V. I.

Lenin

Preface to the Pamphlet Documents of the “Unity” Conference

In Iskra , No. 9 (October

1901), [1] we told of the unsuccessful attempt to unite the section of the
Zarya-Iskra organisation abroad, the revolutionary organisation
Sotsial-Demokrat and the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad. We have decided to publish the proceedings of the
“Unity” Conference, so that all Russian Social-Democrats may
independently draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for the failure
of the attempt at unity made by the organisations abroad. Unfortunately,
the secretary of the Conference, elected by the Union Abroad, refused to
assist in drawing up the minutes of the proceedings (as will be seen from
his letter, quoted on pages 10 and 11 of this pamphlet, in reply to the
invitation to him by the secretaries of the two other organisations).

Thisrefusal is all the more strange for the reason that the Union Abroad
has published its own account of the “Unity” Conference
( Two Conferences , Geneva, 1901). It would appear, therefore, that
although the Union Abroad desired to inform the Russian comrades of the
results of the Conference, it did not wish to acquaint them with
the

debates. [2]

We leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the possible and
probable reasons for this unwillingness.

Afterthe Union Abroad had rejected our proposal, we on our part did not
think it desirable to publish a summary of the discussion that had not
been drawn up jointly by all three secretaries; for this reason we are
obliged to confine ourselves to the publication of all documents
and declarations submitted to the bureau of the Conference. The
bureau consisted of the chairmen and secretaries of all three
organisations, and all declarations were submitted to the bureau
exclusively in writing; thus there can be no doubt about the objectivity
of a description of the Conference which is based on the documents and
declarations.

Onthe other hand, the publication of all the documents and
declarations presented to the bureau is all the more necessary at the
present time, since the Union Abroad has crowned its strange refusal to
participate in drawing up the minutes of the Conference with a still
stranger method of drawing up the Conference report. Thus, the Union
Abroad has not reproduced in full the interpellations [3] submitted to the bureau of the Conference by the representative
of Iskra (Frey [5] )

in the name of the Iskra section abroad, and of the
Sotsial-Demokrat organisation; but it did reproduce the reply (to
the interpellations) “drawn up” by the Union Abroad but not
submitted to the bureau and not even read at the Conference ( Two Conferences , p. 26). The Union Abroad is mistaken in stating that the
“interpellation” was withdrawn. The interpellation consisted
of the two questions submitted to the Union by Frey in the name of the two
organisations (see p. 6 of this pamphlet). Neither of these
questions was withdrawn; only the form was changed to turn the questions into a resolution which might have been submitted to
a vote (the words “Does the Union Abroad recognise in principle the
resolution of the June Conference?” were altered to read: “The three
organisations accept in principle the resolution of the June
Conference”, etc.). Furthermore, the Union Abroad has not published
the declaration of the Borba group which was presented to the bureau (see pp. 6-7 of this pamphlet).

Notonly has the Union Abroad failed to publish the contents of the speech
delivered by a member of the Borba group after the Union had submitted
amendments to the June resolutions, but it makes no reference whatever to
the

speech. [4]

In that speech, a member of the Borba group, who had taken part in the
June Conference, spoke against the amendments of the Union Abroad. The
Union published the “arguments” in favour of the amendments,
contained in a speech delivered at the Conference by B. Krichevsky,
without, however, having presented them to the bureau. In a word, having
rejected our proposal for the joint drafting of a summary of the entire
discussion, the Union preferred to publish only what it thought of
advantage to itself and to ignore even some of the things that were,
presented to the bureau.

Wedo not propose to follow that example. We have confined ourselves to
the publication of all the declarations and documents presented to the
bureau, with the bare statement as to the opinions expressed by the
spokesmen of all the organisations represented at the
Conference. Let the reader judge as to whether the articles in
Rabocheye Dyelo , No. 10, and the amendments of the Union
Abroad have violated the principle that was the basis of the agreement
drawn up at the June Conference. Of course, we shall also leave unanswered
the angry words that so profusely decorate the pages of the pamphlet of
the Union Abroad, including the charges of “slander”, or of
our having “broken up” the Conference by leaving it. Such
accusations can only raise a smile. Three organisations gathered to
discuss the question of unity. Two agreed that they could not unite with
the third. Naturally, there was nothing left for the two organisations but
to

explain their position and depart. Only those who are angry because they
are wrong can characterise this step as “breaking up” the
Conference, or designate as “slander” the assertion that the
Union Abroad wavers in questions of principle.

Asfor our view of the controversial questions of Russian
Social-Democracy, we prefer not to confuse the issue with an objective
report of the Conference proceedings. In addition to the articles that
have already appeared, and will appear, in Iskra and
Zarya , we are preparing a special pamphlet on the urgent
questions of our movement, to be published in the near future.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present volume, pp. 241-42.— Ed .

[2]
According to the Conference standing orders, the minutes should have been
approved by the Conference itself, each day’s proceedings commencing with
the reading and approval of the minutes of the previous day’s
proceedings. But on the second day, when the chairman, in opening the
session, called for the minutes of the first day’s two sessions, the three
secretaries in one voice declared that they could not present them. Owing
to the absence of a stenographer, the records were in a most
unsatisfactory state. It is quite understand able, therefore, that if the
secretaries could not prepare the minutes on the night after the.first day
of the Conference, it was useless to expect that the minutes would be
ready on the evening of the second day when we left the
Conference. Everyone knew perfectly well that the minutes were not
ready. Hence, the indignation of the Union Abroad over the
“desertion” of our chairman, who “did not wait until the
minutes of the Conference were approved” ( Two Conferences ,
p. 29), is nothing but a subterfuge. Since there was no verbatim report,
there was nothing else to do except for the three secretaries to get
together and draw up at least a brief summary of the discussions. This, in
fact, was our proposal, but the Union Abroad rejected it. Clearly, the
responsibility for the absence of a summarised, if not a full, report of
the Conference, rests upon the Union Abroad.
— Lenin

[3]
See present volume,
p. 230.— Ed .

[4]
See pamphlet Two Conferences , p. 28.
— Lenin

[5]
Frey —one of Lenin’s pseudonyms.