois revolutionary movements, strengthening their prestige by means of the traditions of the heroism and radical democratism of the revolutionaries of that period, from whom they traced their pedigree. The revolutionary ideologists of the proletariat had, therefore, to devote much labour and time to freeing even these strata from the political tutelage of the radical bourgeoisie. Only after this could a broad and all-sided struggle of the proletariat begin against our bourgeois society. Developing the political consciousness of our proletariat, organising it into an independent political party, trying to win for it the role of vanguard in the struggle against absolutism, we thereby preserve it from the tutelage of the bourgeoisie, ensuring for it the possibility of exerting, in the interests of the exploited masses, a serious influence on the outcome of our present-day liberation movement, and bringing nearer the triumph of socialism over capitalism. Only in this way can we fil the revolutionary movement which is aimed directly against absolutism with real socialist content, only in this way will this movement become directly a phase or prologue of the liberation struggle of the proletariat, in the name of socialism, against the whole bourgeoisie. And yet all the activity of the ‘Socialist-Revolutionary’ party is aimed in precisely the opposite direction. Both theoretically and practically the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’ try to hold back the development of political consciousness in the Russian proletariat, and in practice they are against raising it to the level of an independent and advanced revolutionary force in the struggle for freedom. On the contrary, they—unconsciously, of course—follow a path which inevitably leads to transforming the proletariat into a blind tool or political tail of the bourgeois parties. This is why the Social-Democrats cannot but treat them as a bourgeois faction.

But the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’ are, at the same time, poor bourgeois revolutionaries. Wishing to remain ‘socialists’, if only in words, being unable to adapt their programme and tactics to the demands and requirements of the oppositional bourgeoisie, they are unable to become their leaders, as their radical wing, urging them forward and giving them support. Consequently, apart from rare specific instances, it is also not possible to speak seriously of practical support by the Social Democrats for the ‘Socialist-Revolutionary’ party as a bourgeois revolutionary party.

Martov: I will use the opportunity to reply to Yegorov’s question, which came up already during our discussion of the programme, and was put to us on several occasions because of our controversy with the Liberals and the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’. If we are to support ‘every revolutionary and oppositional movement’, how can we wage war on those parties which are trying to organise oppositional or revolutionary movements of other classes? The contradiction here is only apparent. In Western Europe too the growth of Social Democracy was accompanied by the decline of the bourgeois-democratic parties, partly under the influence of criticism by the Social-Democrats. But would it be true to say that Social-Democracy killed the democratic movement? No, because it kills this or that party only in so far as it revolutionises the consciousness of its agents, and if this party, being incapable of development, tries to restrict, for the sake of narrow class interest, the range of its radicalism, then Social-Democracy draws into its ranks the former supporters of such a party. The Russian Social-Democratic movement cannot act otherwise. It supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement by criticising the limitations of the actually-existing oppositional parties, facing them with the choice of either advancing or else los ing their influence over the awakened elements of society which Social-Democracy invites into its ranks.

Plekhanov proposed an amendment to Akselrod’s resolution: to replace the last paragraph by the following [see note *]. He justified this amendment by claiming that it made the conclusion sharper and more decisive.

[*Plekhanov’s amendment: ‘In the light of the above-mentioned considerations the congress decisively condemns any attempt at uniting the Social-Democrats with the “Socialist-Revolutionaries” and recognises as possible only partial agreements with them in particular instances of struggle against Tsardom, the conditions of such agreements to be subject to supervision by the Central Committee.’]

Akselrod: I agree to accept Plekhanov’s amendment, but I find his argument in support of it unfounded. It is strange to describe the conclusion of my resolution as not being ‘decisive’. On the contrary, it rejects not merely ‘union’ with the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’ but also ‘alliance’, which is, as you know, permissible also between parties which are opposed to each other on questions of principle, and even between different states. Any tendencies towards union are condemned in the very preamble of the resolution. Nevertheless, I accept Plekhanov’s amendment on stylistic grounds. The phrase comes out more elegantly than in my conclusion. Besides, it mentions the Central Committee, which did not exist when I drafted my resolution.

Lenin supported Plekhanov’s amendment.

Plekhanov’s amendment was adopted.

Akselrod’s resolution, as amended, was adopted by all except for one abstention.

Martov’s resolution on demonstrations was discussed:

Martov’s resolution on demonstrations: ‘Considering that, under the conditions prevailing in Russia, political demonstrations are one of the most important means of politically educating the broadest masses of the people and of spreading and strengthening the influence of the Social-Democrats; that demonstrations are at the same time the best means of systematically disorganising the machinery of government; that, gradually increasing in scope, these demonstrations must lead, and to some extent are already leading, to a series of armed clashes between the people and the governing authority, thus preparing the masses for a Russia-wide uprising against the existing order, the congress recognises it as necessary that local committees take advantage of suitable occasions for organising political demonstrations. At the same time, the congress notes that in the previous approach to this question, some substantial defects were observed in practice, and recommends that, in order to eliminate these: (1) the committees should, through extensive preliminary agitation, endeavour to ensure that the broadest sections of the population are sympathetic to the aims of a demonstration and are informed of the Partys aims; (2) demonstrations should be organised to take advantage of moments when the mood of the working masses is favourable for this purpose, and artificial incitement of demonstrations when this condition is lacking should be avoided; (3) the active nucleus of demonstrators should be sufficiently numerous, well-organised and prepared for the role they have to play; (4) measures should be taken to ensure that, in case of need, the demonstrators will be able to offer an active, and, if possible, armed rebuff to the police hordes; (5) in view of the fact that regular troops are increasingly being used against the people, steps should be taken to acquaint the soldiers with the nature and purpose of the demonstrations, and to invite them to fraternise with the people; the demonstrators should not be allowed needlessly to irritate the soldiers. The Second Congress of the RSDLP recognises the desirability of the Central Committee directing and co-ordinating the efforts of local committees in the organisation of demonstrations, and taking upon itself the organisation of Russia-wide political demonstrations in accordance with a general plan.—Martov, Stein, Fischer, Starover, Koltsov, Trotsky, Panin, Posadovsky, Makhov, Braun, Tsarov.

Kostrov proposed an amendment on the ground that the idea of armed resistance was expressed very weakly in the resolution.

Martov: I regard Comrade Kostrov’s amendment as unnecessary. In drafting the resolution I had in mind countering that view, so widespread through the influence of the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries’, that the main thing wrong with our demonstrations is the absence of armed resistance. This is not true. The facts show that only in rare cases is failure to be explained by the lack of weapons. Much more often the causes of failure are insufficient numbers and bad organisation of the demonstrators, lack of broad preliminary agitation, and, because of that, lack of sympathy on the part of the crowd. Our resolution points to the need to prepare all these preliminary conditions, and it is quite enough for it to refer to the need to organise an armed rebuff in a critical situation. It is said that the era of ‘peaceful’ demonstrations is past. No! The events in Odessa[59] have shown that, when we have tens of thousands on our side, a peaceful demonstration can accomplish a great deal. The resolution brings out our view of the importance of the demonstration as the best means of disorganising the machinery of government. We veed constantly to keep in mind that the concentration of all its forces which we impose upon the autocracy by our agitation is the chief positive result of our work.

Yegorov: Demonstrations begin spontaneously, and yet on May Day hardly anyone responded to the appeal. The main thing is choosing the right moment. The masses have not yet risen to the level, have not yet matured sufficiently to the point when they will come to a demonstration even if they are not in the appropriate mood. I therefore move an amendment.

Rusov also moved an amendment.

All the amendments were rejected, and Martov’s resolution was adopted.

Martov’s resolution on the trade union struggle was the next item:

Martov’s resolution on the trade-union struggle: ‘Considering: (a) that trade-union struggle by the workers inevitably follows from the situation of the proletariat in capitalist society; (b) that this struggle is one of the principal means of countering the tendency of the capitalist system to lower the workers’ standard of living; and (c) that in so far as this struggle develops in isolation from the political struggle of the proletariat, led by the Social-Democrats, it results in fragmentation of the proletarian forces and subordination of the labour movement to the interests of the propertied classes—the congress recognises that the task of the RSDLP in the field of the trade-union movement is to lead the day-to-day struggle of the workers for improvement in their working conditions and to agitate for removal of all the obstacles put in the way of the trade-union movement by the laws of the Russian autocracy; in short, to unite the separate conflicts involving particular groups of workers into a single, organised class struggle.

‘At the same time, in view of the increasingly obvious endeavours of the Tsarist government to get control of the economic struggle of the proletariat under the guise of “legalising the labour movement“, and by corrupting it politically to ture this movement into a pawn in its own political game; in view of the fact that this so-called “Zubatov policy” not only has a reactionary-political inspiration and is implemented by police-provocateur methods, but is a policy of systematic betrayal of the interests of the working class for the benefit of the capitalists—the congress recommends that all comrades continue the unremitting struggle against Zubatovism in all its forms, that they lay bare before the workers the self-seeking and treacherous character of the tactics of the Zubatovist demagogues, and that they cal! on the workers to unite in a single class movement of struggle for the political and economic emancipation of the proletariat. To this end the congress recognises it as desirable that Party organisations give support and guidance to strikes called by the legal labour organisations, and at the same time make use of the clashes to expose the reactionary nature of the union between the workers and the autocracy.—Martov, Zasulich, Trotsky, Stein, Fischer, Deutsch, Koltsov, Starover, Akselrod, Karsky, Posadovsky, Popov, Panin, Tsaryov, Orlov. ’

Martov: In the resolution I move, particular attention is given to the duty of Social-Democrats not to remain neutral in those conflicts between labour and capital which arise as a result of the work of various ‘independents’, or even against their will. Comrades have told me of cases when Social-Democratic workers have considered it possible to take the places of ‘independents’ who have gone on strike. The recent events in Odessa have shown what consequences can follow from the Government’s playing at legalisation. For this very reason, we must not remain aloof from the purely economic struggle, even when this is being conducted under the auspices of the ‘legalisers’.

Plekhanov proposed a stylistic amendment, to which Martov agreed.

The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Also adopted unanimously were Plekhanov’s resolution on the pogrom in Kishinev:

Plekhanov’s resolution on pogroms against the Jews: ‘In view of the fact that movements such as the all too sadly well-known pogrom in Kishinev, quite apart from the abominable atrocities they commit, serve in the hands of the police as a means by which the latter seek to hold back the growth of class-consciousness among the proletariat, the congress recommends comrades to use all means in their power to combat such movements and to explain to the proletariat the reactionary and class inspiration of anti-semitic and all other national-chauvinist incitements.—Plekhanov, Deutsch, Trotsky, Koltsov, Fomin, Posadovsky, Byelov, Pavlovich, Karsky, Gusev. ’

…Martov’s on shop stewards:

Martov’s resolution on shop-stewards: ‘On the basis of the propositions developed in the resolution on the trade-union struggle, and considering that the new law on shop-stewards is intended by the government to serve as a means of strengthening police tutelage over the working class, and that, as with all attempts by the government at “legalising the labour movement” this law can and must become a point of departure for agitation against the autocracy and for development of the class consciousness of the proletariat, the congress recommends all organised comrades to take part in the elections of shop-stewards under the new law and to agitate during these elections for the installation of the most reliable representatives of the workers so as to expose the tactics of the authorities and the capitalists in these elections.—Martov, Fischer, Stein, Trotsky, Starover, Panin, Posadovsky, Makhov, Tsaryov, Lyadov. ’

…and Martov’s resolution on the presentation of propaganda:

Martov’s resolution on the presentation of propaganda: ‘Considering that the growth of the labour movement in Russia is far outrunning the growth of the cadre of conscious worker Social-Democrats capable of acting as leaders in the ever more complex struggle of the Russian proletariat; that the conditions of police-imposed clandestinity hinder in the highest degree the correct presentation of propaganda through study-circles on any Wide scale at all; and that the lack of a sufficient number of experienced and skilled propagandists puts considerable obstacles in the way of propaganda of this kind—congress recognises the necessity for local committees to give very serious attention to the correct presentation of propaganda, being guided in this, above all, by the task of developing conscious and active agitators with a definite revolutionary world-outlook. The congress proposes that local committees give particular attention to selecting skilful propagandista and instructs the Central Committee to take all needful measures for systematising and co-ordinating propaganda work in the localities, providing systematic guides for study-circles, a series of systematically chosen propaganda pamphlets and so on.—Martov, Fischer, Trotsky, Zasulich, Stein, Fomin, Koltsov, Panin, Karsky, Tsaryov. ’

The congress proceeded to discuss Lenin’s resolution on the student youth:

Lenin’s resolution on the attitudes to the student youth: ‘The second congress of the RSDLP welcomes the quickening of revolutionary activity among the student youth, urges all Party organisations to co-operate in every way with these young people in their efforts to organise themselves, and recommends all student groups and study-circles, first, to give priority in their activity to developing among their members an integral and consistent socialist world-outlook—a serious knowledge of Marxism, on the one hand, and on the other, of Russian Narodism and Western-European opportunism, as the main trends among the advanced tendencies which are in conflict today; [secondly, to beware of those false friends of the youth who divert it from serious revolutionary education by empty revolutionary or idealistic phrasemongering and philistine mosning about the harmfulness and superfluousness of sharp controversy between revolutionary and oppositional trends, since these false friends actually spread nothing but lack of principie and a frivolous attitude to revolutionary work]; thirdly, to try, when going over to practical activity, to establish links beforehand with the Social-Democratic organisations, so as to benefit from their advice and to avoid, as far as possible, committing major errors at the very beginning of their work.—Lenin, Plekhanov, Gorin, Rusov, Dyedov, Lyadov, Murazyov, Lange, Brouckère, Gusev. ’

Martov: The resolution moved by Lenin seems to me to be quite unsatisfactory. It is necessary to say that the youth should endeavour to acquire an integral world outlook; but it is absolutely out of place te speak in this connection of ‘false friends’, using the very term which the press employs when writing about us socialists. We have expressed our definite attitude to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Liberals; there is no point in mentioning again, specially, in the resolution on the youth, the dangers which threaten from the direction of those parties.

Lenin: The expression ‘false friends’ is not just an expression used by reactionaries, and we know from the example of the Liberals and Socialist-Revolutionaries that such false friends do exist. It is these false friends who are trying to persuade the youth that they have no need to distinguish between the different trends. We, on the contrary, comider it the main task to develop an integral revolutionary world outlook, and the practical task for the future is to get the youth, when they are organising themselves, to turn towards our committees.

Makhov and Trotsky proposed that the second clause be omitted from Lenin’s resolution.

This amendment was adopted, and Lenin’s resolution, as so amended, was then adopted. Koltsov’s resolution on the Amsterdam Congress was voted on and adopted unanimously:

Koltsov’s resolution: ‘International socialist congresses should not only testify to the solidarity of the workers throughout the world, but should to a certain extent also give leadership to the ideological and practical struggle of the proletariat. Therefore the second congress of the RSDLP recommends the Party Council to see that the Party is appropriately represented at the congress in Amsterdam in 1904, in order to uphold there those principies of revolutionary Social-Democracy by which the Party is guided in all its activity.—Koltsov, Martov, Trotsky, Fischer, Starover, Fomin, Deutsch, Kostich, Orlov, Posadovsky, Panin, Tsaryov, Gusev. ’

Martov’s resolution on party publications:

Martov’s resolution on party publications: ‘Considering: (a) that the broadening development of the labour movement ought to be accompanied by the clearest possible understanding among the working-class masses of the immediate and ultimate aims of the Social-Democrats; (b) that it is a vital task for the Party at the present moment to create a strictly consistent body of publications accessible to the widest possible mass of readers, taking into account the present state of the Party’s forces—the congress recognises it as necessary: (1) that the central organ devote as much space as possible to questions of political and social life in a form as intelligible as possible to the widest circle of readers, and eliminating, as far as possible, articles of a purely theoretical nature; (2) that with these aims in mind and in order to ensure a more systematic elucidation of problems of socialist theory, [there be established a scientific organ of the Party, appearing as regularly and frequently as possible] Zarya be transformed into a Party organ; the congress instructs the central committee to reach agreement with the editorial board of the central organ on the conditions governing publication of this organ [Plekhanov’s amendment]; (3) that an extensive pamphlet literature be created, for the purpose of systematically popularising the Party programme and the congress resolutions on tactical questions. The congress instructs the Party’s central institutions to see to the taking of all measures needed for the implementation of these decisions.—Martov, Zasulich, Akselrod, Koltsov, Kostrov, Stein, Kostich, Posadovsky, Panin, Makhov. ’

…was the object of an amendment moved by Lenin, to strike out the words: ‘eliminating articles of a purely theoretical nature’.

Martov: I am against the amendment proposed by Lenin. The words about eliminating articles of a purely theoretical nature should stand. If we decide against a special ‘popular’ organ then we must try to ensure that our central organ becomes as accessible to the readers as possible. It is precisely the articles of a purely theoretical character, for which there is a place in Zarya, that makes Iskra particularly non-popular.

Lenin’s amendment was rejected.

Plekhanov’s amendment, about Zarya, was adopted. Martov’s resolution, as amended by Plekhanov, was adopted. Deutsch’s resolution on Iskra [Deutsch’s resolution: ‘The congress expresses its desire that the central institutions turnIskra into a daily publication within the shortest possible time.—Deutsch, Trotsky, Koltsov, Fomin, Panin, Kostich, Tsaryov, Posadovsky. ’] was adopted unanimously.

Plekhanov closed the congress, reminding delegates in a brief concluding speech that the decisions of the congress were binding on all members of the Party.

The congress was closed.

  1. ↑ The congress was joined by two London-based Social-Democrats, who were given consultative voice—Takhtarev (‘Strakhov’) and his wife Yakubova (‘Yuzhin’).
  2. ↑ In a lamentable failure of ‘security’, the minutes allow Akimov to refer to ‘Makhov’ as ‘Mitsov’, which was another of Kalafati’s pseudonyms. This has been corrected in the text of the present edition.
  3. ↑ The amendment substituting ‘and sometimes also’ for ‘or even’—see Appendix
  4. ↑ The 13th session was the last to be held in Brussels. Zemlyachka (‘Osipov’) had been arrested and deported, and the congress decided to move to London, where they would not be harassed by the police. There was an interval of five days between the 13th session and the 14th, the first to meet in London.
  5. ↑ Revolutiae is what appears in the minutes. It should be revolutions.
  6. ↑ The Chambre Introuvable (‘matchless Chamber’) was the nickname of the National Assembly elected in France, under conditions of White Terror, in October 1819, which passed without opposition all the ultra-reactionary measures submitted to it.
  7. ↑ The Georgian nationalist organisation mentioned was actually called Sakartvelo, that being the Georgian name for the country the Russians call Gruziya, our ‘Georgia’.
  8. ↑ Presumably the point of Martov’s reply to Lieber was that demagogy’ means literally leading the people’ (i.e., up the garden path).
  9. ↑ V.A. Posse was a journalist, editor of Zhizn.
  10. ↑ Zemsky Sobor (‘Assembly of the Land’) was the name of the ‘parliament’ of 16th century Russia, and was the term commonly used for the constituent assembly for which the Social-Democrats agitated.
  11. ↑ The two delegates who disagreed with each other about breast-feeding, etc., were Yegorov and Posadovsky.
  12. ↑ This refers to Lenin’s ‘Reply to Criticism of Our Draft Programme’ (by’X’, i.e. P.P. Maslov), June 1903, Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 438-453.
  13. ↑ Kostrov (Zhordania) speaks here about Georgia.
  14. ↑ Plekhanov refers to the German Social-Democrat Eduard David, whose book on Socialism and Agriculture had appeared in February 1903.
  15. ↑ Kautsky’s book on the agrarian question had appeared in 1899. Lenin gave some lectures on the agrarian question at the Russian Higher School of Social Sciences, in Paris, in February 1903: see Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 337-347.
  16. ↑ See Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 7 (1977), p. 118.
  17. ↑ Actually, at their ‘Third’ Congress, in 1905, the Bolsheviks did decide in favour of calling for the confiscation of all landlords’ estates.
  18. ↑ A .N. Engelhardt’s Letters from the Countryside described survivals of serfdom in the 1870s: see Lenin, ‘The Heritage We Renounce’, in Collected Works, Vol. 2.
  19. ↑ Revolutsionnaya Rossiya was the paper of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
  20. ↑ S. Nechetny’s article on the situation of the Russian peasantry appeared in No. 2 of the journal mentioned, which was a publication of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
  21. ↑ Trotsky refers to the Russian peasants’ folklore utopias– their ‘Land of Cockayne’.
  22. ↑ In his reference to Ireland Lenin has in mind the agrarian reforms (Land Acta) of 1881-1903 to which Trotsky attributed such importance in his article about the Easter Rising of 1916 (Trotsky’s Writings On Britain, Vol. III, p. 168).
  23. ↑ ‘New Russia’ was the region around Odessa, the provinces of Kherson and Bessarabia: Trotsky’s birthplace was in this part of the country.
  24. ↑ The Falz-Feins were big landowners in Taurida, one of the regions in South Russia ‘opened up’ after the abolition of serfdom, and are taken here as examples of capitalist landownership free from ‘survivals of serfdom’.
  25. ↑ Borzhomi is in Georgia.
  26. ↑ For Lenin’s later criticism of the agrarian part of the 1903 Party Programme, see Collected Works, Vol. 13, pp. 256-258.
  27. ↑ The Siberian post-servants’ were peasants who held their land, as settlers in Siberia, on condition that they maintained the government’s postal service, providing horses and drivers for the conveyance of the mall. Yamshchik comes from yam, a Turkic word for a post-station, where horses can be changed.
    Chinsheviki were payers of a form of quit-rent peculiar to the former Polish territories in Western Russia (Lithuania, Byelorussia, S.W. Ukraine).
  28. ↑ There was indeed no serfdom in Latvia (i.e., Courland and S. Livonia), since the land was worked by landless labourers: but these were subjected to an exceptionally oppressive regime by the landlords (the ‘Baltio Barons’, of German origin), like that prevailing on the Junker estates in Eastern Germany, and the conditions there were hardly ‘modern’ in the sene of agrarian relations in the USA (cf. Lenin on the differences between the ‘Prussian’ and the ‘American’ paths to capitalism in agriculture).
  29. ↑ A conseil de prud’hommes is an arbitration board made up of persons possessing experience and expert knowledge in a particular trade, formed to settle disputes between parties engaged in this trade.
  30. ↑ The ‘industrial tribunals’ in Ireland mentioned by Lenin are evidently the Congested Districts Board and other institutions set up under the Land Acts of this period to ensure ‘fair rents’.
  31. ↑ S.F. Sharapov was a journalist of ‘Neo-Slavophil’ outlook who voiced the views of the most reactionary section of the landlords, attacking the policy of the Tsarist government as ‘liberal’.
  32. ↑ This presumably refers to V.V. Yevreinov, a Socialist-Revolutionary. See Lenin, ‘The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907’, in Collected Works, Vol. 13, pp. 376-378.
  33. ↑ Verelendungstheorie. The German word Elend, from which this is formed, can mean ‘misery’, and not just ‘poverty’. The distinction is an important one in this connection (Marx: ‘whether the worker’s pay be high or low’, etc.). The Russian expression used by Akimov does not allow for it.
  34. ↑ Re-translated from Russian, Plekhanov’s version of the passage in the Communist Manifesto reads: ‘If they have revolutionary significance, it is only to the extent that (or: in so far as) they are faced with joining the ranks of the proletariat, to the extent that (or: in so far as) they defend not their present but their future interests, to the extent (or: in so far as) they abandon their own point of view and take up the point of view of the proletariat.’ For the standard English version of the passage, see note 9 to the Ninth Session.
  35. ↑ ‘Demonstrating to the Congress the significance of the CC, Comrade Lenin showed his fist (I am not speaking metaphorically) as the “political” symbol of the CC.’ (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p.28.)
  36. ↑ ‘The proletariat, that same proletariat of which you said yesterday that it “spontaneously tends towards trade-unionism“, is now called upon to give lessons in political discipline! And to whom? To that same intelligentsia to whom was assigned, under yesterday’s schema, the role of bringing proletarian political consciousness to the proletariat from outside!’ (Trotsky, Our Political Tasks. )
  37. ↑ ‘The theory of accumulation.’ It seems probable that there is a misprint, or a mis-hearing, here—napolneniya being rendered as nakopleniya. Martynov is doubtless referring to the so-called Erfüllungstheorie (‘theory of filling up’). See note 5 to Ninth Session.
  38. ↑ ‘According to Comrade Lenin’s plan, the congress elects the Council from the membership of the central organ’s editorial board and the Central Committee—not less than two persons from each of these institutions. In other words, the congress elects three members from the editorial board and two from the Central Committee. (Nobody understood this any other way, and Comrade Pavlovich, a member of the Bureau, openly testified to having this attitude to the composition of the Council, at one of the sessions of the congress, as may be seen from the minutes)’. (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p. 17.) See notes 3 and 4 to Thirty-Second Session.
  39. ↑ The first resolution was moved by Martov and Glebov, the second by Lenin and Popov, and the third by Yegorov.
  40. ↑ The passage about “following Party publications” evidently occurred in Lenin’s explanation of what the editorial board’s tasks would include.
  41. ↑ The “schismatics” (raskolniki) referred to by Deutsch were presumably Old Believers, who had, as persecuted religious dissenters, grievances against the government which might cause them to wish to contact Narodnaya Volya.
  42. ↑ L. Nadezhdin (E.O. Zelensky) was the author of a pamphlet, published by Svoboda, which is referred to by Lenin in What Is To Be Done?, Section V.
  43. ↑ The “schismatics” (raskolniki) referred to by Deutsch were presumably Old Believers, who had, as persecuted religious dissenters, grievances against the government which might cause them to wish to contact Narodnaya Volya.
  44. ↑ L. Nadezhdin (E.O. Zelensky) was the author of a pamphlet, published by Svoboda, which is referred to by Lenin in What Is To Be Done?, Section V.
  45. ↑ ‘At the end of the congress, on the very last day of its proceedings, some delegates of the majority were already behaving without the proper “firmness“. This explains why, at the last session, when the resolutions on tactics were adopted in haste, the minority already proved to be the majority. We passed a number of resolutions (by Comrades Akselrod, Martov and Starover), some of them against the opposition of the “majority“. We introduced radical amendments into the resolutions of Comrades Lenin and Plekhanov, in spite of their resistance. We put two members of the “minority” into the three-man commission (responsible neither to the central organ nor to the CC) for publishing the minutes.’ (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p. 26.)
  46. ↑ The tutelage of the editorial board over the composition of the Central Committee was … to be one of the guarantees of the “moral solidarity” of the two bodies, or, to speak more plainly, of the personal dependence of the Central Committee upon the editorial board. Comrade Lenin found another guarantee in the requirement of unanimity for co-option of new members to the Central Committee. It would be enough to install one “reliable” man in the CC for him to be able to lay his veto upon any person possessing the vice of personal intiative and independence. On this point Comrade Lenin expressed at the congress two directly opposite views. First, in favour of a “qualified majority” (two-thirds or three-quarters) and against “unanimity”: then, a few days later, in favour of “unanimity” and against a “qualified majority”. This change of view undoubtedly occurred under the influence of the fact that some practical worker-comrades, in whom Lenin could not but see imminent candidates for the CC, had taken up a sharply negative attitude to the use which Lenin had decided to make of the “Iskrist” mood of the congress. The entry of these comrades into the CC, in the given situation, would inevitably have meant a fight for the independence of this imaginary “focus”. The power of the Council might, under such conditions, prove to be quite illusory. Against those candidates to the CC was brought up the double battery of “mutual co-option” and “unanimity“.” (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p.59.)
  47. ↑ The Northern Association covered Vladimir, Yaroslavl and Kostroma provinces, and included the important textile area of Ivanovo-Voznesensk.
  48. ↑ Lenin’s report on the Bund’s withdrawal, made in October 5903 to the League Congress:
    “I cannot understand why the Bund should have withdrawn, things being as they were. They were actually the masters of the situation, and could have had a lot their own way. Most probably, they had binding instructions.”—Collected Works, Vol. 7, p.85.
    “Not a single person has any doubt that, if the Bund had not withdrawn, Martov would have beaten us over the central bodies.”—Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 34, p.565.
  49. ↑ Borba Proletariata is better known to history under the title of its Georgian edition, Brdzola.
  50. ↑ It would appear that the “Lenin” at the beginning of this line is unnecessary, as Lenin seems to have taken the chair at this session—or, rather, at the beginning of it.
  51. ↑ Gusev (Drabkin) in his memoir of the 2nd Congress in Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya, no. 77-78, 5928, says that the moment of the open split between Lenin and Martov came at this time, in the 30th session, when Lenin, as Chairman, refused to accept Martov’s resolution to postpone discussion of the Yuzhny Rabochy question. “Vigorously protest-ing,” he says, puts Martov’s reaction too mildly—in fact, he was hysterical with anger.
  52. ↑ Regarding the piece of paper produced by Lenin on this occasion, see Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd edition, p. 53, note 1.
  53. ↑ The Iskra organisation in Russia, which was to have sent two delegates to the congress, failed to send anyone. It was agreed that Martov should act as the Iskra delegate with two mandates. This left Lenin as the only representative of the League of Social-Democrats Abroad. (Cf. Collected Works, Vol. 7, pp. 74-75.)
  54. ↑ The other two elected to the CC, besides Glebov (Noskov), were Krzhizhanovsky and Lenznik.
  55. ↑ ‘It remained for us to elett the “fifth” member of the Council. The question was put: would the name of the person elected be announced? The delegate N., one of the majority, proposed that it be announced, since the fifth member of the Council would, of course, be “abroad“. “So, then, it’s already been decided?” asked one of the minority.’ (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p. 24.)
  56. ↑ ‘The CC created by the Second Congress is nothing but an agency at the disposal of the Council, which in turn is merely the second hypostasis of the editorial board.’ (Trotsky, Report of the Siberian Delegation, p.28.) Trotsky uses here a theological term: the Holy Trinity—One God in Three Persons’—consists of these hypostases, namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  57. ↑ Plekhanov was elected as fifth member of the Party Council.
  58. ↑ An atmosphere of extreme tension between the ‘majority’ and the ‘minority’ developed during the 31st and 32nd sessions. Shotman (‘Gorsky’ at the congress) recalls in his memoir of the congress in Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya, no. 77-78,1928, that he had to be restrained from beating up another delegate. Krupskaya writes (1930 edition of the English translation of her memories of Lenin, Vol. I, p.104): ‘The struggle became exceedingly acute during the elections. A couple of scenes just before the voting remain in my memory. Axelrod was reproaching Bauman (‘Sorokin’) for what seemed to him a lack of moral sense, and recalled some unpleasant gossip from exile days. Bauman remained silent, and tears came into his eyes. [Bauman had behaved towards a woman comrade rather as Aveling treated Eleanor Marx, and she too, killed herself.—B.P.] Another scene I remember. Deutsch was reprimanding “Glebov” (Noskov) about something. The latter raised his head, and with gleaming eyes said bitterly: ‘You just keep your mouth shut, you old dodderer!“.’
  59. ↑ ‘The events in Odessa.’ July 1903 saw a wave of strikes in the Ukraine and Transcaucasia (cf. a reference elsewhere to the strike in Batum). In Odessa a prominent part was played in the struggle by workers organised in the ‘Zubatovist’ trade union. This turn of events led to the authorities becoming disenchanted with Zubatov’s ‘policecontrolled’ trade unions, and Zubatov himself was ‘transferred to other work’.
Retrieved from "https://wikirouge.net/texts/en/w/index.php?title=Second_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social-democratic_Labour_Party/09/Sessions_in_London&oldid=88381"