Date: 1903-01-28
Source: ru:LS/v10

Present are 2 members of the C.C. – Lenin and Vasilyev *, 2 members
of the C.O. – Martov and Axelrod * and the Chairman of the Council ** Plekhanov.
SESSION ONE.
[January 28, 1903]
The C h a i r m a n opens the session *** of the Council.
Lenin asks for the floor on a point of order and, receiving it, proposes to discuss the question of measures that could
contribute to the restoration of peace in the Party and normal relations
between dissenting members of the Party ****.
The C h a i r m a n, not objecting in essence to this
proposal, points out to the Council that its adoption would
mean a change in the agenda. The previous agenda reads: discussion
of measures to coordinate the activities of the C.C. and C.O. on
the publication of Party literature *****.
Martov. I would have nothing against Comrade
Lenin's proposal, if it could facilitate our resolution of those issues
that were intended when convening the Council.
The C h a i r m a n puts the question raised by Comrade
Lenin first, since no one has anything against it.
Lenin. I raised the question of measures to restore good
peace and ****** normal relations in the Party precisely because
the sum of misunderstandings among Party workers has reached
* The words: "– Lenin and Vasilyev," "– Martov and Axelrod" – in the manuscript are additionally inserted in pencil by V. I. Lenin. Before
each pair of these names, respectively, Lenin had written and then crossed out: "members of the C.C.," "and members of the editorial board of the C.O."
Ed.
** Here the word "Comrade" is crossed out in pencil. Ed.
*** In the manuscript, corrected from: "meeting." Ed.
**** The end of the phrase: "normal relations between dissenting
members of the Party" in the manuscript represents a correction in pencil
by Lenin instead of the originally written: "more normal
conditions for positive Party work."
Ed.
***** This text of the Chairman's speech is inserted in place of the following,
originally written and then crossed out, text: "indicates that
this is a completely new agenda."
Ed.
****** In the manuscript, the word "more" is crossed out here in pencil, apparently by Lenin when reviewing the text. Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
threatening proportions. I do not think *, that fruitful Party work is possible
if there is no common ground on which to base their activities
various members of the Party, brought by the force of certain
circumstances to mutual misunderstandings. It is no secret to anyone
that the abnormality of relations between individual members or
parts of the Party ** is such that now *** it would be difficult to speak
of a united Social-Democratic workers' party, if not to play with words.
I can, of course, if necessary, present detailed evidence
in support of this proposition (let us recall, for example,
many episodes from the business correspondence of the C.C. and C.O. 2), but,
perhaps, in view of the general knowledge of the fact I am asserting,
it would be better now not to resort to **** such delicate
illustrations. So, we need to try to take more
decisive measures to eliminate the root evil. Otherwise,
a situation arises in which, regarding the most
simple, the most ordinary Party act, there will arise to a
high ***** degree an undesirable exchange of opinions with a systematic
selection of very ****** strong expressions and the most choice...
how to put it more gently... compliments,
perhaps... Although it may seem that I have a tendency to
encroach in some way on "freedom of speech," but the point is *******
that things are not going well in the field of action either.
As members of the Council, whose main purpose is to unite
within the Party that which has tendencies to disunite, we
must try to eliminate the friction hindering the course of Party
work, and with the desire, this would not be impossible. So
I ask, is it not possible to take any measures against certain
methods of struggle within the Party, which reduce this
* The expression: "do not think" in the manuscript is added in place of the crossed out: "fear." Ed.
** After the word: "Party" the word: "now" is crossed out. Ed.
*** The expression: "that now" is added in place of the crossed out: "in view
of which."
Ed.
**** The expression: "resort to" is used in place of the crossed out before it: "touch upon this."
Ed.
***** The word: "high" is added in place of the crossed out: "highest." Ed.
****** "Very" is added in place of the crossed out: "most."
Ed.
******* The expression: "the point is" is added in place of the crossed out: "the thing is."
Ed.

latter to the position of a disorganized group, which
turn it into a simple fiction. Perhaps the Council could adopt, in the interests of the common cause, a resolution, a draft of which,
sketched out by me, I will now read. I consider important in principle
of this kind of decision of the Council, which would pursue
the goal of eliminating and condemning inadmissible *
forms of struggle between various individuals or groups in the Party who disagree with each other on various issues.
I repeat that the current situation is too abnormal and
needs correction.
Axelrod. We all agree on this.
Lenin. I ask the secretaries to enter Comrade Axelrod's remark
into the minutes.
Now I will read the draft of the resolution I am proposing 3:
"The Party Council, bearing in mind the nature and forms of manifestation of the divergence between the members of the Party, which is associated with
the second regular congress, considers it urgently necessary
to energetically call on all members of the Party to work together in a friendly manner
under the leadership of both central institutions, the C.O.
and the C.C.
The historical moment that Russia is experiencing – a huge increase in revolutionary ferment within the country and
international difficulties that could lead to war – places
particularly serious responsibilities on the Party of the conscious
proletariat, fighting in the front ranks for the liberation of the entire
people from the yoke of autocracy. The need for friendly joint
work under the leadership of both centers of the Party on strengthening
our organization, on developing the consciousness and cohesion of
the broadest possible masses of the working class has never been expressed
so urgently as at the present time.
Certain disagreements on various issues have always been and will inevitably be revealed in the Party, which
which relies on a gigantic popular movement, which
sets itself the task of being the conscious expression of
* The expression: "eliminating and condemning inadmissible" is added
in pencil by Lenin in place of the same crossed out: "limiting
harmful." Ed.
** In the manuscript there is a typo – it is written: "which," whereas according to the meaning
it should be: "which." Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
this movement, resolutely rejecting all cliquishness and
narrow-sectarian views. But, in order to be worthy representatives of the conscious, struggling proletariat, worthy
participants in the worldwide labor movement, members of our Party
Party must strive with all their might to ensure that no
private disagreements in understanding and ways of implementing
principles recognized by our Party program do not hinder and
could not hinder friendly joint work under the leadership
of our central institutions. The deeper and wider we understand
our program and the tasks of the international proletariat, the
more we value the importance of positive work on developing
propaganda, agitation and organization, the further we are from sectarianism, petty cliquishness and local accounts – the more
with greater energy we must strive to ensure that disagreements
between members of the Party are discussed calmly and on the merits
of the case, so that these disagreements could not hinder our work, could not introduce disorganization into our activities, could not
hinder the proper functioning of our central
institutions.
The Party Council, as the highest institution of the Party, resolutely condemns all disorganizing attempts, from whatever side
they may come, any abstention from work, any abstention
from material support of the central Party treasury,
any boycott, which is only capable of reducing purely ideological
struggle of opinions, views and nuances to methods of crudely mechanical
impact, to some kind of unworthy brawl. The Party is exhausted
by discord, which has been going on for almost half a year, and
urgently demands peace. No disagreements between members of the Party, no dissatisfaction with the personal composition of one or another
center cannot justify boycotts and similar methods
of struggle, testifying precisely to the absence of principle
and ideology, testifying to the sacrifice
of the interests of the Party to the interests of the clique, the interests of the labor movement to the interests of narrow localism. We have, of course, and
in a large Party there will always be cases when one or another
number of members is dissatisfied with a certain shade of activity of one
or another center, certain features of its direction, or
its personal composition, etc. Such members can and should clarify the reasons and nature of their dissatisfaction in a comradely exchange of views and in polemics on the pages of Party

publications, but it would be completely impermissible and unworthy of revolutionaries to express their dissatisfaction in a boycott
or abstention from supporting with all their might all positive work, united and directed by both centers
of the Party. Support for both centers, friendly work under their direct
immediate leadership is our common and direct Party
duty.
Such non-ideological, crudely mechanical methods of struggle, which are indicated above, deserve unconditional condemnation, for
they are capable of completely destroying the entire Party, united
entirely and exclusively by the good will of revolutionaries. And the Council
of the Party reminds all its members that this good will has already been expressed with complete certainty in our common, uncontested by anyone, decision to recognize as binding on all members
of the Party all the decisions of the second congress and all the elections made by it. Even the Organizing Committee, which deserved
universal gratitude for its activities in convening the congress,
adopted in § 18 of the charter of the II congress such a decision, approved by all
committees of the Party:
"All decisions of the congress and all elections made by it
are the decision of the Party, binding on all organizations
of the Party. They cannot be protested by anyone and under any pretext
and can only be canceled or changed
by the next congress of the Party."
This decision, adopted by the entire Party before the congress and confirmed
several times at the congress itself, is equivalent to an honest
word, which all Social Democrats gave themselves of their own free will.
Let them not forget this honest word! Let them cast aside
sooner all mutual petty accounts, let them put once and
for all ideological struggle in such a framework that it does not lead to
violations of the charter, does not hinder practical activities and
positive work."
Here is the draft that I am submitting on behalf of the C.C. under the signature
of both its representatives and which could serve as an occasion
not for resolving any particular issues about eliminating those
or other disagreements between members of the Party, but for creating
common ground under the feet of Russian Social Democrats working in the interests of one common cause.
Plekhanov. What Comrade Lenin has read has the character
of an appeal, from which it is difficult to understand what specific

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
practical proposals Lenin has in mind. I would, for my part,
suggest that he indicate * the essence of this appeal in
the form of clearly, concisely and definitely expressed practical
proposals.
Axelrod. I wanted to say the same thing as Comrade Plekhanov. Indeed, it is necessary to develop practical ** conditions,
capable of eliminating abnormal relations in the Party, depriving
it of the opportunity to fulfill its tasks. The draft appeal,
proposed by the representatives of the C.C., does not indicate any practical
means to eliminate the evil it states, and therefore
its adoption by the Council would not lead to the goal. An appeal
from the Council to the members of the Party with a call to end discord
cannot in itself have any practical significance.
The question put on the agenda on the initiative of the representatives
of the C.C. can only be resolved by discussing and indicating
practical measures to establish peace in the Party ***.
Martov. It also seems to me that the task of the Council is
not only to indicate the harm from discord in the Party. The
misunderstandings indicated by Comrade Lenin have a long history,
they are all **** of old origin. They grew on the soil not
only of differences ***** in some views on things on the part
of individual members of the Party, but also on the soil ****** of all kinds of organizational complications.
Our appeal to the Party with a call ******* to forget about the past
discord would only make sense if there
was such intensive positive work on pacifying
* In the manuscript, corrected from "highlight." Ed.
** The word: "practical" is inserted in pencil by P. B. Axelrod.
Ed.
*** The text of Axelrod's speech, starting with the words: "capable of eliminating"
and up to the end in the manuscript is inserted in pencil by Axelrod
in place of the crossed out by him, originally written by P. N. Lepeshinsky
the following text: "on the basis of which activity would be possible.
The first question, therefore, is how to restore good,
normal relations in the Party, what practical measures need to be taken in this sense." Ed.
**** After the word: "they" in the manuscript there is a crossed out: "very." Ed.
***** The word: "differences" is added in place of the crossed out:
"on the basis of clashes." Ed.
****** After the expression: "on the basis of" crossed out: "historically." Ed.
******* The expression: "with a call" is inserted additionally by Martov. Ed.

the Party * on the part of the central institutions of the Party, in view of which all old accounts and strained relations
would themselves be smoothed out and ** disappear from the scene.
Chairman. I would like Comrade Lenin to speak ***
regarding my proposal **** – to highlight practical measures suitable for the cause
of pacifying the Party.
Lenin. I was pleased to see from the speeches of both representatives
of the C.O. that they in principle approve the need for decisive
measures to establish factual unity in the Party *****.
This already creates a certain common ground between us. Regarding the
proposal of Comrade Plekhanov, I consider it necessary to say the following: ****** Comrade Plekhanov proposes that I highlight from my
draft resolution the most essential practical measures,
aimed at eliminating ******* the evil stated in the life
of the Party, and points out that this resolution
has ******** the character of an appeal **********; yes, indeed, my
proposal ********** has the character of an appeal, but that is exactly
what it is designed for. The idea of this "appeal" is that
the Council, on behalf of both centers, should speak out for delimiting
permissible forms of struggle in the Party from inadmissible ones. I know
that, generally speaking, the struggle itself is inevitable, but there is
struggle and struggle. There are such methods of struggle that are completely abnormal and inadmissible in any viable
viable Party. And Comrade Martov rightly said that besides
the struggle of ideas there was also what he called "organizational
complications."
* The words: "on pacifying the Party" are inserted additionally
by Martov. Ed.
** After "and" the word: "became" is crossed out.
Ed.
*** The beginning of the text of the Chairman's speech is corrected from the following
original text: "I propose that Comrade Lenin speak." Ed.
**** After the word: "proposal" the word: "to him" is crossed out. Ed.
***** The end of the phrase, starting with the words: "decisive measures," in the manuscript is added in place of the crossed out: "conciliatory measures."
Ed.
****** Crossed out: "firstly."
Ed.
******* The expression: "measures aimed at eliminating" is used
in the manuscript in place of the crossed out before it: "recipes against." Ed.
******** "Has" is corrected from the original expression: "would rather have." Ed.
********* After the word: "appeal" there is a crossed out: "than." Ed.
********** The expression: "my proposal" in the manuscript is added in place
of the crossed out: "what I am proposing."
Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
We, who have gathered here not for struggle, but for eliminating
abnormal conditions in the life of the Party, can and must influence
other comrades with an authoritative indication
about the boundaries of permissible struggle within the Party *.
But I do not know other ways of influencing, than an appeal. Highlighting practical
proposals here would not make sense. Regarding the
statement of the representatives of the C.O., that I, stating the abnormality
in Party life, do not touch upon the reasons for this kind of
abnormality, I must say that I chose this position
not by chance, but completely consciously, fearing that if
we only touch even a little bit now this already
very tangled knot, then we will not only not untangle it, but
only entangle it even more. After all, one cannot really
forget that we are in relation to this knot two
equally interested and very subjectively inclined
parties, so that if we try to untangle it, then in any
case not us, but those who were completely uninvolved in the matter of its entanglement **. On our part, such an attempt
would lead us to sorting through all sorts of documents, which, with
the current composition of the Council, would lead *** once again to... a brawl.
Let us take as a starting point for our reasoning what is,
since reality cannot be crossed out, and I am willingly ready
to agree with Comrade Martov that it is impossible to destroy all disagreements and
clashes **** with some kind of soul-saving word.
That's right, but who can be the judge of this kind of sad
aspects of our Party life? I think that such a role
can belong in any case not to ourselves, but to a large
number of people – devoted to the cause of practical workers, revolutionaries, who did not participate in the brawl. Cautiously bypassing the question
about the reasons for our discord, I will, however, allow myself to clarify
* The end of the phrase, starting with the words: "authoritative indication," is added in place of the crossed out: "revealing their benevolent tendencies in this direction." Ed.
** The end of the phrase, starting with the words: "to the matter," is corrected from the originally written: "completely innocent in the matter of its entanglement."
Further, before the beginning of the next phrase, in the manuscript there is a crossed out: "I insist that sorting through..." Ed.
*** After: "would lead" there is a crossed out: "us." Ed.
**** The word: "clashes" is added in place of the crossed out: "dissatisfaction, which took place in our sad past since the congress."
Ed.

my thought with one example from the field of our recent
past. The struggle has been going on for 5 months. During this period of time
there have already been, as I think, up to 50 mediators who tried
to put an end to Party discord, but I know only one,
the activity * of whom in this direction had, although very
modest, but still relatively happy results. I am
talking about Comrade Travinsky, regarding whom it should be
noted that this is a person, up to his ears, so to speak, immersed
in positive practical revolutionary work, so that
his attention was almost entirely focused on this work,
and that he did not participate in the strife. These happy circumstances
only and perhaps can explain some non-
fruitlessness of his conciliatory attempts 4. I think that
with the participation of this kind of people in the analysis of the reasons for Party
troubles, it would be possible to untangle the knot, before
which we now stand in bewilderment. We must be wary
of entering into an analysis of certain reasons for the strife, for this,
against our will, could lead us to inflicting (in the
expression of Comrade Martov) new wounds on each other in addition
to the numerous old ones, still very far from healing.
That is why I am against analyzing the reasons and stand for finding means,
which could, at least, confine the methods of struggle
to more or less permissible limits. One of two: if in this
direction something can be done, then we should try
to do it, and if not, if it is impossible to influence the struggling
parties by authoritative persuasion, then there remains one thing –
to turn to those third parties, standing outside the field of battle
actions and implementing their positive practical tasks, about which I have already spoken. I doubt that we ourselves
could convince ourselves of the rightness of one or another ** party. It
seems to me that this is impossible.
Martov. Speaking about the reasons for discord and dissatisfaction, I wanted to say that in order to develop means of eliminating abnormal
state of affairs, it is necessary to clarify the general reasons.
The resulting distrust between both centers is a fact, distrust of the centers towards local committees and vice versa is also a fact.
* "Activity" is used in place of the crossed out before this:
"attempt."
Ed.
** The word: "another" is added in place of the crossed out: "other." Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
We must put the question directly: the Council must try
to eliminate distrust with positive measures; no appeal
could have sufficient effect. To convince with a word,
an appeal or an appeal is hardly possible, for the central
institutions continue to create new reasons for disagreement, and the very text of the appeal could give rise to new
searches for "culprits"; the central
institutions can convince the members of the Party by a resolution insofar as it
will express an attempt to eliminate the causes of distrust. I agree
with Comrade Lenin that a collegium of persons who have taken the least part in the discord could come to some
practical solutions.
Plekhanov. I would like to point out to Comrade Lenin that he greatly weakens the practical significance of his proposal *.
I like the form of this proposal, but I consider its content
unsatisfactory. When Lenin proposed to read
his draft, it seemed to me that we would be talking in essence
about the reasons for the obvious abnormality of our Party
life **, after which those or other measures to eliminate
such would be indicated ***. To talk about means without analyzing the reasons
for this evil is not logical, and Comrade Lenin does not touch upon these reasons at all.
He says that the situation is abnormal,
that peace is better than quarrel, etc. But these are all truisms and annoying at the same time **** truisms, for they are presented to the Party
precisely at a time when it is experiencing the greatest need
for practical ways to restore its viability.
Comrade Lenin proposes, however, his own means – to resolve
the question of what methods ****** in the struggle within the Party are permissible and which are inadmissible, i.e., in other words, proposes to the
* The word: "proposal" in the manuscript is used in place of the crossed out before it: "project." Ed.
** The text: "about the reasons for the obvious abnormality of our Party
life" in the manuscript is corrected from the following original text:
"about real ways to eliminate the abnormality existing in Party life."
We indicate here in italics the places that have been corrected. Ed.
*** The word: "indicated" in the manuscript is corrected from "put forward."
Ed.
**** The words: "annoying at the same time" are added in place of the crossed out:
"offensive." Ed.
***** "Resolve" is corrected from "decide."
Ed.
****** After the word: "methods" there is a crossed out: "Party."
Ed.

Council something like the Geneva Convention. I do not deny a certain
significance to such an act, but this is the purest
palliative, this is not enough. In my opinion, it is necessary to touch upon
one root cause, which to a large extent conditioned
the presence of the abnormality we are stating.
Axelrod. I look at the appeal proposed by Comrade Lenin
Lenin even not * as a palliative, but only ** as a new
source for exacerbating mutual discord ***. Each side
will interpret certain places of the appeal in its own way, and
this will lead to new clashes. I emphasize that the C.C.
has the opportunity to put an end to abnormal relations
in the Party and the Council is obliged to develop and indicate to the C.C. the means
leading to the elimination of these relations ****.
Plekhanov. I put the question directly: does Comrade Lenin
Lenin find it possible to accept my proposal – to highlight from his
appeal the essence and propose practical measures,
which would lead to the elimination of such strained relations?
Lenin. I do not quite understand Comrade Plekhanov's proposal.
When he says that it is necessary to take some practical measures, then in my draft there is already *****
an indication of the possibility of such a practical measure.
It is only necessary to say, authoritatively say, that normal struggle,
ideological struggle, struggle that is waged within certain limits –
is permissible, but inadmissible: boycott, refusal to work under the leadership
of the C.C., refusal to support the central treasury with funds
etc. They say that we will not convince anyone with words. I also will not take the liberty of asserting that this
* "Even not" is added in pencil by P. B. Axelrod in place
of the crossed out by him: "not only." Ed.
** The words: "but only" are added in pencil by P. B. Axelrod
in place of the crossed out by him: "but also." Ed.
*** The words: "exacerbating mutual discord" are added in pencil
by P. B. Axelrod, in place of the crossed out by him: "struggle." Ed.
**** The end of the text of Axelrod's speech, starting with the words: "The C.C. has
the opportunity," is inserted by Axelrod in place of the crossed out by him following
original text: "if the central institutions have
the opportunity to eliminate discord, then in the Council we must talk about the root,
about the reasons that caused the discord; we must develop radical
means to eliminate the evil." Ed.
***** "Already" is added in place of the crossed out: "and." Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
would be enough to establish good relations between
2 parts of the Party, because the disease that has to be
treated is indeed chronic, because, as Comrade
Martov expresses it, a very strong wall has indeed grown between both parts of the Party.
Perhaps we, who created
it, will not break this wall, but nothing is impossible in the fact that we, who most strongly inflicted wounds on each other, – we, as members of the Council,
with our authoritative appeal will restrain * comrades from unworthy forms of struggle. In the matter of destroying the wall, in my
view, time will play such a role that everything further will decline **. And as for the fact that some places of the appeal
can be interpreted in their own way by both sides, then, in my view ***, whatever we say here, everything, perhaps,
will be interpreted in its own way.
[Axelrod. Therefore, it is necessary not only to talk, but also to do.]
Lenin (continues). – Then, why Comrade Axelrod thinks
that my proposal may turn out to be only a new source
of struggle – I do not understand this. I repeat that we will not break the wall that has grown between
the two parts of the Party, for we ourselves have made many efforts to create it, but those of our comrades who, being engaged in practical
work, stand aside from our discord, could knock down this wall. Comrade Martov, as
I was pleased to see today, in principle agrees
with this position – about the possible useful role in the matter
of our strife of other comrades who are outsiders in relation to this strife. But besides this, it seems to me that already one fact of agreement
between the representatives of the central institutions on the account that it is possible to fight like this, but not like that – already this alone could break the first breach in the wall separating **** both sides *****, after which the existing abnormality in Party life could decline.
* "Will restrain" in the manuscript is written in place of the crossed out before it
"will stop." Ed.
** Here in the manuscript there is a crossed out such a beginning of the following phrase:
"Whatever we say here." Ed.
*** "In my view" is written in place of the crossed out: "I think."
Ed.
**** "Separating" is corrected from "separated." Ed.
***** After the words: "both sides" in the manuscript there is a crossed out: "above
indicated."
Ed.

Plekhanov. Since no one has proposed here practical
measures to eliminate the abnormal state of affairs, and we
could easily agree on something, or, at least, talk about such measures, then I have to take this
upon myself. I think that the appeal read by Comrade Lenin is
a palliative, but it is necessary to make sure that the palliative itself does not lead to
new misunderstandings. One cannot but agree that boycott
should not be applicable in our Party work, but comrades,
reading our resolution, in which boycott is mentioned, will ask, who boycotted whom; I had to hear from the
majority that the minority is boycotting, but I also had to
hear from the minority that the majority is boycotting.
It is necessary to talk more thoroughly about what elimination of discord
is spoken about in the project, and it is necessary to discuss practical measures
by which the created state of affairs would be eliminated. Since
the question has been raised, then I will try to make an attempt in this regard, I will express my opinion * about the root of the abnormal
situation and submit for discussion a practical measure, which, in
my view, could lead to the elimination of this abnormal
situation. The abnormal situation was created at the congress. The
so-called majority and minority at the congress were almost
equal. When one crossed over to the minority 5, then the votes were divided equally, which was expressed in the resolution, stating that it is necessary ** to elect a commission for the publication of the minutes, which
would include representatives from both halves of the congress 6.
The centers were elected at the congress by only one part of the Party. This
abnormal moment laid the foundation for all further complications.
If the C.C. corrects this and replenishes its composition from
representatives of the so-called minority, then by this very act it
will lay the foundation for the establishment of good peace in the Party. I propose for discussion such a resolution 7: "The Party Council, regretting
about the strife now existing in the S.-D.R.P., is deeply convinced
that the existence of this strife is due to the fact that the C.C.,
in its composition, represents only one part of the Party and
that for their elimination it is necessary to change its composition by
* The words: "express my opinion" in the manuscript are used in place of the
crossed out before this: "submit for discussion."
Ed.
** The words: "stating that it is necessary" are added in place of the crossed out: "requiring." Ed.

MINUTES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
co-opting a corresponding number of persons belonging to the so-called minority of the Party congress or in solidarity
with it." Handing this resolution to the comrade secretaries, I conclude
with the wish that the members of the Council express their opinion regarding my
proposal.
Martov. To meet the resolution of the conflicts taking place
within the Party, one can go in two ways: either try
regarding private issues arising in the atmosphere of such
kind of clashes, to develop in each case a special
modus vivendi * (this, among other things, served as the goal for
the present meeting of the Council), or a radical elimination
of the root cause of the evil. I spoke here for the proposal **
of Comrade Lenin ***, since I saw in this proposal an attempt
to find radical measures to restore normal order
in the life of the Party, insofar as I expected that it was precisely about such radical
measures that would be spoken about in the draft
resolution proposed by him.
I would not consider an appeal with a simple appeal to the Party such a measure, but since such an appeal in the interests of pacifying the warring parties is proposed, I would consider
it a necessary condition that this appeal raise comrades above the level of petty organizational squabbles. Proceeding from this
point of view, I join the opinion of Comrades Plekhanov and Axelrod, seeing in the draft appeal of Comrade Lenin a lack of indication of the causes of discord and the absence of practical
measures ****. In Comrade Lenin's appeal, there is only talk about the manifestations
of the current struggle, but it does not say what
exactly gave rise to it. If we already wanted to be frank,
then we would have to mention in the appeal all the outstanding
facts. Speaking about what is permissible in this struggle and what
is inadmissible, we would have to mention many facts in
* – way of life; way of behaving. Ed.
** The beginning of this phrase in the manuscript is corrected. The original
version was as follows: "I spoke for familiarization here with the proposal."
We indicate in italics the corrected places. Ed.
*** In the manuscript, there is a question mark on the margins against this phrase. Ed.
**** The end of this phrase, starting with the words: "a lack of indication,"
in the manuscript is corrected. The original version was as follows: "a possible new source of discord."
We indicate in italics the crossed out words. Edits and additions are added above the line of the corrected text.
Against this place on the margins there is a question mark. Ed.

to ask a number of questions: are exceptional
laws permissible in the Party, is the destruction of existing organizations permissible, the removal * of outstanding figures from work, etc. One
of the inconveniences of such a method of influence ** would be in
the fact that it would be difficult for us to avoid mentioning
all the outstanding facts and attempting to condemn the actions of some comrades, and by this very act we would only strengthen the split
in the Party and instead of raising our comrades above
the level of petty discord and squabbles, we would cause a series of new
accusations in the same plane ***, so that such a statement would not at all turn out to be the sought-after radical means, the more so since we ourselves would hardly be able to easily agree
on what to consider normal, what permissible, what inadmissible,
etc. Therefore, I continue to hold the opinion
that it is necessary to turn to an analysis of those reasons that gave rise to
abnormality in the life of the Party. – I am not touching upon the proposal
of Comrade Plekhanov now, but if the Council decided to discuss the
resolution proposed by Comrade Plekhanov, then I, on behalf of the editorial
board, would introduce some amendments and additions there.
Lenin. Comrade Plekhanov's proposal aroused very mixed feelings in me. Having started talking about the reasons for the struggle, he precisely
came by this path to the very wounds, the infliction of which on each other was stated by Comrade Martov. In my project
I am making an attempt **** to delimit what is permissible in our struggle from
the inadmissible, from whatever side the attacks may come.
If we started talking about when from whom what came,
then by this very act we would lay the beginning of the end, i.e. the end of
our conversation. To judge ourselves – simply psychologically, morally completely impossible. If we again start
* The word: "removal" in the manuscript is added instead of the originally
written one instead of the other and crossed out words: "suspension" and
"removal." Ed.
** After the word: "influence" in the manuscript there is a crossed out: "on comrades." Ed.
*** The expression: "a series of new accusations in the same plane" represents the final (in the third edition) correction. The original
version was as follows: "new misunderstandings"; the second version was