The third conference—within the past year—of the entire St. Petersburg organization of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party was held. The first conference had addressed the question of elections to the State Duma in February 1906; the second, the issue of supporting the demands of the Duma’s ministerial faction in June 1906; and the third, the electoral campaign for the Second Duma in January 1907.

While bourgeois parties resolve major political questions on a case‑by‑case basis, simply by issuing resolutions from one party “authority” or another—crafting various political ploys behind the scenes for the benefit of the people—only the workers’ Social-Democratic Party truly embodies democracy in its organizational practices, despite all the immense difficulties it faces—even at the cost of severe sacrifices that inevitably accompany the struggle of an illegal party. Only the workers’ Social-Democratic Party weighs the fundamental significance of each major political step, eschewing fleeting, momentary successes and subordinating its practical politics to the ultimate goal of completely liberating labor from all forms of exploitation. Only the workers’ party, when entering into battle, demands that all its members provide a thoughtful, straightforward, and clear answer to the crucial question: Should we take this particular step—and if so, how exactly should we proceed?

The latest conference of the St. Petersburg organization was founded upon the democratic representation of every single party member. In this process, the election of delegates was to be conducted through a survey of all those eligible to vote, asking how they viewed the prospect of forming alliances with the Constitutional Democrats. Without a conscious response to this pressing tactical question, the democratic character of the elections to the conference would have been nothing more than an empty, unworthy game—a farce unworthy of the proletariat.

The front page of the newspaper “Simple Words,” No. 1, dated January 14, 1907, featured V. I. Lenin’s leading article, “The Election Campaign of the Workers’ Party in St. Petersburg” (reduced in size).

Here is the resolution adopted by the conference:

Taking into account that: 1) the independence of the electoral campaign is absolutely imperative for Social-Democracy—as the class party of the proletariat—in all cases where no special or exceptional conditions are present; 2) up to now, the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats, under the leadership of the Central Committee, have conducted a thoroughly independent electoral campaign, exerting influence over all strata of the working population—both those who firmly adhere to a proletarian standpoint and those who have not yet fully embraced it; 3) at present, with only two weeks remaining until the elections, it has become clear that the right-wing parties in St. Petersburg have but slim chances, while the Cadets, largely due to longstanding tradition, are widely regarded as having considerable prospects; accordingly, the RSDLP is faced with the particularly urgent task of making every effort to undermine the Cadets’ hegemony in the capital—the very center upon which the attention of all Russia is focused; 4) among the broad layers of urban working poor, who do not yet stand firmly on a proletarian perspective and whose votes can still sway the outcome of the elections in the city constituency, there is a noticeable hesitation between a desire to vote further to the left of the Cadets—seeking to break free from the leadership of the treacherous liberal–monarchist bourgeoisie—and a desire to secure at least a small number of worker deputies in the Duma through an alliance with the Constitutional Democrats; 5) among the wavering labor parties, there is a tendency to justify an alliance with the Constitutional Democrats on the condition of securing just one seat—or, at most, no more than two out of the six seats allocated to the capital—on the grounds that the Social-Democrats will never, under any circumstances, enter into agreements with non-Social-Democratic segments of the urban poor against the liberal bourgeoisie. In light of these considerations, the conference resolves: 1) to immediately inform the St. Petersburg Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party and the Committee of the Labor Group that the St. Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP is prepared to enter into an agreement with them, provided that they refrain from concluding any agreements with the Cadets; 2) the terms of the agreement: complete autonomy for the parties entering into the agreement with regard to their slogans, programs, and tactics in general. The allocation of the six seats in the Duma shall be as follows: two seats for the workers’ constituency, two for the Social-Democrats, one for the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and one for the Labor Group; 3) the conference entrusts its Executive Body with the task of conducting negotiations; 4) throughout the province, guided by the same fundamental principles, agreements may be concluded with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Labor Group on a local level.

Three main points emerge when examining this resolution. First, an absolute refusal to enter into any agreements with the Cadets. Second, the Social-Democrats’ unwavering determination to run on independent lists under all circumstances. And third, the allowance of agreements with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Labor Group.

Rejecting agreements with the Cadets was a matter of course for the workers’ party. As soon as the pre-election meetings began in St. Petersburg, it became immediately clear to everyone that the revolutionary Social-Democrats had been right all along when they said: our liberals were misleading the masses with cries of “Black-Hundred danger”—empty rhetoric aimed at diverting attention from the real threat looming from the left. The government’s petty police maneuvers, the systematic disenfranchisement of poor voters through Senate interpretations—all of this could do nothing to alter the mood of the electorate (whether 100,000, 120,000, or 150,000 voters—it made no difference). Yet this mood of the masses was unmistakably reflected in the meetings themselves—clearly leaning toward the left of the Cadets.

Of course, the Black-Hundred danger may not lie in the Black-Hundred–oriented voting of the mass electorate, but rather in the Black-Hundred–police-style arrest of left-wing voters and electors. Indeed, it is widely—and persistently—claimed that the current, so‑called “freedom” (they’ve even allowed us to breathe a sigh of relief—yet in Russia, this is already being hailed as “freedom”!) of electoral assemblies is nothing more than a government-sponsored provocation, aimed at rounding up prominent orators and electors. Yet it is easy to see that against such a Black-Hundred threat, what is needed is not alliances with the Social Democrats at all—but rather the masses’ readiness for a struggle that cannot be confined within the narrow confines of so‑called parliamentarism.

Second: As was only to be expected, the conference resolved that the Social Democrats would, in any case, conduct an independent electoral campaign in the capital. They may propose one agreement or another to other parties, but we have long been preparing for complete independence—and we are ready for it now. Under these circumstances, any agreement amounts, in practice and from the standpoint of the election campaign as a whole, to an exception; the independence of the Social Democrats becomes the rule.

Third: The conference put forward a proposal for an agreement with the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Laborists, on the condition that they separate themselves from the Cadets and from the Cadet-leaning N.S. (Narodno-Sotsialist) faction—then, on the condition that two seats be allocated to the workers’ caucus, with the remaining four seats divided equally between the two sides.

At the heart of this proposal lies the fundamental principle of distinguishing among the various parties according to their respective attitudes toward the post-revolutionary struggle, which may very well come to the forefront tomorrow. By anchoring its agreements with other parties in principled conditions, the Social Democracy thereby provides material for propaganda and agitation among the masses concerning the true nature of the different parties. The Social Democracy takes into account the peculiar situation that has arisen in Petrograd, where the Cadets are leading the urban petty bourgeoisie—a stratum whose sentiments are “labor-oriented.” Under such conditions, we cannot afford to neglect the task of undermining the Cadets’ hegemony and helping the working people take a step—admittedly small, but nonetheless of unmistakable political significance—toward a more resolute struggle, toward clearer political ideas, and toward a more distinct class consciousness.

And we will achieve this result through our agitation and through the very design of our electoral campaign—whatever the response of the Laborists and the Socialist Revolutionaries to our proposal. There is no need for us to engage in elaborate calculations to gauge the likelihood of a positive or negative response. Our attention simply cannot be focused on such matters. What matters most to us, regardless of the particular contingencies that may arise, is the proletariat’s unwavering political line: against the deceptive illusions of peaceful struggle and constitutional playthings, we counterpose a clear analysis of the tasks posed by the post-revolutionary struggle, which is inexorably approaching in the wake of historical developments. To the petty-bourgeois layers of both urban and rural working people, we say: there is but one means of thwarting the instability and vacillation of the smallholder. That means is the independent, class-based party of the revolutionary proletariat.

“Simple Words,” No. 1, January 14, 1907

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Simple Words.”