Translation from German

Copy No. 1 for Comrade K. Kautsky

Esteemed Comrade!

I very much regret that we are forced to disrupt your scholarly work and address you, as well as Comrades Mehring and Klara Zetkin, with a request to resolve our contentious issue without delay. The crisis in our party has been ongoing for 1 1/2 years, and for 7 months, since December 5, 1910, we have been demanding [the return of] the property of our faction, which we transferred to the Central Committee only on [specific] conditions2. We have made every effort, waited month after month, and have not rejected any attempt at mediation in our organization, only to spare you, Mehring, and Zetkin the unpleasant and troublesome task of being judges of the crisis in our party.

But all attempts have failed, and under no circumstances can we wait any longer. We are forced to ask you to urgently issue an arbitration ruling. Everything has come to a standstill, it is impossible to complete any party matter, the Central Organ is no longer being published, the party school has been forced to suspend its activities3, party functionaries have no means of subsistence, and all this is because I no longer have a single kopeck at my disposal. The matter must be resolved within one or two weeks.

And now about the matter itself.

The first document in our dispute is the resolution of the plenum of the Central Committee of January 1910. This resolution was published in No. 11 of the Central Organ in February 1910. Its verbatim translation is attached (see Appendices 1a and 1b)4.

At first glance, this is of course a very strange resolution. It is a contract between the Central Committee and a faction, a contract between the whole and a part. Of course, such a thing is impossible in any solid party.

But the very fact that it was possible and necessary to conclude such a contract in our party and publish it in the Central Organ proves that we are in an exceptional position and that it would be extremely misguided to consider the situation in our party from a "European" point of view.

Factionalism has reigned in our party since 1903, as a result of a split that has effectively taken the place of nominal unity.

The seemingly strange contract is formally a contract between the Central Committee of the party, that is, the general representation of all factions, and one faction – and the content, the meaning of this contract is this: the dissolution of all factions.

Our Bolshevik faction concluded an agreement with the Central Committee that we would dissolve our faction and transfer the property of our faction to the Central Committee on the condition that all factions do the same.

Once one understands this content, this meaning of our strange contract, one can easily explain all the complications in our party struggle.

By including in its own [resolution] our "Declaration" that we will demand the return of the property of our faction if the Mensheviks continue to publish their factional organ and do not dissolve their faction, and by publishing it in the Central Organ of the party, the Central Committee recognized that we have the right to the return of the property of our faction if all other factions are not dissolved. That is to say: not an "condemnation" of factionalism - it has already been condemned in the most solemn manner countless times without visible result - but the actual dissolution of all factions was the condition under which we dissolved our faction. Such a dissolution of all factions was possible on the condition that the Bolsheviks reject the "otzovists" (i.e., those who want to recall the worker deputies from the Duma and generally boycott the Third Duma), and the Mensheviks, for their part, renounce the "liquidators" (i.e., those members of the party who want to liquidate, abolish the current, old, revolutionary party and replace [it] with a new, legal, amorphous, "open" - we say "Stolypin" - workers' party).

It follows that we must prove three facts in order to substantiate our claims for the return of factional property:

1. – that other factions have not dissolved,

2. – that we have not acted lightly, but have seriously cooperated with those Mensheviks who are fighting against liquidationism, that we have indeed dissolved our factional organization and abolished our factional organ ("Proletary"),

3. – that the Central Committee has proved powerless in eradicating factionalism and creating, in its place, bodies that would be able to take on organizational work - and this despite all efforts, despite our active Bolshevik assistance.

So, now we move on to providing this evidence. Although in this internal struggle we could not, of course, avoid an incredible amount of insults and abuse, we still want to, and this should be said in advance, present only verifiable facts, and not empty accusations.

1. The fact of the non-dissolution of the factions of (Menshevik-) "liquidators" and (Bolshevik-) "otzovists" (the "Vpered" group) is beyond any doubt. The factional organ (of the Mensheviks) of the liquidators, "Golos Sotsial-Demokrata" ("Golos")5, was not closed.

To prove that not only the Bolsheviks, but also those Mensheviks who fought against liquidationism, believed that the continued publication of "Golos" meant the continued existence of the faction, we will quote:

1. – The words of Plekhanov, one of the leaders of the Mensheviks, who opposed liquidationism. Immediately after the plenum of the Central Committee in January 1910, he wrote in his "Diary of a Social-Democrat"6 literally the following: "Golos" – "is their actual factional, and moreover irresponsible, center"7.

That is – it is obvious that "Golos" was and remains the factional center of the Mensheviks.

In 1910, Plekhanov repeatedly openly pointed out in the Central Organ of the party that "Golos" after the plenum did not fight against liquidationism at all, and even defended and promoted it8.

On April 4, 1910, anti-liquidators from the Mensheviks (among them Rappoport, an employee of "Neue Zeit"9, whom Comrade Kautsky knows personally), published a resolution. It says literally that "Golos", if not formally, then in any case essentially is the actual factional center of the Mensheviks (point 3 of the resolution), that the preservation of "Golos" must inevitably "entail the preservation of other factional bodies" (point 4), that "Golos" after the plenum represents and defends liquidationism even more than before (points 5 and 6), that the Bolsheviks, in contrast, have implemented the plenum's decision, "closing the factional "Proletary""10 (point 8)11.

We believe that these official statements by Plekhanov, Rappoport, and comrades Mensheviks, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with the Bolsheviks as such – are sufficient to prove that the Menshevik liquidators have a factional center in their "Golos".

Further. The unification of the foreign groups of Russian Social Democrats, which the plenum of the Central Committee demanded with all decisiveness and completely officially, did not occur. The supporters of "Golos" after the plenum, as before it, form independent factional groups, which support not the party, but the liquidationist "Golos". The factional groups of "Golos" are even united in a factional central organization12. That is, factionalism continues to exist unchanged.

After the plenum in January 1910, repeated attempts were made in Russia to revive the Central Committee. Four Bolshevik members of the Central Committee worked for 1 1/2 years after the specified plenum to ensure that the Central Committee regained a worthy position. All four of these Bolshevik members of the Central Committee have been arrested: Meshkovsky, Innokenty, Makar, Lindov.

We believe that there is no other, "better" – *sit venia verbo*1* – proof that the Bolsheviks really worked.

No member of the Central Committee from the Menshevik faction was arrested during work; they remain free, because they did nothing, that is, absolutely nothing, to revive the Central Committee.

If anyone wants to dispute this fact, we will politely ask: not words, but evidence. We have letters that Innokenty, Makar and others wrote from Russia, and with the help of these letters we can documentarily prove that these comrades really worked for the revival of the Central Committee.

We assert that the Mensheviks cannot produce similar letters from their members of the Central Committee (Petr and Kostrov). We assert that Petr never – for 1 1/2 years – spoke at a meeting of the Bureau of the Central Committee! 13 Furthermore, we assert that Kostrov only in 1911 – that is, after 1 year of absolute inactivity! – appeared in the Bureau twice, did practically nothing. Recently here in Paris at a meeting of the Central Committee, the Latvian Martin quite openly asked the liquidator and supporter of "Golos," Igorev, whether he could present letters and other evidence that Kostrov had indeed carried out any work in the interests of the Central Committee? And Igorev was forced to answer these questions in the negative (see the protocols) 14.

But that is not all. The Menshevik-liquidators have a legal group in Russia that acts in the press and in some legal workers' organizations completely independently of the party. The plenary session of the Central Committee in January 1910 made as a prerequisite for the dissolution of factions (as "pakte d'unite" - "agreement on unity"), the requirement that the Bolsheviks should completely reject the "otzovists" (it should be noted in passing: we, the Bolsheviks, already in the summer of 1909, that is, before the plenary session, formally expelled the otzovists from our faction 15) and, for their part, unfold legal activity, so that in our party there would be no place for the anarchist negation of legal work, but on the other hand, stated that any negation, even an underestimation of the illegal organization only strengthens the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat and is incompatible with the interests of the party. In order to more solemnly and more officially form an agreement on unity (pakte d'unite), the plenum decided to appoint Mr. Potresov, the head of the legalist group, as editor of a legal party journal, of course, on condition that this gentleman distances himself from the liquidators and loyally fulfill the party's decision.

And then the incredible happened!

The plenary session took place in Paris in January 1910. In the same month in St. Petersburg, the 1st issue of the liquidators' journal "Nasha Zarya" came out 16. In February, i.e. directly after the plenary session, the second issue of this journal came out, and Mr. Potresov briefly and clearly announced in it that the center of the liquidators is a "phantom," since - yes, since it is impossible to liquidate what does not exist at all!!! Literally so ("Nasha Zarya", No. 2, p. 71) 17.

The day after the plenum, the head of the liquidators mocked the decisions of this very plenum, denied the existence of the party - defending Stolypin, who does not allow us to legally speak about revolutionary social democracy! He declared the complete and absolute independence of the group of legalists from the party.

One can imagine what a storm of indignation this speech of Mr. Potresov caused in the ranks of the party. We, the Bolsheviks, henceforth called this gentleman and his group nothing other than "independent legalists" - of course, independent of socialism - or heroes of the Stolypin workers' party.

But not only the Bolsheviks regarded Mr. Potresov's speech as a betrayal of the party. The Menshevik Plekhanov, who was so sincere that he openly opposed liquidationism, wrote in the Central Organ of the party literally that Mr. Potresov "does not exist for our party!" 18

We also present this point of view and resolutely declare that this group of legalists is not a social-democratic organization for us, but only a "Stolypin workers' party."

The supporters of "Golos" not only did not break with Potresov and the campaign, but declared (as Martov in August 1910) that "the liquidators saved the honor of the party" 19.

Further. The Mensheviks - members of the Central Committee Mikhail, Yury and Roman belong to the Potresov & Co. group. These are energetic people well known to all social democrats who have developed a diligent legalist activity. One could say without hesitation: if the Mensheviks want to loyally follow the decisions of the plenum, then it is these people (since they are the actual leaders of the group of legalists in the practical sphere) who will help the Central Committee - and vice versa2*; if these people refuse to help the Central Committee, then evidence will be obtained that the legalists are finally separating from the party. That is why the Russian members of the Central Committee - the Bolsheviks immediately after the plenary session turned to these gentlemen and asked them to take part in the constitution of the Central Committee. And what happened?

Mikhail, Yury and Roman refused and stated that they would never participate in the meeting of the Central Committee on the co-optation of new members and that they generally consider the existence of the Central Committee harmful.

This was an absolute betrayal of the party. The Central Organ of the party published this answer of Messrs. Mikhail, Yury and Roman in the spring of 1910 and declared them enemies of the party 20.

Messrs. Mikhail, Yury and Roman were silent for a whole year. Only then did they publish a "refutation" in "Golos" 21, in which, however, the very fact that they did not take part in the meeting of the Central Committee is confirmed!!! Moreover. The authors of the "refutation" confirmed that a Bolshevik 3* had approached them with a proposal to participate in the meetings of the Central Committee, and he was not only a blind adherent of Lenin (read: sworn enemy, bete noire 4*, personal enemy of the liquidators), but even denied the "Leninist tinge" [in the party] and presented a very "conciliatory" point of view!

Thus, it is finally stated that the Russian members of the Central Committee - the Bolsheviks approached the negotiations with the legalists with the greatest caution and peacefulness in order to induce them to fulfill the decisions of the plenary session. And despite this, the leaders of the legalists rejected the proposal of the party and thereby the party. Thus, the legalist group finally substantiated its independence from the party. Continuing the struggle with the party, Messrs. Mikhail, Yury, Roman & Co. spoke at legal meetings in which workers took part, and at the Handicraft Congress 22. One Bundist was even forced to admit at a private meeting of workers' delegates to the Handicraft Congress that Mikhail, Yury and Roman occupy an anti-party position!!

To put an end to the anti-party activities of the liquidators, we point to one more important fact. The Social-Democratic faction in the Duma is undoubtedly one of the very important factors in the life of our party. What was the position of this Duma faction? Its members are mostly Mensheviks, so it is impossible to suspect that they sympathize with the Bolsheviks as such. And yet the Duma faction proved in deed, not in words, that it sided with the Bolsheviks against the liquidators. The proof is the appearance of the legal Social-Democratic weekly "Zvezda" 23. It is published in St. Petersburg, with the participation in the editorial office of members of the Duma faction (of course, this cannot be said openly, because otherwise the deputies of the Duma would end up in prison). 24 issues have already been published. That is, almost 1/2 year of existence - this is a very, very long period for a legal Social-Democratic newspaper in Russia!

What does this newspaper prove? It does not contain a single article by the liquidators, not a single article by Trotsky, who actually supports the liquidators, and not a single article by the supporters of "Golos." Only articles by the Bolsheviks and Plekhanov and his friends - the anti-liquidators.

The leader of the liquidators and editor of "Golos," Martov himself was forced to publicly admit ("Nasha Zarya", number.., page...), that "Zvezda", like the Bolshevik journal "Mysl" 24, belongs to the anti-liquidationist direction 25.

So: we carried on legal work together with Plekhanov and the Duma fraction without and against the liquidators. The plenum's decision to work with Potresov was overturned by the course of events, since there was no possibility whatsoever of working with the liquidators. It follows that it was precisely the liquidators who made unification impossible, that our present, final break with the liquidators was not arbitrary, ill-considered, frivolous, but is a necessity conditioned by the general state of affairs, the state of work, the real participation in the cause of social-democracy.

Plekhanov and Rappoport collaborated in our Bolshevik legal journal “Mysl’.” That is, it is proven that we carried out rapprochement with the Mensheviks-anti-liquidators, that we fulfilled the decision of the plenum.

Plekhanov and Rappoport also collaborated in our illegal Bolshevik "Rabochaya Gazeta"26. Another proof that our faction now sees its task not in suppressing all other factions, but in uniting all anti-liquidator elements.

The founding of "Rabochaya Gazeta" in general is the circumstance that sheds a clear light on the de facto factionalism in our party. The plenum resolved to support Trotsky's "Pravda"27 and send a representative of the Central Committee to the editorial board of "Pravda." In August 1910, a break occurred between Trotsky and the representative of the Central Committee!! Trotsky so diligently advocated for the liquidators and *otzovists* that only these elements sympathized with his newspaper, while the Mensheviks-anti-liquidators did not participate in it!! Trotsky's speech in "Vorwarts"28 during the Copenhagen congress29 prompted Plekhanov, the Polish comrades as representatives of the Central Organ, and me as a representative of the Bolsheviks to lodge a protest in a sharp form with the leadership of the SDPG against Trotsky's disloyal, anti-party position30.

Fact: Trotsky's organ continues to exist without a representative of the Central Committee as a factional organ, and we run our Bolshevik "Rabochaya Gazeta" together with Plekhanov and others. Another proof that it is not "factional irreconcilability and intransigence" — which our opponents reproach us with — but the continuing existence of other factions that forced us to found a Bolshevik factional organ, which, however, worked towards rapprochement with Plekhanov.

Now we will move on to other factions, to the "Vpered" group. As mentioned above, we, the official representatives of the Bolshevik faction, excluded them even before the plenary session [of 1910], in the summer of 1909, because of "otzovism." We believe that during the revolutionary upsurge, when the waves of revolutionary mass strikes in Russia rose high, boycotting the first Duma in those conditions was the duty of revolutionary social-democracy. But now, during the counter-revolution, the boycott has become an empty phrase. Since June 1907, we within our faction have done everything to prove the fallacy of the idea of a boycott31. In the summer of 1909, the *otzovists* were excluded. The plenum of January 1910 decisively condemned *otzovism* and demanded the dissolution of all factions. But in contrast to this, the "Vpered" group proclaimed *otzovism* a "legitimate shade," continued to act as an independent faction and, immediately after the plenary session, did everything to strengthen the rear of the *otzovists*. Thus, the "Vpered" group organized a factional "school" in Bologna in the spring of 1910, a school for propagandists, which in our current conditions, in the absence of formalized local organizations in most of Russia, is actually very similar to a conference, a congress of the faction. The corresponding party organ, the School Committee created by the plenum, sharply condemned this isolation and decided that no true member of the party could participate in this factional school, or, to call things by their proper names, in this center of anti-party faction32. The success of this condemnation, as always with our factionalism, was completely negative. The faction spat on the party's decision. Menshevik supporters of "Golos" and Trotsky acted contrary to the party's decision. The "Vpered" faction continues to exist with its own agents and treasury; the school in Bologna cost more than 10,000 francs, this has been established. The factional literature of the "Vpered" group openly mocks all party organs. As for tactics, we still do not have from this group a clear, unambiguous statement in favor of participation in the elections to the IV Duma.

The situation is as follows: elections to the IV Duma are coming up. The legalists, the founders of the "Stolypin workers' party," are conducting an independent election campaign, and there is no doubt that they will come forward with independent candidates, without caring about the "non-existent" — of course, only for them non-existent — party. The "Vpered" faction does not participate in the elections at all.

What can the party do if the official party centers could not be convened even once in 1 1/2 years? Should it continue the game of intrigues with this ridiculous "convocation" [of the plenum] by the liquidators33?

We cannot do that. Our first decision: we want to independently defend the elections, for the old party and against the "Stolypin workers' party." After 1 1/2 years of unsuccessful attempts to induce the legalist and "Vpered" factions to party activity, we must act, we cannot be satisfied with simple "condemnation." And since the old factionalism has been revived by others, we consider it our indisputable right to demand back the property of our faction.

Let us digress here to answer our enemies. We are reproached for too harsh polemics. We readily admit the harshness of our polemics, but at the same time we declare that we will always speak out in the sharpest way against factions that trample on the decisions of the plenum and pursue a liberal or anarchist policy. Our agreement precisely presupposed that all factions should be dissolved and liquidatorism should be overcome.

The liquidators reproach us for complicity in expropriations. We state that the plenary session of the Central Committee has already verified this accusation and unanimously adopted a resolution in which all accusations are declared closed. Since the plenary session, we have strictly adhered to its decisions and would like to see the one who would dare to accuse us of violating these decisions of the plenum. We advocated the expropriation of funds from the tsarist government in 1906 and 1907, when the civil war was still going on. We have become firmly convinced that now such means of struggle are untimely, and since the plenary session we have been acting in accordance with it. We state: whoever is now reviving these old accusations is acting dishonestly and maliciously in order to confuse old issues and throw dust in the eyes of comrades.

The leader of the liquidators, Martov, who is now again making such accusations before the public and thereby playing directly into the hands of the police, is acting especially dishonestly. The Russian Black Hundred newspapers, which, as is known, maintain the closest relations with the police, emphasize with satisfaction that Martov is showering social-democracy with all sorts of dirty accusations. (See "Zemshchina," a well-known pogrom sheet, "Rossiya," the organ of Stolypin, etc.)34

It would be nice if the German comrades checked these accusations and wanted to turn to the principled supporters of "Golos," namely the members of the "Bund" and so on, to hear whether the matter was indeed declared closed by the plenum.

Martov's disloyalty is finally proven most convincingly by the fact that he takes under his protection and supports the "Vpered" group, although it is an open secret within the party that this group received money even after the plenary session [of 1910] thanks to expropriations. Just think: Martov, like Trotsky, speaks out against us about expropriations that took place before the meeting, and covers up the expropriations of the "Vpered" group, which were carried out just after this meeting. This course of action is, of course, recognized by everyone as a model of pure political blackmail; but we are readily willing, without speaking before the public, to present evidence of the correctness of our accusations against the "Vpered" group. We have written evidence in our hands.

In general, our adversaries, as against Plekhanov, conduct a bitter *personal* polemic against us and represent us as robbers and monsters. But at the same time these good people want the liquidators to have as many seats in the central party instances as we do. Of course, we reject this with contempt! A personal polemic is always resorted to by one who does not understand the fundamental controversial questions, or is interested in confusing them. We accuse our opponents of liberalism (especially the liquidators and the Stolypin workers' party) and of anarchy (especially the recallists and those who declare recallism a "legitimate nuance"), that is all. After the bourgeois revolution (1905) it is quite inevitable that the bourgeois fellow travelers of the workers' party—and the liquidators and recallists are such fellow travelers—again leave it: it is precisely with the help of this "purge" that the proletarian party arises, and this harsh, often very harsh and cruel process of "purge" cannot be softened by benevolent words and pious wishes. Objective circumstances condition the fierce struggle against the bourgeois fellow travelers, against people like Mr. Struve. (Mr. Struve wrote the *Manifesto* of the Social Democratic Party in 1898, became a liberal in 1902, a counter-revolutionary in 1905, and published abusive writings against the revolution in 1908).5* The conditions of development of our very young workers' movement are such that bourgeois fellow travelers of this kind ("heroes for an hour") are able to form factions and subordinate small, secret, disjointed workers' circles to their influence. What is the use of preaching "reconciliation" in these conditions? What is the use of giving the "example" of the large, already mature German workers' party?

Two words about "reconciliation." To show how ridiculous attempts at reconciliation would still be now, one should give an example of the struggle *not* between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, but between two Mensheviks. A few weeks ago, an Ol'gino supporter of Plekhanov published a leaflet in which he claimed that the liquidator Dan allegedly said: "We want to transfer the Central Committee to Russia precisely so that it will be arrested."37 Think about it: where it has come to such a point that such conflicts cannot be resolved by *any* court, since the various factions will *never* be able to agree on arbitration, what is the point of talking about "reconciliation"?

Perhaps we will be objected to: the return of money, the restoration of the faction means a split, which will have even worse consequences. This objection would be hypocrisy or a gross error.

Factionalism is a fact, and no new split will arise, no further development of it, if our faction, which nevertheless bears the brunt of party work, appeals directly to the party. The liquidators and recallists also appeal directly to the party, have their own *agentura*, establish their own groups, so that the movement for elections to the IV Duma has lost all solid ground. We must save the cause, shake up the party. Which factions can and will want to go together, the party will find out very quickly and easily at its conference or, in the worst case, at local conferences. Our step will lead not to a final split, but to the unification of anti-liberal and anti-anarchist factions, to the strengthening of the core of the party, and all who remain outside this unification of anti-liberal and anti-anarchist factions have nothing but words, empty phrases and pious wishes, they mislead the party and deceive it. This, and nothing else, has been proven by the entire history of the party over the past 1 1/2 years.

To bring our proof to a conclusion, we must discuss two more circumstances.

Our enemies say that the money we demand back did not originally belong to the Bolshevik faction, but to the party. This assertion is already sufficiently refuted by the words of the resolution of the plenary session; still, it is quite impossible to imagine that any plenum could recognize our right to the return of money if there was the slightest doubt that the money really belonged to the Bolshevik faction.

However, if the German comrades wished to thoroughly examine this question not only formally, but also *in essentia*, then we are gladly ready to prove with the help of witnesses (the sister of the deceased Bolshevik who left the money as an inheritance to the faction) and written documents that the money belongs to us.38

Then our enemies claim that we, the three undersigned, do not represent the Bolshevik faction. But this issue is also easily resolved. We concluded a written agreement with the Central Committee, we are recognized in writing as counterparties. Of the five, now—after the arrests—three are abroad, and from the fourth we have a written power of attorney.39

In fact, it would be completely unfounded and ridiculous to dispute that Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev represent the Bolshevik faction: the entire history of the faction from 1903 proves this.

In accordance with the resolution of the plenum, before the German comrades make a decision on who the money belongs to, either a plenum or a special commission should be convened.40

How are things with this in the current conditions?

The attached translation (You will receive it tomorrow) of the "Notice of the Meeting of Members of the Central Committee" published on June 17, 191141 gives an unambiguous answer to this question, which we must only slightly clarify.

Since December 5, 1910, the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee—the liquidators have a majority there lately—contrary to the Statute [of the Central Committee] is fighting against the convocation of the Central Committee. Now this behavior of the bureau, which contradicts the Statute, has led to the fact that part of the party, namely the leading part, has broken with it.

The Meeting of Members of the Central Committee positively and decisively recognizes that the Foreign Bureau is guilty of anti-party factional politics. Instead of the Foreign Bureau, a new body is created.42 Thus, we now have two executive bodies.

As for the convocation of the plenum, the "Meeting" of members of the Central Committee states that the Foreign Bureau no longer has the confidence of the party, and a new commission is being created to convene the Central Committee.43 At the same time—in order to do everything for unification—the Polish comrades, who are above any suspicion of supporting the Bolsheviks as a faction, make a compromise proposal. In this compromise, the Foreign Bureau—or rather, the former Foreign Bureau—is offered to assist in convening the plenum.

Comrade Tyszka, a Polish Social Democrat and member of the former Foreign Bureau, himself spoke in the bureau in favor of a compromise the day after the Meeting of Members of the Central Committee. The Foreign Bureau rejected the compromise. Moreover: the leaders of the liquidators, Mikhal, Yuriy and Roman, were not recognized by the Meeting (i.e., the Bolsheviks, Poles and part of the Latvians, in short, the overwhelming majority of the party) as members of the Central Committee, and the Foreign Bureau (i.e., the liquidators) recognizes them [as members of the CC].

Thus, after the break with the Foreign Bureau—a break on the issue of convening the plenum—two different bodies—the Foreign Bureau and the Technical Commission—are convening different plenums. The leaders of the legalists should be represented on one, not on the other.

In these circumstances, it is easy to see that we will not be able to convene a plenum for months—at the very least for months—because the simple notification of members in Siberian exile takes an enormous amount of time, not to mention the collection itself.

The practical work of the party and, in particular, the election campaign cannot be postponed until the convocation of the Central Committee.

The "Meeting" recognizes the practical infeasibility, if not impossibility, of an early convocation of the Central Committee by creating a new body that should convene a party conference. This new body is the Organizational Commission.

So: new work to restore the party. In addition to the supporters of *Golos*, all groups, i.e., factions of the party, were invited to participate in the Meeting. What clearer proof could be given that factionalism has again flourished in the absence of the Central Committee?

Speaking purely formally, it would now be possible to demand the convocation of a special commission. But *de facto* this is impossible. There is now not a single body that would be recognized by both sides. Neither the Foreign Bureau nor the Conference of Members of the Central Committee could continue to exist without mutual rupture. Thus, events have made a joint commission manifestly impossible.

The Foreign Bureau has fallen. The liquidators have left the Conference of Members of the Central Committee. These are the facts. And these facts demonstrate that no commission is now possible.

And you also no longer need such a commission, because in the former Foreign Bureau you will find the other side constituted. If you no longer force the party to conform to impossible tasks, if you do not waste time fruitlessly, it would be best if you immediately created a college of arbitrators, formulated precise questions — and especially *questiones facti*, sent these questions to all participating groups or bodies (in short, the former Foreign Bureau, etc.), and after receiving the answers or, if necessary, a personal interrogation of representatives of various factions, you would render an arbitral decision.

We ask you, dear comrades, to do this as quickly as possible in order to put an end to the impossible, intolerable situation.

We repeat, thinking at the same time about the manifold slander of the former Foreign Bureau, that we will pay the money without delay to whomever you name in your arbitral decision.

For us, the political side of the issue is most important. We have the right to demand the return of our factional property. But our activity under all conditions — this has been decided by us definitively — will be directed against the faction of legalists ("Stolypin Labor Party") and the "Forward" faction. *Periculum in mora*, we must stand at the head of the party in order to show it the correct path between liquidationism and otzovism. We were recognized by the plenum of January 1910 as the leading faction, and we have worked in this role for 1 1/2 years. We do not take upon ourselves any further responsibility for the ruined party centers, for the fictitious unity and the actual factional struggle within all bodies. We will turn directly to the Russian workers and their small, disparate associations, inspire them with strength, and call them to independent activity.

With Party greetings, N. Lenin.

My address: Mr. Vl. Ulyanov. 140. Grande Rue, Longjumeau (Seine-et-Oise). France

Appendix.

In order to generalize my considerations and present the course of my proofs more clearly, I will allow myself to use the following method, the objectivity of which — the most difficult thing for me as a fighter is precisely to preserve objectivity! — of course, cannot be disputed.

I will simply list all the periodical organs of our party that are still being published after the plenary session in January 1910, i.e., after the agreement on the dissolution of all factions, and briefly indicate who, i.e., which faction, participates in this organ.

These data are particularly easy to verify, and the strength of their proof seems to me particularly decisive and irrefutable.

Published illegally abroad:

1) "Social-Democrat," the Central Organ, which is led by us, the Bolsheviks. It is supported by the Menshevik-anti-liquidator Plekhanov, and it is fought against by the Menshevik-liquidators, "Forward," and Trotsky.

2) "Diary of a Social-Democrat" by Plekhanov, whose contributors are only Mensheviks-anti-liquidators.

3) "Golos," in which only Mensheviks-liquidators participate.

4) "Forward," which represents only the "Forward" faction.

5) "Pravda" by Trotsky, which is backed only by Trotsky's faction (Basok, one of the founders of the organization in southern Russia, has left the editorial board).

6) "Rabochaya Gazeta," the organ of the Bolshevik faction, which was founded after Trotsky's break with the representative of the Central Committee in August 1910 and also includes Mensheviks-anti-liquidators Plekhanov and Rappoport among its contributors.

Does this simple enumeration not sufficiently prove that only the Bolsheviks have fulfilled the decisions of the plenum? — that all other (namely anti-Social-Democratic) factions have become isolated? But let us continue.

Legal journals of local significance that are published in Russia:

7) "Zvezda" — a weekly, which is led by the Social-Democratic faction of the Duma, the Bolsheviks, and Plekhanov. In 24 issues there is not a single article by the liquidators, Trotsky, or a representative of the newspaper "Forward."

8) "Nasha Zarya," which is published monthly and in which only liquidators, rarely supporters of the newspaper "Forward," cooperate.

9) "Delo Zhizni," which is published twice a month and is purely liquidationist.

10) "Mysl," published monthly, is purely Bolshevik and supported by Plekhanov and Rappoport, i.e., Mensheviks-anti-liquidators.

Published in — Geyer D. "Kautskys russisches Dossier" ("Kautsky's Russian Dossier"). Frankfurt am Main—New York, 1981, pp. 333-345. Printed from the original in German (typescript; editing, signature and address — Lenin's autograph), stored in the archive of the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam.

Fund 17, op. 1, d. 1041 — copy with edits by G.E. Zinoviev.

1* Let me be allowed to say (Lat.).

2* On the contrary (Lat.).

3* V.P. Nogin.

4* Scarecrow (Fr.).

5* Further below the line, V.I. Lenin's insertion: "Quote from the latest (24th) issue of "Zvezda". A Menshevik — and not a "bad" Bolshevik — a supporter of Plekhanov, writes: "Under certain conditions, as was the case again in England or in Italy, partly in France, the working class can be entirely under the influence of the bourgeoisie and engage in bourgeois politics. This, let us note in passing, is what Messrs. Izgoev, Milyukov, Struve, as well as Kuskova, Prokopovich, and Potresov, are trying to impose on the Russian working class." Thus, it is not only we who put Potresov on the same level as Mr. Struve.

6* In fact.

7* Questions concerning facts (Lat.).

8* Danger in delay (Lat.).

1The letters of V.I. Lenin, written jointly with G.E. Zinoviev and L.B. Kamenev, published in the collection (see docs. 39, 43 and 44), are addressed to the holders (K. Kautsky, F. Mehring and K. Zetkin). They are devoted to the question of returning to the Bolsheviks the monetary funds transferred to the holders after the plenary session of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in January 1910. The letters supplement the materials on this topic published in Lenin Miscellany XXXVIII. The complete correspondence of the leaders of the Bolsheviks and other factions and trends of the RSDLP with the "holders", as well as the "holders" among themselves, is published in the original language in the book "Kautskys russisches Dossier" (Kautsky's Russian Dossier). Frankfurt am Main—New York, 1981.

2We are talking about the crisis in the RSDLP after the Unification Plenum of the Central Committee in January 1910. During the period indicated by V.I. Lenin, the practical activity of the Central Committee in Russia was not established, the plenum's resolution on the liquidation of factions was not fulfilled by the Mensheviks and Forwardists, who retained their printed organs and organizational centers. On November 22 (December 5), 1910, the leaders of the Bolsheviks — Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, for themselves and by proxy of Meshkovsky (I.P. Goldenberg), submitted to the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee an official request for the return of the monetary sums belonging to the Bolshevik faction, transferred for general party use at the plenum of the Central Committee (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Works, vol. 48, p. 335).

3The break in the publication of the newspaper "Social-Democrat" was almost six months: No. 21-22 was published on March 19 (April 1), No. 23 - September 1 (14), 1911. V.I. Lenin is referring to the difficulties with the financial support of the party school in Longjumeau, classes in which were held in May–August 1911.

4Mentioned is the resolution of the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (January 1910) "On Factional Centers", a constituent part of which is the "Declaration of the Bolsheviks" on the conditions for the transfer to the Central Committee and the return of the monetary funds belonging to the Bolshevik faction. It was published in the newspaper "Social-Democrat" No. 11, February 1910 (see: CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. 9th ed., vol. 1, pp. 358-359). Not reproduced in this collection.

5See doc. 20, note 2.

6"Diary of a Social-Democrat" is a non-periodical organ published by G.V. Plekhanov, published in Geneva from March 1905 to April 1912. 16 issues were published.

7See G.V. Plekhanov's article "The Last Plenary Session of Our Central Committee." Published in: Diary of a Social-Democrat, No. 11, March 1910; Plekhanov G.V. Works, vol. XIX, p. 119.

8Evidently, the following articles by G.V. Plekhanov, published in the newspaper "Social-Democrat" in 1910, are meant: "In Defense of the Underground" (No. 12, April), "About Trifles, Especially About Mr. Potresov" (No. 13, May), "On the Usefulness of Being Able to Connect One's Thoughts" (No. 15-16, September), "A Few Words in Response to Comrade Lindov" (No. 18, November).

9«Die Neue Zeit» – a theoretical journal of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923.

10See doc. 8, note 2.

11V.I. Lenin quotes the draft resolution proposed by the Menshevik-Party members at the meeting of the Paris Menshevik group on March 22 (April 4), 1910. It was published as a separate leaflet. In his articles of 1910, Lenin quotes from the draft (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 19, pp. 233, 296).

12The Central Bureau of Foreign Groups of the RSDLP (CBFG) (1908-1914), which united groups of Menshevik emigrants in various European cities, is meant. It was located in Paris.

13Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in Russia (Russian Bureau of the Central Committee) - the authorized body of the Central Committee, which directed party work in Russia. It possessed all the rights of the Central Committee of the RSDLP.

14V.I. Lenin confirms what has been said with a reference to the protocols of the Conference of Members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP Living Abroad, held in Paris from May 28 to June 4 (June 10-17), 1911. The conference was attended by Bolsheviks - V.I. Lenin, G.E. Zinoviev and A.I. Rykov, Polish Social Democrats - Jan Tyszka and F.E. Dzerzhinsky, a Latvian Social Democrat (as an observer) - M.V. Ozolin. Representatives of the Mensheviks and the Bund left the conference and did not participate in the decision-making. The minutes of the conference have not been fully preserved. See: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 20, pp. 251-273.

15The resolution of the conference of the expanded editorial board of "Proletary" (Paris, June 1909) - "On Otzovism and Ultimatumism" is meant (see: CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee. 9th ed., vol. 1, pp. 335-338).

16See doc. 29, note 3.

17The following provision from A. N. Potresov's article "Critical Sketches. On why trifles prevailed" is meant: "For can there exist, I ask the reader, in the year 1909, not as a phantom in a sick imagination, but as a genuine reality, a liquidationist current, liquidating that... which in reality no longer exists as an organized whole" (Our Dawn, No. 2, 1910, p. 61). It is fully cited by V.I. Lenin in the article "Marxism and 'Our Dawn'" (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 20, p. 108) and by G.V. Plekhanov in the article "About Trifles, Especially About Mr. Potresov" (see: Social-Democrat, No. 13, May 1910, p. 5).

18The words in spaced type are a quote from G.V. Plekhanov's article "About Trifles, Especially About Mr. Potresov" (see note 17).

19It has not been possible to determine which publication V.I. Lenin has in mind.

20The letter from the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP with information about the refusal of Mikhail, Yuri, and Roman to participate in the work of the Central Committee of the RSDLP was cited in V.I. Lenin's article "'The Voice' of the Liquidators Against the Party" (See: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 19, pp. 208-210).

21See the appendix to "The Voice of the Social-Democrat" 24, February 1911. V.I. Lenin wrote about this in his article "Destroyers of the Party in the Role of 'Destroyers of Legends'" (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 20, pp. 181-185).

22This refers to the 2nd Handicraft Congress - held in St. Petersburg in January 1911. During its work, the St. Petersburg liquidators held a meeting with a group of worker delegates.

23See doc. 29, note 1.

24See doc. 29, note 2.

25It has not been possible to determine to which article by L. Martov V.I. Lenin refers.

26See doc. 30, note 1.

27See doc. 19, note 2.

28«Vorwlrts» – a daily newspaper, the Central Organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, published in Berlin from 1891 to 1933.

29V. I. Lenin mentions the International Socialist Congress in Copenhagen (VIII Congress of the Second International), which took place from August 15 (28) to August 21 (September 3), 1910.

30V.I. Lenin has in mind an anonymous article (author L.D. Trotsky) «Die russische Sozialdemocratie» («Russian Social Democracy»), with the editor's note: "From our Russian correspondent" in the Central Organ of the SDPG, the newspaper «Vorwlrts» (No. 201 of August 28, 1910, new style). A protest against this article was sent by the delegates of the VIII Congress of the Second International G. Plekhanov, A. Warski, V. Lenin to the Board of the SDPG on August 20 (September 2), 1910 (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 47, pp. 296-298).

31This refers to the position of the Bolsheviks after the dissolution of the Second State Duma in June 1907 and the appointment of elections to the Third State Duma. V.I. Lenin spoke against boycotting the Duma at the All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP in Kotka (Finland) in July 1907. A.A. Bogdanov advocated boycotting the Duma. See also Lenin's article "Against the Boycott (From the Notes of a Social-Democratic Publicist)" (see: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 16, pp. 1-36).

32The Party School in Bologna, created by the "Forward" group, operated from November 1910 to March 1911. The School Committee (Committee of the All-Party School under the Central Committee of the RSDLP) was created by a resolution of the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (January 1910) with 9 members: 2 from the Bolsheviks, 2 from the Mensheviks, 2 from the "Forward" group; one each from the Bund, SDKPiL, and SDLK (see: CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee. 9th ed., vol. 1, p. 357). The chairman of the committee was the Bolshevik N.A. Semashko. The published letter refers to the committee's statement - "To the Comrades-Listeners of the School of the 'Forward' Group" (end of December 1910), which stated: "The School Committee under the Central Committee has come to the unanimous conviction... that the party duty of comrades is to refuse all assistance to the separate school and to work only for the school established by the Central Committee." (Historical Archive. 1962, 5, p. 51).

33V.I. Lenin writes about the constant opposition of the Foreign Bureau of the Central Committee, in which the majority were Menshevik-Golosovites and their supporters, to the convocation of a plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, starting in December 1910.

At the end of May 1911, the majority of the FBC voted against convening a plenum for the last time.

34L. Martov's pamphlet "Saviors or Abolitionists? Who and How Destroyed the RSDLP" is meant. Published in Paris, between May 12 and 19, 1911 (new style). At the end of July 1911, the "holders" received its translation into German.

In his criticism of Martov's pamphlet, V.I. Lenin cites publications of the newspapers mentioned in February 1910. In them, with reference to information from Martov, there was an allusion to the use by members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP of money received from the Perm Revolutionary Partisan Detachment (Lbov Brigade). These same publications were cited by L.B. Kamenev in his pamphlet "Two Parties" (Paris, 1911, pp. 152-153).

"Zemshchina" is a daily newspaper, the organ of the extreme right-wing deputies of the State Duma. Published in St. Petersburg from June 1909 to February 1917.

"Russia" is a daily political and literary newspaper. Published in St. Petersburg in 1905-1914. Subsidized by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

35Probably, the articles by P.B. Struve "The Intelligentsia and Revolution" (in the collection "Signposts," March 1909), "Conservatism of Intellectual Thought" and "Tactics or Idea?" are meant (Both with the subtitle "From Reflections on the Russian Revolution") - see "Russian Thought" No. 7 and No. 8 for 1907.

36V.I. Lenin quotes the article by P. Dnevnitsky (F.O. Tederbaum) "Routine or Progress?" (Zvezda, No. 24, May 27 (June 9), 1911).

37Olgin cites F. Dan's statement in leaflets dated April 13 (26) and May 5 (18), 1911, published in Paris. Olgin's oral presentation on this topic took place at a meeting in Paris in January 1911. V.I. Lenin uses it in his letters to the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (February 1911) and to the Conference of Members of the Central Committee Living Abroad (June 1911). (See: Lenin V.I. Complete Collected Works, vol. 20, pp. 159, 254).

38See: Lenin Collection XXXVIII, pp. 32-35, 54 et al., this edition doc. 14, 17, 18, 45, 46.

39V.I. Lenin means himself, G.E. Zinoviev and L.B. Kamenev, who were in Paris in June 1911, and the written power of attorney of I.P. Goldenberg (Meshkovsky). The fifth to sign the agreement was I.F. Dubrovin.

40V.I. Lenin is referring to the procedure for returning funds to the Bolsheviks by the holders, approved by the plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in January 1910. See also doc. 25 and note 1.

41V.I. Lenin is referring to the notification of a meeting of members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in Paris on May 28 - June 4 (June 10-17), 1911.

42A Technical Commission was created, which was entrusted with the performance of technical functions in organizing the publishing house, transportation of literature, etc., and an Organizational Commission — for convening an all-Party conference.

43See the resolution of the meeting of members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP "On Convening a Plenum of the Central Committee" (note to item 2) (see: CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee. 9th ed., vol. 1, p. 364).

44See doc. 19, note 3.

45"Vperyod" [Forward] – a collection of the "Vperyod" group, published in Geneva from 1910 to 1911.

46See doc. 19, note 2.

47See doc. 30, note 1.

48See doc. 29, note 1.

49"Delo Zhizni" [Cause of Life] – a legal journal, the organ of the Menshevik-Liquidators, published in St. Petersburg in January–October 1911. 9 issues were published.