V. I.

Lenin

SEPTEMBER 21–22 (OCTOBER 4–5), 1901 [2]

1

Speech Delivered on September 21 (October 4)

(NOTE FROM THE MINUTES)

Comrades!

Let us begin with the point on which the success of the conference depends.

As a representative of Iskra I consider it necessary to touch on the
history of our attitude to the other organisations. Iskra has been
completely independent from its very inception, recognising only ideological
connections with Russian Social-Democracy and functioning on instructions from
many comrades in Russia. In its first issue Iskra declared that it
would not deal with the organisational differences that had arisen in the Union
of Russian Social-Democrats

Abroad [3] and attached the greatest importance to its position on matters of principle. [1]

Some members of the Union Abroad proposed that we hold a conference to come to
an agreement with the organisations abroad. We understood the proposal to mean
that a group in the Union was in agreement with our principles, which made it
possible that the Union would also accept them. The revolutionary organisation

Sotsial-Demokrat , [4] voiced agreement, notwithstanding considerable organisational differences,
as well as differences on principle. The Union, unfortunately, refused to
negotiate. When a new group of initiators [5] appeared, the Union consented to the negotiations. Since the Union had no
distinct physiognomy and since a new trend towards revolutionary Marxism
had manifested itself within it it was to be hoped that an agreement on principle would be possible. Iskra and
Sotsial-Demokrat again consented, and the Geneva Conference was
held. At the beginning of our session Comrade Kruglov read the conference
resolution without any comments. No one from the Union took the floor in
opposition.

We affirm that in its tenth issue, Rabocheye Dyelo made a
decisive break with the traditions of revolutionary Marxism and opposed
the agreement on principles elaborated at the Geneva Conference, with
whose tendencies the Union is apparently in agreement.

In view of this, my criticism will be directed against the editors of
Rabocheye Dyelo , and not against the entire Union.

Let us compare the Geneva resolution with the articles in issue No. 10 of
Rabocheye Dyelo .

The Geneva resolution astonishes one by its amazing detail and its stressing of
points that are considered generally known.

Point 1 of the agreement on principles reads: “Accepting the basic
principles of scientific socialism and acting in solidarity with international
revolutionary Social-Democracy, we reject all attempts to introduce opportunism
into the class struggle of the proletariat—attempts that find expression
in so-called Economism, Bernsteinism, Millerandism, [6] etc.” Here there is an obvious allusion to something; obviously a struggle
was taking place between opportunism and revolutionary Marxism. Whatever
the contents of issue No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo may be, it
cannot, in any event, destroy the historical fact that the Geneva
Conference took place and that the resolution it adopted can serve as a
basis for unification. In its third point, for instance, the Geneva
resolution recognises that Social-Democracy should assume leadership in
the struggle for democracy. Apparently there were previous differences of
opinion on this point, too. In its effort to keep well away from
opportunism, the resolution descends almost to the ridiculous. (See Point
“e” in Paragraph 5.) It follows, therefore, that there were differences
even on such elementary questions. Now let us compare that resolution with
the articles in Rabocheye Dyelo (No. 10). Unfortunately I have
had the articles at my disposal for three days only, not more than enough
for a cursory examination.

These articles give a detailed explanation of the difference in our views;
there are some just remarks addressed to Zarya and Iskra
which we shall turn to account. But that is not what concerns us at the
moment; we are concerned with the principles underlying the articles. The
position on principle adopted by Rabocheye Dyelo (No. 10)
contradicts the position adopted by the Union delegates at the Geneva
Conference. It is impossible to reconcile these two positions. It is
necessary to reveal the differences contained in them in order to know on
what basis the Union takes its stand, in order to know whether it is
possible to effect ideological unity, without which organisational unity
would be meaningless; we have not sought and could not seek such unity. On
pages 32 and 33 of issue No. 10 of Rabocheye Dyelo the author of
the article demurs at the contraposing of Mountain and Gironde in
international

Social-Democracy. [7]

Look but at the Geneva Conference—does it not represent a clash
between the Mountain and the Gironde? Does not Iskra represent
the Mountain? Did not Iskra in its very first editorial declare
itself against organisational unity prior to the demarcation of
ideological boundaries? In Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, it is stated
that even the most rabid Bernsteinians take a stand on the basis of class
interests. The resolution makes special mention of Bernsteinism, to refute
which the delegates at the conference devoted considerable effort; and
now, in the articles of Rabocheye Dyelo (No. 10), the same old
fare is rehashed. What is this, a challenge or a sneer? To what end the
effort we put forth? People are simply laughing at our pains to elaborate
a theoretical basis. We must not forget that without a common ideological
basis there can be no question of unity. In the same article, moreover, we
get the prospect of a widened scope of our differences. On page 33, for
example, the author writes:

“Perhaps our differences arise out of different interpretations of
Marxism?” Again, I ask, to what end the effort we put forth?

Point “c” of Paragraph 4 of the Geneva resolution speaks of
the necessity to struggle against all opponents of revolutionary Marxism;
however, we are told that perhaps, in general, we understand Marxism
differently.

I must also mention that all this is accompanied by arguments on the
harmfulness of fettering thought, etc., which is precisely what all the Bernsteinians are saying. This was stated at the
Lübeck

Parteitag , [8] and it is also repeated by the followers of

Jaurès, [9] while the points of the agreement say nothing about this, since the
agreement was made expressly on the basis of revolutionary Marxism. Even
faint manifestations of criticism would have led to a complete breach. We
have met to discuss the content of the opinions and not the freedom of
opinion. References to French and German models are most unfortunate. The
Germans have already achieved what we are still struggling for. They have
a united Social-Democracy which exercises leadership in the political
struggle. Our Social-Democracy is not yet the leader of the revolutionary
groups; on the contrary, there are signs of the revival of other
revolutionary tendencies. In the articles in Rabocheye Dyelo
(No. 10), not only are there no signs of a complete break in principle
with opportunism, there is even something worse—there is praise of
the predominance of the spontaneous movement. I am not cavilling at
words. All of us, the comrades from Iskra , the comrades from
Sotsial-Demokrat , and I, are calling attention only to the basic
tendencies of the articles; but those words, as the Germans say, ins Gesicht schlagen .[Offend the
nostrils.— Ed .]

Particularly as regards these points the Geneva resolution could not be
clearer. The recently emerged Workers’ Party for the Political Liberation
of

Russia [10] chants in harmony with these publications.

Consider in the article the famous distinction between tactics-as-plan and
tactics-as-process. The author says that tactics-as-plan is in contradiction
to the fundamental principle of revolutionary Marxism, and he thinks that one
may speak of tactics-as-"process”, taken to mean the growth of the Party’s
tasks, which increase as the Party grows. In my opinion this is simply
unwillingness to discuss. We have expended so much time and effort on the
formulation of definite political tasks, and at the Geneva Conference so much
was said about them; and now we are suddenly being talked to about
“tactics-as-plan” and “tactics-as-process”. To me this represents a return to the specific, narrow Bernsteinian product of
Rabochaya Mysl which asserted that only that struggle should be conducted which is possible, and that the possible
struggle is that which is going on. We on our part maintain that only the
distortion of Marxism is growing. The Geneva resolution says that no
stages are necessary for the transition to political agitation, and then
an article suddenly appears in which “the literature of
exposure” is contraposed to the “proletarian struggle”. Martynov writes about students and liberals, holding that
they can worry about democratic demands themselves. We, however, think
that the entire peculiarity of Russian Social-Democracy consists in the
fact that the liberal democracy has not taken the initiative in the
political struggle. If the liberals know better what they have to do and
can do it themselves, there is nothing for us to do. The author of the
article goes as far as to assume that the government will adopt concrete,
administrative measures of its own accord.

As we all know, there were differences of opinion on the question of
terror at the Geneva Conference. After the Conference, a part of the Union
Abroad, the

Bund, [11] at its conference, came out decisively against terror. On page 23,
however, the author writes that we “do not wish to set ourselves
against the terrorist moods”. This is the sheerest opportunism.[The minutes break off at this
point.— Ed .]

| Published for the first time | |
| --- | --- |
| Published according to the text of the minutes | |

2

Questions Submitted to the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats Abroad at the “Unity” Conference, September 21 (October 4), 1901

1. Do all the three organisations accept, in principle, the resolution
of the June Conference?

2. Is the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad willing and able so to
organise publication activity as to render impossible unprincipled and
opportunist deviations from revolutionary Marxism—deviations that
create confusion of mind so dangerous for our movement—and to
eliminate all flirting with tacit and avowed Bernsteinism, as well as
servile acceptance of the elementary forms and spontaneity of the
movement, which must inevitably lead to the conversion of the labour
movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy?

| First published in December 1901, in the pamphlet, Documents of the “Unity” Conference | |
| --- | --- |
| Published according to the text in the pamphlet | |