LETTER TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU, NOTIFYING THAT G. PLEKHANOV IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTY. July 8, 1905
Source: Lenin Miscellany XVI, p. 122
Date: 1905-07-08

LETTER TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU

Veuillez agréer, cher citoyen, mes salutations bien fraternelles.
Au nom du Comité Central du parti ouvrier démocrate socialiste Russie VI. Oulianoff (N. Lenine).
[Translation]
To the Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau *.
Geneva, July 3, 1905
Dear Citizen!
We have received your letter informing us of the dispatch to Mr.
Plekhanov of 5,049 Fr. 23. The head of our expedition wrote
to Mr. Plekhanov that we expect half of the specified sum to be sent to our address.
I must warn you, dear citizen, that it is a mistake on your
part to send money to Mr. Plekhanov. We have already had the honor to inform you that since the 3rd Congress
of our party, *Iskra* has ceased to be the organ of the party, and Mr.
Plekhanov is no longer a representative of the party in the International Bureau. We have already had the honor of informing you that we have not yet
delegated a special representative to the International
Bureau, and that in all cases you should contact Mr.
Ulyanov.
You advise us to come to an agreement with Mr. Plekhanov. You
should know that no agreements between our party and
Mr. Plekhanov are absolutely unthinkable until his relations with the party are officially settled. That is why I
am obliged to ask you to inform Mr. Plekhanov that half of the
sum must be sent to the address of the Central Committee
of our party (to Mr. Ulyanov).
With comradely greetings.
On behalf of the Central Committee of the Russian Social Democratic Party
V. Ulyanov (N. Lenin)

In the archive of the Lenin Institute there is a rough draft of Lenin's letter
to the ISB. It differs from the letter printed here by insignificant stylistic corrections. Lenin made a pencil note on the draft: "Sent 3 VII 05"

2*7*9
* LETTER TO THE INTERNATIONAL
SOCIALIST
BUREAU, NOTIFYING THAT PLEKHANOV IS NOT
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTY.*
Au Secrétariat International Socialiste.
Genève, le 8 juillet, 1905.
Chers camarades, Votre lettre du 6 juillet nous a un peu étonné. Vous devriez
déjà savoir que le citoyen Plékhanoff n’est plus représentant du
Parti Démocrate Socialiste de Russie au Bureau International Socialiste.
Dans le № 101 de l’Iskra, le citoyen Plékhanoff a fait insérer
la lettre suivante que nous traduisons textuellement et qu’il devait,
semble-t-il, poster aussi à la connaissance du Bureau:
«Camarades, les décisions de la Conférence (de la partie scissionniste du Parti. V. O.), qui ont porté un coup mortel aux organes
centraux de notre Parti, me mettent dans la nécessité de renoncer à ma qualité de rédacteur de l'organe central («l’Iskra», V. O)
et de cinquième membre (élu par le 2-me Congrès légitime du Conseil du Parti.
G. Plékhanoff.
«P. S. Je profite de l'occasion pour demander publiquement
à la partie du Parti qui reconnaît l’effet obligatoire de décisions
du «troisième» Congrès, si elle veut ou non que je représente après
comme avant ce parti, hélas! scissionné à l’heure actuelle, au Bureau International Socialiste. Je ne puis rester représentant du
P. O. S. D. de Russie que dans le cas, où ceci sera demandé par
les deux fractions à la fois.
Montreux, le 29 mai, 1905.»
A cette déclaration du citoyen Plékhanoff, la rédaction du
«Prolétaire», organe central du parti, a répondu par la note suivante, insérée dans son numéro 5, du 13 juin courant :
* The letter was written on the letterhead of the *Proletarian* editorial office. Ed.

LETTER TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU
121 «Nous pouvons déclarer, à propos de ce post-scriptum du camarade Plékhanoff, que la question relative à la représentation
du parti au Bureau International par le camarade Plékhanoff est
portée à la solution du Comité Central du Parti.»
La question n'est pas encore résolue et, par conséquent, le
citoyen Plékhanoff ne peut pour le moment signer aucun document
émanant du Bureau International en qualité de représentant du
Parti.
A cet effet nous attirons, chers camarades, votre attention sur
la grande incommodité qu’il y a pour nous de correspondre avec
le Bureau par l'intermédiaire d’un camarade qui lui-même déclare
publiquement ne pouvoir représenter le Parti avant qu’il y soit
expressement autorisé. Nous répétons de nouveau notre prière au
Secrétariat International d’adresser— jusqu’à ce que la question de
la représentation au Bureau International Socialiste soit tranchée —
tout ce qui nous concerne (lettres, manifestes, documents, argent
etc.) à l’adresse du Comité Central du Parti. (V. Oulianoff. Rue
de la Colline, 3. Genève).
Recevez, chers camarades, l’assurance de nos sentiments fraternels

Translation.
To the Secretariat of the International Socialist Bureau.
Geneva, July 8, 1905
Dear Comrades, Your letter of July 6 surprised us somewhat. You should
already know that Citizen Plekhanov is no longer a representative of the Russian Social Democratic Party
in the
International Socialist Bureau.
In *No. 101 of Iskra* Citizen Plekhanov published the following letter, which we translate verbatim, and which he would seem to have had to bring to the attention of the Bureau.
"Comrades, the decisions of the conference, which struck a mortal
blow at the central institutions of our party, force me
to resign from the title of editor of the Central Organ and the fifth (elected by the
Second Legitimate Congress) member of the council.
G. Plekhanov.

P. S. I take this opportunity to ask in print the
part of the party that recognizes the decisions of the "Third"
Congress as binding, whether it wants me to continue to represent this,
now - alas! - torn party in the International Socialist Bureau? I can remain a representative of the Russian Social Democratic Party only if both factions wish it.
Montreux, May 29, 1905."
To this statement by Citizen Plekhanov, the editorial board of *Proletarian*, the central organ of the party, responded with the following remark, placed in issue 5 of June 12 of this year:
"Regarding P. S. of Comrade Plekhanov, we can declare that
the question of the representation of the party in the International Bureau by Comrade Plekhanov is currently submitted to the decision of the Central Committee of the Party."
The issue has not yet been resolved, and, therefore, Citizen Plekhanov cannot currently sign any document emanating from the International Bureau as a representative of the party.
In view of this, we draw your attention, dear comrades, to the fact that it is very inconvenient for us to communicate with the Bureau through the intermediary of a comrade who himself publicly declares that he cannot represent the party until it has specifically authorized him to do so. We repeat our request to the International Secretariat to send - until the issue of representation in the International Socialist Bureau is resolved - everything that concerns us (letters, documents, manifestos, money, etc.) to the address of the representative of the Central Committee abroad (V. Ulyanov, Rue de la Colline, 3. Geneva).
Please accept, dear comrades, the assurance of our fraternal feelings.

TO THE ARTICLE "ANGRY IMPOTENCE"
* TO THE ARTICLE "ANGRY IMPOTENCE"
JULY 1905. GENEVA.
As indicated by the editors of Lenin's Collected Works (vol. VIII, p. 434),
the author of the article "Angry Impotence" is Lenin. The manuscript
of the article "Angry Impotence" (document "a"), which made it possible to establish Lenin's authorship of this article, was received
by the archive of the Lenin Institute after the text of the VIII volume
of the Collected Works had been printed. The manuscript of the article was edited
by M. S. Olminsky and was printed in its corrected form in No. 9 of "Proletary" of 26 (43) July 1905. All of M. Olminsky's corrections are indicated below in footnotes.
Document "b" is used in the article "Angry Impotence."
a.
26680
ANGRY IMPOTENCE.
In "No. 104 of Iskra" there is a furious* note regarding our Feuilleton: "The Third Step Back"1 (Proletary No. 6). There, we stated quite calmly/** that the new-Iskrists availed themselves*** of the printing house, warehouse and money in the name of the party, but preferred to evade surrendering the party property. The demented**** state to which Iskra was driven by fury***** over this statement is evident from their****** bouquet of expressions in the spirit of the unforgettable Bundist "vilification." Iskra kindly presents us with both a "dirty mop" and "slandering cowards" and so on and so forth. Exactly as Engels once characterized the polemics of a certain kind of émigrés: “Every word is a chamber pot, and not an empty one” ([Engels, Internationales aus dem Volksstaat,]
Jedes Wort — ein Nachttopf und kein leerer.)******* We have not forgotten,
* The word "furious" was crossed out by M. Olminsky. Ed.
** The beginning of this sentence was corrected by M. Olminsky to: "There, we stated quite calmly". Ed.
*** The word "availed themselves" was corrected to "used". Ed.
**** The word "demented" was crossed out. Ed.
***** The word "fury" was corrected to "irritation". Ed.
****** The word "bouquet" was corrected to "their". Ed.
******* — [Engels, Articles on International Topics from the People's State]. Every
word is a chamber pot and not an empty one). Ed.

of course, the French saying: abuse is the argument of one who has no arguments. We will now suggest that impartial readers coolly weigh what the noise is about. The new-Iskrists did not respond to the letter from the Central Committee, which, after the 3rd Congress, offered them to surrender the party property. They do not recognize the 3rd Congress, do not recognize the Central Committee's turn towards the Bolsheviks. So be it. But it only follows from this non-recognition that the new-Iskrists should, from their point of view, surrender not all, but a certain part of the party property. This is so clear that Iskra itself now speaks in its note about the "possibility of dividing all party property." If so, our dear opponents, then why wouldn't you respond accordingly to the letter from the Central Committee? But after all, it remains certain, despite all the force of your abuse*, that the majority gives a public account of everything, publishing the protocols of the 3rd Congress, but you give no account to anyone of your use of party property, you do not release any protocols, and you only swear. Think in a calm moment what impression such behavior should have on the thinking public!
Further. Iskra does not like the Central Committee's turn in favor of the congress. This is natural. But this is not its first turn. A year ago, in August 1904, the Central Committee turned to the minority. A year ago we stated in print and publicly that we did not recognize the legality of the Central Committee's actions. The question is, how did we then act in relation to party property? We gave the printing house, the warehouse, and the cash desk to the Mensheviks. Iskra can swear as much as it wants, but this fact remains a fact. We gave an account and surrendered the property to our opponents, wishing to fight by party methods and seeking a congress. Our opponents hid from the congress and did not give any reports to anyone (except to their supporters, and even then not publicly, because, firstly, there are no protocols of the "conference", and secondly, neither its agenda nor its limits of authority are known, i.e. the limits of the binding nature of its decisions for the Mensheviks themselves).
Our intra-party struggle ended in a split; now there is only the struggle of one party with another, which is in a state of organization-process. And now, casting a general
*
The words: "force of your abuse" were corrected to: "energy of your expressions. Ed."

TO THE ARTICLE "ANGRY IMPOTENCE"
glance at the history of the struggle before the split, everyone — of course, from those who study, scrutinize* the history of their party according to documents, and are not limited to tall tales, as many newcomers from Russia do — everyone can clearly see the general nature of the struggle. The majority, accused of "formalism", "bureaucratism", etc., gave its opponents all the formal prerogatives, all the bureaucratic institutions: first the editorial board of the Central Organ, then the Party Council, and finally the Central Committee. They did not give and did not give up only the congress. And it turned out that the Bolsheviks restored the party (or created their own party, as the new-Iskrists naturally think), founding all their party institutions entirely on the voluntary agreement of party workers — first the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, then Vpered, and finally the 3rd Party Congress. On the contrary, our opponents cling** precisely to the formal prerogatives and bureaucratic institutions given to them out of pity! Look, in fact: wasn't the "editorial board of the Central Organ" given to them by Lenin and Plekhanov? Calling itself the "Central Organ of the Party". The Proletary relies on the decisions of the 3rd Congress, not recognized by the Mensheviks, but recognized clearly, precisely and definitely by the majority of the party, the composition of which is known to everyone. Iskra, calling itself the "Central Organ of the Party", relies on the decisions of the 2nd Congress, not recognized now either by the Bolsheviks (we replaced them with the decisions of the 3rd Congress), or by the Mensheviks!! That's the crux of the matter! After all, the Menshevik conference itself repealed the charter of the 2nd Congress. After all, the new-Iskrists are now clinging to a title abolished by their own supporters!
Plekhanov himself, who could never fully agree with the new-Iskrists in principle, who nevertheless made them endless personal concessions, who zealously (even without reason) reviled the majority,*** for which the new-Iskrists always bowed and are bowing, - even he stated that the conference dealt a death blow to the central institutions, and preferred to shake the dust from his feet. And the new-Iskrists continue to call themselves the "Central Organ" and furiously**** revile those who
* The word "scrutinizes" was crossed out. Ed.
** The word "cling" was corrected to "hold on to". Ed.
*** The words "zealously (even without reason) reviled the majority" were corrected to: "more than enough attacked the Bolsheviks". Ed.
**** The word "furiously" was corrected to "desperately" (the word "desperately" was then crossed out and omitted in the print). Ed.