The Third Congress of the RSDLP (2)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The Third Congress of the RSDLP was held in London from April 12 to 27 (April 25 to May 10), 1905. It had been prepared by the Bolsheviks and was directed by Lenin. The Mensheviks refused to attend it and met for a conference at Geneva.

The Congress was attended by 38 delegates: 24 with vote, and 14 with voice only. Delegates from twenty-one RSDLP committees had Votes. Lenin was a delegate from the Odessa Committee. Among the delegates were V. V. Vorovsky, B. S. Zemlyachka, N. K. Krupskaya, A. A. Bogdanov, A. V. Lunacharsky, M. M. Litvinov and M. G. Tskhakaya. Lenin was elected chairman of the Congress.

The Congress examined the basic questions of the unfolding revolution in Russia and determined the tasks of the proletariat and its party. Lenin wrote the draft resolutions on all the main questions debated by the Congress. He gave reports on Social-Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government and on the resolution concerning support for the peasant movement; ho spoke on the armed uprising, the attitude to the government’s tactics on the eve of the revolution, the relations between the workers and intellectuals in Social-Democratic organisations, the Party Rules, the report on the Central Committee’s activity and other questions (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 359–424). The Congress laid out the Party’s strategic plan for the bourgeois-democratic revolution and defined the Party’s tactical line. The Congress set out the organisation of an armed uprising as the Party’s most important and pressing task. The Congress said that the victory of the armed popular uprising should lead to the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government, whose task would be to suppress the resistance of the counter revolution, carry out the RSDLP minimum programme, and prepare the conditions for the transition to a socialist revolution.

The Congress reviewed the Party Rules: it adopted Lenin’s formulation of Paragraph One, which deals with Party member ship; eliminated the duocentric system (the CC and the CO) in the Party, and set up a single, governing Party centre—the Central Committee; it gave a precise definition to the CC’s powers and its relations with the local committees.

The Congress condemned the acts of the Mensheviks and their opportunism in organisational and tactical questions. In view of the fact that Iskra had fallen into Menshevik hands and was conducting an opportunist line, the Congress authorised the Central Committee to set up a new Central Organ, Proletary. A Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee on April 27 (May 10), 1905, appointed Lenin editor of the newspaper.

The Third Congress was of tremendous historical importance. It was the first Bolshevik congress, which gave the Party and the working class a militant programme of struggle for the victory of the democratic revolution. For the work and importance of the Congress see Lenin’s article “The Third Congress” (present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 442–49). The Congress decisions were substantiated in Lenin’s book Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (see present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 15–140). p. 142

APRIL 12–27 (APRIL 25–MAY 10), 1905

DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR CONVENING THE THIRD CONGRESS ON THE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN ORGANISATIONS

Caucasus

The Organising Committee, having examined the question of the Caucasian delegation on the basis of the facts published in various writings and the testimony of witnesses, comrades from the Caucasus, has arrived at this unanimous decision:

1. Among the votes at the Congress, it is necessary and solely correct to reckon the 8 votes of the Caucasian delegation, because back in the autumn of 1903, the CC approved the Rules of the Caucasian Union Committee, and under these Rules, the Caucasian Union Committee, as a Union Committee, was allowed 8 votes at the Congress.

2. As for the contradictory statements by Comrade Glebov in the Council and the Council’s decision in May 1904 to regard temporarily, pending clarification of the question, as votes those of the four separate Caucasian committees (Baku, Batum, Tiflis and Imeretia and Mingrelia), the Organising Committee cannot consider this statement of Glebov’s and the Council’s decision an obstacle to the adoption of the conclusion stated in § 1, since Comrade Glebov has clearly shown himself to be uninformed, which is why he unwittingly misled the Council.

3. Considering it unquestionable that there are now three delegates from the Caucasus with six votes, the OC states that Comrade Leonov, member of the Caucasian Union Committee, declares the following concerning the fourth delegate with two votes: the Caucasian Union Committee intended to allow the Batum Committee to approve this fourth delegate. When the Batum Committee gave a vague and evasive reply on this matter, the Caucasian Union Committee, at a sitting attended by Leonov, expressed the wish that in the absence of a special delegate from Batum at the Congress the votes of the fourth delegate should be transferred to Comrade Kamenev (Yuri).

4. Stating this, the OC leaves it to the Congress itself to decide on the question of a fourth delegate from the Caucasian Union Committee.

Kremenchug

Concerning the powers of the Kremenchug Committee the Organising Committee declares:

1) The Kremenchug Committee was approved by the Central Committee only in August 1904, according to Comrade Mark, a member of the CC, who attended the meeting of the CC at which the approval took place.

2) The Kremenchug Committee does not appear on the Party Council’s list of 33 empowered organisations, which was published in Iskra No. 89.

On the strength of the above stated, the OC decides: not to regard the Kremenchug Committee among the full-fledged organisations with the right of vote at the present Congress.

Yekaterinoslav

The Organising Committee, having heard the report of Comrade Morozov, delegate of the Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee, and the written communication of Comrade Yevgeny, member of the old committee in Yekaterinoslav, reached the following unanimous decision:

The Organising Committee does not see any grounds to consider the present Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee less legitimate than the Minority Committee either in formal terms or in terms of succession and ties with local workers.

However, in view of the fact that the OC has no opportunity of hearing the explanations of the other side, it does not adopt a decision on the vote of the delegate from the Yekaterinoslav Majority Committee, leaving it to the Congress itself to decide on the matter.

Concerning the powers of the Kazan and Kuban commit tees, the OC has failed to reach any decision, as the votes of the CC and the M.C.B. were split.

The M.C.B. believes that these committees cannot be recognised as having the necessary powers because these committees did not appear on the list of committees approved until April 1, 1905, at the Council’s sitting in May 1904 (delegates Lenin and Glebov from the CC). Even if the Kazan and Kuban committees were approved by the Central Committee after May 1904, they will at any rate be entitled to representation only after one year. Besides, these committees could not have been approved at the general meeting of the CC in July 1904, because the minutes of this meeting were in their entirety delivered by Glebov to Lenin abroad, and they contained no information concerning, the approval of the Kazan and Kuban committees. Finally, nothing was said about it either at the August or September sitting of the CC, which was attended by CC member Comrade Mark.

The CC believes that since these committees were inserted in the Iskra list, apparently on behalf of the Party Council, we have no ground for recognising these committees as lacking the required powers.

Written not later than April 11 (24)	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov (The Regular Third congress of the RSDLP Full Text of the Proceedings), Central Committee publication, Geneva

OC DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS

Concerning the point of the agreement between the CC and the M.C.B. under which the Congress shall open in the presence of three-quarters of the delegates of the Russian committees, the OC resolves:

Both sides, making up the OC, see this point as meaning that both the CC and the M.C.B. should have taken the most vigorous measures to achieve full representation at the Congress and also to to the Party that the CC and the M.C.B. have set themselves the aim of organising an all-Party and not a factional congress. This point of the agreement was not at all meant to offset the effect of the paragraph of the Party’s Rules under which a congress is valid in the presence of one-half of the total number of votes. As for the plenitude of representation at the Congress, all measures have been taken on that score. There is no news only from the Astrakhan and the Crimean committees. The selection of delegates and their dispatch abroad (in two instances, transfer of mandates from the Kuban Committee to comrades abroad, Parvus and a person to be appointed by the Iskra Editorial Board) have been carried out by the Don, Gornozavodsk, Kiev, Kuban, Tver, Kharkov, Smolensk, Siberian and Yekaterinoslav committees. Together with the delegates available from 19 committees, we would have, with these 9 committees, a total of 28 committees, that is, more than three-quarters Out of 34 committees (the figure of 34 is the maximum number of empowered organisations initially on the OC list).

If 9 delegates from the said committees have failed to turn up at the Congress, despite the fact that they were given the corresponding mandates from the committees and arrived abroad, their absence is due to no fault of the OC, but to the fact that all the efforts of the OC to achieve full representation at the Congress were frustrated by the illegal resistance of the three members of the Party Council.

Written not later than April 11 (24)	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication,

SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT CONCERNING THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION AT THE = CONGRESS

APRIL 13 (26)

References are being made to a statement of mine. The Kazan man, who has arrived, said that he may possibly have been elected. He should be invited as a member of the committee. I find the end of the Credentials Committee’s resolution strange and propose its correction.

First published in 1937 in the book Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. Protokoly (The Third Congress of the RSDLP Proceedings)
Printed from the text of the book

AMENDMENT TO A CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE PROPOSAL ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION AT THE CONGRESS

APRIL 13 (26)

The following amendment is motioned: “Not as a delegate, but as a member of the committee not represented at the Congress but favouring the Congress.”

First published in 1931 in Lenin Miscellany XVI
Printed from the original

SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF A DEBATE ON THE OC REPORT

APRIL 13 (26)

I propose that we should take into consideration the statement by Comrade Sosnovsky and others on the desirability of limiting the debate on the OC report to the formal aspect only. Comrade Andreyev’s resolution fails to achieve its aim. The comrades wanted to have a discussion only on the legality of convening the Congress and not in substance. To discuss the report in substance is equivalent to discussing the Party crisis. The bureau will keep speakers within the limits of a discussion on the legality of convening the Congress.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE DEBATE ON THE OC REPORT

The Congress shall at present debate the OC report only from the standpoint of the Congress’s validity.

Motioned on April 13 (26)	Printed from the text of the book
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny feftif protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

DRAFT AGENDA OF THE THIRD PARTY CONGRESS

A) Tactical questions.

1. Armed uprising.

[2. Participation of Social-Democracy in a provisional revolutionary government.]

2. Preparations for open political action by Social-Democracy.

3. Social-Democracy’s attitude to the government’s policy on the eve of the revolution, during the revolution and after it.

4. Attitude to the peasant movement.

B) Attitude to other parties and trends.

5. Attitude to the splinter section of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

6. Attitude to non-Russian Social-Democratic parties and organisations in Russia.

7. Attitude to the liberals.

8. Attitude to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

C) Party organisation.

9. Party Rules.

10. Relations between workers and intellectuals in Party organisations.

D) Internal Party work.

11. Delegates’ reports.

12. Improvement of propaganda and agitation.

[13. May Day.]

14. Election of functionaries.

15. Procedure governing the publication of minutes and entry into office of new institutions.

Motioned on April 13 (26)	Printed from the original
First published in 1934 in Lenin Miscellany XXVI

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS AGENDA

APRIL 13 (28)

I would have no objection to the proposal of Comrades Mikhailov, Voinov and Zimin. But there is a danger that the Congress will overdo the agenda debate. The agenda at German Social-Democratic congresses runs to 5 or 6 items; we had up to 25 at the Second Congress. There is already a danger of our debate getting out of hand. I propose that we adopt as a basis the agenda with a better breakdown.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CONGRESS STANDING ORDERS

APRIL 13 (26)

It is dangerous to substitute committees for Congress sittings. The committees discuss many interesting questions which are then lost and do not get into the minutes. The committees do not have enough time for serious work, and it is not desirable to extend it to the detriment of the Congress work. It would be well to elect a resolutions committee right away, so as to give our work some direction at least. We also need a committee for examining the reports. I doubt whether we need organisational, agrarian and armed uprising committees. We have the old Rules, there is Ivanov’s draft, there is Comrade N. F.’s opinion, there is quite enough material.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH MOTIONING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON ELECTION OF COMMITTEES TO EXAMINE DELEGATES’ REPORTS AND TO DRAFT RESOLUTIONS

APRIL 13 (26)

I motion this resolution: “The Congress shall elect: 1) a committee for examining the delegates’ reports and preparing them for communication to the Congress; 2) a committee for appointing rapporteurs and drafting resolutions on the principal items of the agenda.”

The speeches of delegates have convinced me that it is the only way we can work fruitfully. If we adopt the system of a general debate and subsequent discussion in committee, the result will be similar to that at the Second Congress. Care must be taken to have the fullest possible publication of the Congress deliberations for the purpose of giving the Party the best information. In view of the atmosphere of suspicion surrounding the Congress, it is especially necessary to give our debates the greatest possible publicity and the fullest record in the minutes.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

STATEMENTS TO THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE OF THE CONGRESS

1. T o t h e C r e d e n t i a l s C o m m i t t e e o f t h e C o n g r e s s

At the sitting of the OC on April 24, 1905, I forgot to motion a proposal to invite Comrade Arnatsky (r e a l [NB] name), a member of the Kazan Committee, to attend the Congress with voice but no vote. I request the Credentials Committee to examine this proposal.

Comrade Arnatsky is abroad, in France, and told me he was ready to attend the Congress at his own expense. He will soon be going to Russia and could swiftly report to his committee on the Congress. Despite all its efforts, the Organising Committee was unable to contact the Kazan Committee or obtain a reply from Kazan. There is therefore almost no hope of the Kazan Committee taking part in the Congress. Our efforts abroad to contact Kazan from over here have likewise failed, and there has been no reply to our letters. Arnatsky has also failed to get in touch with Kazan from over here. In view of the impossibility of having a delegate from the Kazan Committee to attend the Congress, should we not invite Comrade Arnatsky, as a member of the committee, to attend with voice but no vote?

Lenin.

Motioned on April 13 (26)

2. T o t h e C r e d e n t i a l s C o m m i t t e e

At the OC sitting I reported on the written request from Comrade Filatov (real name) for admission to the Congress with voice but no vote. Comrade Filatov is the author of the articles on the uprising in Vperyod, signed V.S. For the Congress he has prepared a letter and a pamphlet-report: “Application of Tactics and Fortifications to a Popular Uprising” (in a suitcase left in Boulogne). I request that Comrades Belsky and Voinov who had worked with Comrade Filatov in Paris should be asked to give him a reference.

Lenin

Motioned an April 14 (27)	Printed from the original
First published in 1931 in Lenin Miscellany XVI

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE’S REPORT

APRIL 14 (27)

I think it would be wrong to have the Congress confirm the organisations immediately. I am opposed to the giving of a vote. I do not agree with Comrade Kamsky about a coup d’état.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON CONFIRMATION OF THE KAZAN AND KUBAN COMMITTEES

The Congress resolves not to count the Kazan and the Kuban committees in constituting the Congress, but to confirm them as full-fledged committees for the future.

Motioned on April 14 (27)	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING VOTING AT THE CONGRESS

The Congress shall henceforth conduct all voting under § 7 of the Regulations, separating the votes from the voices.

Motioned on April 14 (27)	Printed from the text of the book
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

REMARKS ON RUMYANTSEV’S DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE RSDLP

I think the resolution should be reworded as follows:

Motives:

(1) stating that under the pressure of the revolutionary movement, there is an actual beginning of open action by the political parties, etc.

(2) that in this the liberals have gone especially far, their actual privilege (Schmidt’s point 1).

(3) that there is a tremendous urge among the workers for the same thing (Schmidt’s point 2).

—c o n c l u s i o n s:

1. (1) no occasion should be missed for open action, the workers to be organised into an independent force in the course of the action itself;
2. (2) even the slightest legal forms should be used in an effort to get the legal labour organisations under Social-Democratic influence;
3. (3) the idea should be spread in all labour organisations and among the broadest possible masses of the need of taking practical measures to set up, alongside our secret apparatus, an apparatus for open Political action. [+0) The b e g i n n i n g of the actual winning of freedom of action.

[BOX:] Better 2)

1)

1. 1) The working masses strive for open action.
2. 2) The liberals are making intensive use and are gaining a preponderance.
3. 3) The need to prepare for a possible transition in the near future from the usual, exclusively secret forms of activity to open forms.

Resolves:

1. 1) ) no occasion should be missed ... open action to be worked out by separate organisations on the spot
2. 2) the use of even partial legal forms of organisation in an effort to subject them to Social-Democratic influence

   Written between April 16 and 19 (April 29 and May 2), 1905	Printed from the original
   First published in 1926 in Lenin Miscellany V

   
   

THESES FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS’ PARTICIPATION IN A PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT

M o t i v e s o f t h e R e s o l u t i o n:

1. 1) The necessity of political freedom and a democratic republic.
2. [2) The existence of a revolutionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democracy able and beginning to fight for it.
3. 3) The necessity of the proletariat’s support for revolutionary democracy....]
4. 4) The necessity of a provisional revolutionary government for the complete overthrow of the autocracy and actual s of freedom for a constituent assembly.
5. [5) Recognition by revolutionary Social-Democracy of revolutionary action not only, from below, but also from above.
6. 6) The necessity of Social-Democracy’s participation in a provisional revolutionary government in the event of a complete victory for the revolution, where it directs the uprising.]
7. 7) The bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution and the necessity of the proletariat’s taking an independent position as distinct from bourgeois democracy.
8. [8) The existence of an organised Social-Democratic Labour Party capable of open organisation (with broad participation of the workers) and control over the Party’s authorised agents.]

R e s o l u t i v e S e c t i o n o f t h e R e s o l u t i o n on Social-Democratic Participation in a Provisional Revolutionary Government

1)	The propaganda and agitation for the idea of a provisional revolutionary government as a necessary component part of a victorious revolution.
2)	Discussion of the whole of our minimum programme at workers’ meetings not only from a general standpoint, as we all have discussed and should discuss the maximum programme, but from the standpoint of the possibility of its full and immediate implementation.
3)	Recognition that in the event of a victorious popular uprising the Social-Democrats may take part in a provisional revolutionary government together with the revolutionary bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois democrats for the purpose of conducting a relentless struggle against all counter-revolutionary attempts, for the purpose of completely clearing the democratic soil in Russia, for the purpose of using all the means ensured by the government for the broadest possible organisation of the working class.
These are subjective conditions. What about the objective ones? for the purpose of carrying on a relentless struggle against the counter-revolution. P. 3.		4) Necessary condition of such participation—control by the Social-Democratic Labour Party over its authorised representatives in the government and undeviating protection of the independent working-class party, hostile to all manner of bourgeois democracy in its striving for a full socialist revolution.
{{ NB A r m e d proletariat }}		5) At any rate, regardless of whether or not the Social-Democrats succeed in taking part in a provisional revolutionary government, the idea must be spread in the working class of the necessity of independent workers’ r e v o l u t i o n a r y organisations to exercise control over e v e r y revolutionary government and to exert pressure on it.

Written before April 18 (May 1), 1905	Printed from the original
First published in 1926 in Lenin Miscellany V

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF OPEN POLITICAL ACTION BY THE RSDLP

APRIL 19 (MAY 2)

Comrade Sergeyev is wrong. We have before us the integrated question of changing the character of Social-Democratic activity, and that is what the resolution states.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT’S TACTICS ON THE EVE OF A REVOLUTION

APRIL 19 (MAY 2)

1

I agree with Comrade Belsky’s opinion. We tend to minimise the concept of revolution when using this word in relation to the mere wresting of a few paltry rights.

2

I agree that “revolutionary way” is an expression for a more vigorous conduct of struggle, but this tends to minimise the concept of revolution. I propose either that we replace it by the words “regardless of the law”, or that after “revolutionary way” we delete the words “minimal programme”, as it could be taken to mean that we want to carry through the whole revolution in this way.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TO THE PEASANT MOVEMENT

1) Whereas the currently growing peasant movement, though spontaneous and politically unconscious, is nonetheless inevitably directed against the existing political order and against all the remnants of the serf-owning system in general;

2) Whereas it is one of the tasks of Social-Democracy to support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order;

3) Whereas, in view of the aforesaid, the Social-Democrats must strive to purge the revolutionary-democratic content of the peasant movement of all manner of reactionary admixtures, developing the peasants’ revolutionary class-consciousness, and consistently putting through their democratic demands;

4) Whereas the Social-Democratic Party, as the party of the proletariat, must in all cases and under all circumstances work steadfastly for the independent organisation of the rural proletariat and clarify for this class the irreconcilable antagonisms between its interests and those of the peasant bourgeoisie;

—The Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party instructs all Party organisations

a) to carry on propaganda among broad sections of the people explaining that Social-Democracy sets itself the task of giving the most vigorous support to all revolutionary measures of the peasantry capable of improving its condition, including the confiscation of landlord, government, church, monastery and crown lands;

b) as a practical slogan for agitation among the peasantry and as a means of instilling the utmost political consciousness into the peasant movement, to urge the necessity for the immediate organisation of revolutionary peasant committees, with the aim of carrying through all revolutionary-democratic reforms in order to release the peasantry from the tyranny of the police, the officials and the landlords;

c) with the aim of disorganising the autocracy and maintaining the revolutionary onslaught against it, to urge the peasantry and the rural proletariat to engage in all possible political demonstrations, collectively refuse to pay duties and taxes, to perform military service or obey the decrees and orders of the government and its agents;

d) to strive for the independent organisation of the rural proletariat, for its integration with the urban proletariat under the banner of the Social-Democratic Party, and for the election of its representatives to the peasant committees.

Motioned on April 20 (May 3)	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

TO THE PRESIDIUM OF THE CONGRESS

I consider it timely to adopt a resolution (on the attitude of the workers to the intellectuals).

Lenin

Written on April 20 (May 3), 1905	Printed from the original
First published in 1934 in Lenin Miscellany XXVI

OUTLINE OF A SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS

Outline of my speech on May 3 (15th sitting).

1. I. It is not right to say (as Vlasov did) that in our country it is the intellectuals that are mainly the exponents of revolutionary Social-Democratic ideas.
2. II. It is not right to say (as Vlasov did) that the elective principle will not make for better information of the outlying districts, etc.
3. III. Vlasov said that it is the intellectuals that are at the head (of splits and oppositions). This is confirmed by Latyshev, Lyadov, Kramolnikov, etc.
4. IV. W o r k e r s m u s t b e b r o u g h t i n t o t h e c o m m i t t e e s.

   Written on April 20 (May 3), 1905	Printed from the original
   First published in 1926 in Lenin Miscellany V

   
   

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE PARTY RULES

APRIL 21 (MAY 4)

1

Comrade Kitayev’s proposal is more practical, for under it the convocation of an emergency congress demands a quorum equal to one-half of the number of votes at the preceding congress.

2

On the contrary, things are facilitated by the establishment of the specified number required to convene a congress. The required number of votes is established after each congress. One addition only is necessary, and that is a note under which the list of committees confirmed by the CC shall be published in the CO

3

The list of newly confirmed organisations shall be published immediately in the Party CO, with a statement of the time of their confirmation by the CC.

4

I am in favour of the initial wording of § 6 carried Vperyod, as otherwise there is an irregularity.

5

I agree with the opinion of Comrade Petrov and the others. Comrade Belsky’s proposal should be inserted in the note.

6

In the interests of the CO I must come out in favour of Comrade Kitayev’s amendment. With the newspaper issued weekly, there is need to be informed of developments and have sufficient quantities of material.

7

I favour unanimous co-optation. The CC is not big, and for the sake of positive effort and political direction, we must ensure that its members are like-minded.

8

I agree with Comrade Kuznetsov: § 13 should be deleted from the Rules and the corresponding resolution tabled by Comrade Belsky in the Bureau adopted.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON GENERAL MEETINGS OF THE C. C.

APRIL 21 (MAY 4)

I favour Maximov’s resolution. If it is difficult to get together once in three months, the period could be extended to four months. The CC member abroad must know everything and take part in deciding on the most important matters. If there is difficulty for all to get together, a meeting does not have to be full.

First published in 1924 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. 1905 goda. Polny tekst protokolov
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH ON THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE KAZAN COMMITTEE’S REPRESENTATION

APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

L e n i n makes a reference to the minutes of the Second Congress showing that the Kazan Committee was listed as one of the organisations whose powers required formal confirmation. Since no formal confirmation has been forth coming, there is no ground to rescind the resolution already taken by the Congress. The Kazan representative must remain at the Congress with voice only, while the committee; according to the Credentials Committee’s proposal, should seek formal confirmation right away.

First published in 1937 in the book Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. Protokoly
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND INTELLECTUALS IN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS

APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

I object to any examination of the resolutions one by one to avoid fragmentation and propose that they should be referred to committee for consolidation. In particular, concerning Comrade Kitayev’s opinion that the Party committees should consist of organisers only, let me say that they alone would be insufficient for the functioning of the committees.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION TO THE PARTY RULES ON PERIODIC CONFERENCES OF REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS PARTY ORGANISATIONS

APRIL 22 (MAY 5)

1

I should have no objection to this, but isn’t the CC being burdened with too much work by being asked to organise these conferences?

I propose that instead of “the CC should organise” we say: “both the Central and the local committees should organise”, and instead of “conferences of representatives of local committees”, say: “conferences of representatives of various organisations of our Party”.

2

That is right. I am against any additions which introduce nothing but formalism and red tape.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY

The Third Congress of the RSDLP authorises the Central Committee to take all measures to prepare and work out conditions for a merger with the splinter section of the RSDLP, the final approval of these conditions to be left to a new Party congress.

[BOX:] [NB: not subject to publication

Motioned on April 23 (May 6)	Printed from the original
First published in 1924 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. 1906 goda. Polny tekst protokolov

SPEECH ON RUMYANTSEV’S RESOLUTION ON THE SPLINTER SECTION OF THE PARTY

APRIL 28 (MAY 6)

I find the first part unacceptable: how, given the split, is one to refrain from agitating? As for dissolving the Menshevik committees, that should be done with extreme caution.

First published in 1924 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. 1906 goda. Polny tekst protokolov
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS NON-RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS

APRIL 23 (MAY 8)

We are being offered something unacceptable. What, after all, does Comrade Mikhailov want? Does he want the agreements to be concluded only by the CC and local committees jointly? But the CC’s general resolutions are binding on local committees. It is unreasonable to consider the special case in which the Menshevik CC got something wrong. The local committees should also be allowed to display initiative. We should authorise the local commit tees as well to co-ordinate the activity with Social-Democratic organisations locally. If the CC does not happen to find itself in conditions where it cannot be located, it will, of course, always be consulted.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF THE ATTITUDE TO THE LIBERALS

APRIL 23 (MAY 6)

It is inappropriate to raise the question of agreements with the liberals. Things in Russia have reached the point of an uprising, and in such conditions an agreement is highly unlikely. Even if some Osvobozhdeniye groups or liberal-minded students willing to act arms in hand are to be found, we really cannot conclude an agreement with a man like Struve.

Adds to Comrade Voinov’s report on the Zemstvo congress in Moscow (quotes The Times).

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

SPEECH ON THE REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE CC

APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

I am being accused of contradicting myself in the matter of the trial. If the Congress were a general one, the question of the trial would have been raised even earlier, but every thing that has gone before clearly shows what the matter was. The CC is unable to make a report, because it is confused. The way out for the CC was found in the same thing: the Congress, which met later than it should have done. When the “accused pleads guilty”, there is no need for any judicial proceedings.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

PROPOSAL ON PROCEDURE GOVERNING ELECTION TO THE CC

APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

I propose that we should first determine the number of persons we need to elect, conduct the election by secret ballot, and then come to an agreement concerning the extent to which the results of the vote shall be made public.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE TIME OF THE CC’S ENTRY INTO OFFICE

The Congress resolves that its newly elected CC shall enter upon the exercise of its office immediately.

Motioned on April 25 (May 8)	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

SPEECH ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP

APRIL 25 (MAY 8)

T h e C h a i r m a n points out that the question to what extent the Congress proceedings are to be reduced cannot be predetermined. All the debate concerning the agenda should be left out; he adds furthermore that the technical facilities abroad will have to be arranged from scratch and this may affect the speed of publication of the Congress proceedings.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book

AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ON PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION

The Resolution as a Whole

a) Organise a literary-propagandist group to work out a general propaganda programme and to compile in conformity with it a series of popular booklets on the principal questions of the Party programme, tactics and organisation.

a) Give special attention to the publication of pamphlets for work among the peasantry.

b) Make arrangements for the publication of a popular organ in Russia.

point c) substitute

|| adopted _ _

c) Take measures to organise travelling groups of agitators and propagandists to help local centres.

Lenin

Written on April 25 (May 8), 1905	Printed from the original
Published in 1905 in the book Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE EVENTS IN THE CAUCASUS

APRIL 28 (MAY 9)

1

It is wrong to say that the Party undertakes to appoint an uprising when the Caucasus starts a revolution. We merely authorise the CC to support the movement.

2

On the whole I agree with Comrade Petrov’s amendment, although it does not contain any revolutionary call.

Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905
Printed from the text of the book