1

Lenin finds the first formulation inconvenient because it gives the Council an arbitration character{113}. However, the Council should be not only an arbitration body, but also one that coordinates the activities of the Central Committee and the Central Organ. He also advocates for the appointment of the fifth member by the congress. There may be a case where four Council members cannot elect a fifth; we would then be left without the necessary institution.

2

Lenin finds Comrade Zasulich's arguments unsuccessful{114}. The case presented by her is already a struggle; and in such a case, no statutes will help. By giving the choice of the fifth member to the four Council members, we thereby introduce struggle into the statute. He considers it necessary to note that the Council has not only the character of a reconciliation body: for example, two Council members have the right under the statute to convene it.

3

Lenin is in favor of retaining this clause; one cannot forbid anyone from petitioning the center with a statement. This is a necessary condition for centralization{115}.

4{116}

There are two questions here. The first concerns a qualified majority, and I am against the proposal to lower it from 4/5 to 2/3. Introducing a motivated protest is imprudent, and I am against it{117}. Immeasurably more important is the second question – concerning the right of mutual control by the Central Committee and the Central Organ over cooptation. Mutual agreement of the two centers is a necessary condition for harmony. Here the question concerns a split between the two centers. Whoever does not want a schism must be concerned that harmony exists. From the life of the party, it is known that there have been people who introduced schisms. This is a principled question, an important question, upon which the entire future fate of the party may depend.

5

If the statute limped on one leg, then Comrade Yegorov makes it limp on both{118}. The Council coopts only in exceptional cases. For both sides, for both centers, complete trust is necessary precisely because this is a complex mechanism; without complete mutual trust, successful joint work is impossible. And the entire question of correct joint functioning is closely connected with the right of cooptation. The question concerning technical difficulties has been unnecessarily overestimated by Comrade Deich.