V. I.

Lenin

An Unsubmitted Statement [1]

October 29, 1903

Comrades, I withdrew from the sitting of the Congress yesterday (October
28) because I found it too disgusting to be present at that
raking up of sordid tittle-tattle, rumours and private conversations which Martov undertook and performed with
hysterical squealing to the delight of all scandal- lovers. It
was as though in self-derision that this same Martov spoke
eloquently the day before yesterday, about the unseemliness of
such references to private conversations, which cannot be
verified and which lead one to wonder which of the parties to
the conversation is lying. It was just such unseemly conduct that Martov indulged in yesterday when he hysterically
pressed me to say which of us was lying , he or I, in reporting the famous private conversation on the subject of the
famous trio.

This method of provoking a row by asking who is lying is worthy only of a swashbuckler looking for a pretext to pick a
quarrel, or else of a man wound up to hysterical pitch and
incapable of weighing the absurdity of his con duct. For a
political leader accused of definite political errors to use
such a method proves unmistakably that he has no other means of
defence and that he is descending from the level of political
differences to the miserable level of squabbling and scandal-mongering.

The question now arises, what means of defence can be employed against
this swashbuckler’s and rowdy’s trick of hurling unprovable
charges based on private conversations?

I say “unprovable” charges, because private conversations of which no record is kept preclude, by their very
nature, all possibility of proof, and charges based on them lead merely to reiteration of the word “lie” in
all its declensions. In the art of such reiteration Martov
yesterday reached a pitch of real virtuosity, and I have no
intention of following his example.

In my statement yesterday I already indicated one means
of defence, and I categorically insist upon it. I challenge my
adversary to publish immediately a pamphlet setting forth all
his accusations against me, which in his speech were levelled in
the form of endless and countless dark hints about lying,
intriguing, and so on and so forth. I demand that my adversary bring his charges, over his signature, before the
whole Party, because he cast a slur on my reputation as
a member of the editorial board of the Party Central Organ and
said that certain individuals could not be allowed to hold
responsible posts in the Party. I undertake to publish all my adversary’s accusations, for a public airing of
the squabbles and scandal will—I know quite positively—be my best defence before the Party. I repeat
that if my adversary evades my challenge, it will prove that his
accusations are nothing but dark innuendoes, the product either
of the slanderous propensities of a scoundrel, or of the
hysterical irresponsibility of a politician who has blundered.

However, I have another means of defence, an indirect one. In my
statement yesterday, I said that Martov’s account of the private
conversation en question was altogether incorrect. I am
not going to go into that again, just be cause of the hopelessness and uselessness of unprovable
assertions. But let everyone ponder over the “document” which I handed to Martov yesterday and
which he read to the Congress. That document was the programme
for the Congress and my commentary to it, a commentary written
after the “private” conversation, sent by me to Martov and returned by him with his amendments.

This document indisputably represents the quintessence’ of
our conversation, and I have only to analyse its exact text to prove
that Martov’s accusations are so much scandal. Here is the text in
full:

"Item 23 [of the Congress Tagesordnungj. Election of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ of the Party ."

My commentary: “The Congress shall elect three persons to the editorial board of the Central Organ and
three to the Central Committee. These six persons inconjunction shall, if necessary, co-opt by a two-thirds majority vote
additional members to the editorial board of the Central Organ
and to the Central Committee and report to this effect to the
Congress. After the report has been endorsed by the Congress,
subsequent co-optation shall be effected by the editorial board
of the Central Organ and by the Central Committee separately."

Martov has asserted that this system vas adopted solely in order to enlarge the editorial board of
six. This assertion is directly contradicted by the words “if necessary”. Clearly, already at that time
the possibility was envisaged that it might not be necessary. Furthermore, since the con sent of four out of six
was required for co-optation, it is obvious that the editorial
board could not be enlarged with out the consent of non-editors , without the consent of at least one member of
the Central Committee. Consequently, the enlargement of the
editorial board was made contingent on the consent of a person
as to whose identity there could at that time (a month, if not
six weeks, before the Congress) be only the vaguest conjectures. Consequently, it is obvious that at that time Martov too considered the editorial board of six, as
then constituted, incapable of further independent existence , since the deciding voice in the matter of
enlarging the elected trio was to belong to a non-editor , also to be elected. Martov too considered
it impossible to convert the old editorial board of
Iskra into the editorial board of the Party Central
Organ without out side, non-editorial assistance.

To proceed. If it had been a matter solely of enlarging the
board of six, what would have been the point of talking about a trio?
It would have sufficed to substitute for unanimous co-optation,
co-optation by some specified majority. In fact, there would in
general have been no point in talking about the editorial board, it
would have been enough to talk about co-optation to Party institutions
in

general, or to the central Party institutions in particular. Consequently, it is clear that the idea was not simply
enlargement. It is equally clear that it was not one member
of the old editorial board, but perhaps two, or even three ,
who stood in the way of possible enlargement, seeing that, in order to
enlarge the board of six, it was first considered desirable
to reduce it to three.

Lastly, compare the procedure for introducing “additional
members”, i.e., for enlarging the central bodies, as now
laid down in the Party Rules adopted by the Congress and as
envisaged in the original plan which Martov and I together set
down in the above-quoted commentary to Item 23 of the agenda. According to the original plan, the consent of 1 our against two was required (for enlargement of the
editorial board of the Central Organ or of the Central
Committee), while the present Rules require, in the final
analysis, the consent of three against two; for the final authority in deciding about co-optation to the central
bodies is now the Council, and if two of the editors plus one
other member of the Council want to enlarge the editorial board,
they can, consequently, do it against the wishes of the third.

Hence, there cannot be the slightest doubt (from the precise
meaning of a precise document) that an alteration in the
composition of the editorial board was contemplated (by Martov
and myself, without any protest from any of the other editors)
long before the Congress, and that this alteration was to be
effected irrespective of the wishes or consent of any one
member, or possibly even two or three members, of the board of
six. One may therefore judge how much validity now attaches to
the wretched talk about unofficial binding instructions having
tied the six, about moral bonds between them, about the
importance of keeping the team intact, and the other such
subterfuges in which Martov’s speech abounded. All these
subterfuges run directly counter to the explicit text of the
commentary, which calls for a reconstitution of the editorial board, a reconstitution to be effected by a rather
intricate and, consequently, carefully considered procedure.

Still more unquestionably does it follow from this commentary that
alteration of the composition of the editorial board was made
contingent on the consent of at least two comrades from Russia, elected by the Congress to member ship of the
Central Committee. It is therefore indubitable that both I and Martov
hoped to persuade these future members of the Central
Committee that a definite alteration in the composition of the
editorial board was necessary. Thus, we were leaving the composition
of the editorial board to be decided by members of the Central
Committee, without yet knowing exactly who they would be. Consequently, we entered the struggle hopingtowinthese Central Committeememberstoourside; and now that the majority of the influential comrades from
Russia have sided at the Congress with me, and not with Martov
(in regard to the differences that have arisen between us), for
him to wail hysterically over his defeat and indulge in
scurrilities and allegations which by their very nature do not
admit of proof is a positively indecent and contemptible method
of struggle.

N. Lenin (V. I. Ulyanov)

---
Notes:
[1]
This Unsubmitted Statement was to have been presented to the Second Congress of the League of Russian Revolutionary
Social-Democracy Abroad, but Lenin confined himself, at the Congress sitting
of
October 16 (29), 1903, to some brief oral remarks.