We have received the “Open Letter” of Comrade Deutsch, addressed to the members of the Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy. Comrade Deutsch addresses us as a member of the League Administration; but on questions concerning the League, the Administration can only act collectively. Therefore, while not recognising any official character in Comrade Deutsch’s address and regarding it as a private letter from a fellow member of the League, we nevertheless find it necessary to express our opinion on the questions it raises. This is all the more necessary because Comrade Deutsch, in his eagerness to defend the falsely understood interests of the League, incorrectly sets forth its past and present position.

Objecting to the circular of the Central Committee, Comrade Deutsch declares that “it can hardly be admitted that the change (which the Congress introduced in the matter of the League’s relations with Russia) is very substantial, and therefore it is difficult to agree with the Central Committee when it declares that this ‘change is very great’.”

To this unsubstantiated assertion of Comrade Deutsch we oppose the conclusions which logically follow from a comparison of Paragraph 13 of the Party Rules with the old Rules of the League.

According to these Rules, the League, consisting of “the editorial board of *Zarya* and persons adhering to it” (Paragraph 1), constitutes an independent “foreign” section of the general organisation of *Iskra*. Its tasks are “to spread the ideas of revolutionary Social-Democracy and to assist in building a militant Social-Democratic organisation by uniting the revolutionary forces”; it not only carries on all work abroad, up to independent relations with other foreign organisations (editorial board of *Zarya*, Section IV) and even independent decisions “on important questions (editorial board of *Zarya* and League Administration, Section IV), but even has in its hands the general management of the transport, publishing and funds of the organisation,” which it exercises “through the medium of the Russian organisation of *Iskra* and of members of the League who perform individual functions of administration and transport (Section IV).” Thus, according to the Rules, the Russian organisation of *Iskra* occupies a position on a par with the members of the League who perform individual functions, i.e., a position subordinate to the League itself. Even the duties of the special organ of the League—its Administration—include participation in Russian affairs, such as: “assistance to the editorial board in carrying out transport enterprises” (Section VIII, 1) and “concern for the establishment of conspiratorial tactics”* (Section VIII, m). From the Rules of the League it is perfectly clear that, by virtue of the functions and rights granted to it, it occupies the principal place in the organisation of *Iskra*, and that this supremacy is created entirely by its participation in Russian affairs.

Paragraph 13 of the Party Rules deprives the League of this entire sphere of participation in Russian affairs, as Comrade Deutsch himself admits. All official relations of the League with Russian committees are now conducted through the Central Committee; all the main functions of the League which had a bearing on Russian affairs (such as transport, publishing, funds, conspiratorial tactics) fall away, and the League is reduced to the position of a foreign committee with the rights of Russian committees, and, moreover, with rights limited in the sphere of relations with Russia.

Yes, this transition from the position of an independent central organisation to that of a local organ of the Party is indeed “very great.” For illustration we append the old Rules of the League with notes of the articles which fall away or are altered as a result of the abolition of the *Iskra* organisation and the separation of *Zarya* and *Iskra* as Party organs.

From these notes it will be seen that of the first eight—fundamental—articles of the Rules, which constitute their basis (the remaining articles, being organisational, are common to all rules), the greater part are completely abolished, while of the rest a considerable majority of the clauses, and the most important ones at that, fall away. Thus, in essence, the entire former Rules of the League lose their meaning and force.

Further, Comrade Deutsch, objecting to the words of the Central Committee’s circular that “every comrade knows how much confusion and often even grave misfortunes were caused by the former disorganisation of relations between the foreign organisation and Russia,” exclaims: “this assertion is completely erroneous. I believe that the Central Committee will not be able to confirm it and that it will not be in a position to cite even a single example of the frequently occurring—according to it—grave misfortunes due to the so-called ‘confusion’ in the League’s relations with Russia.” A little further on, interpreting Paragraph 6 of the Party Rules, Comrade Deutsch asserts that under this paragraph the Central Committee “organises committees,” etc., “of course, only in localities where such institutions are absent or are in a disorganised state.” To us, as members of the League, it is at least strange that Comrade Deutsch, who is a member of the Administration, knows nothing about the “confusion,” “grave misfortunes” and “disorganisation of the League.” In speaking of the League, we, of course, do not mean the dozen or so members who performed the work specially entrusted to them or worked for the League just as they worked in the interests of the Social-Democratic movement before the League arose and would have worked if it had completely disintegrated—we mean here, and anyone speaking seriously and not playing with words must mean, the activity of the entire organisation, of all its members, an activity conditioned by the very structure and rules of that organisation. And of this activity in the past of the League there is almost no trace.

One of the major tasks—assistance to the Russian movement—was performed exclusively by the editorial board, the Administration and some individual members.

All these persons know very well from experience that a great deal of “confusion” was introduced into the work, which had “grave misfortunes” as its consequence.*

The second major task—publishing—was carried on exclusively by the editorial board of *Iskra*: the two special editors elected by the League made their existence known only by editing half of Tün’s pamphlet, an editing which, moreover, dragged on for many months; acquainting the foreign public with the course of development of the Russian revolutionary movement (Section III, 5) resulted in two or three bulletins, and very unsuccessful ones at that; the distribution of League bulletins (Section VIII, e), the communication to League members of reports on the progress of affairs in Russia (Section VIII, g)—remained on paper; the drawing up of three-monthly reports (Section VIII, f)—resulted in a single report for the whole period; the organisation of support groups among the student youth (Section VIII, d) amounted mainly to mediation between independently arising groups and the League; the project, announced in the circulars of the League Administration, of drawing activists from local groups into joint discussion of various questions, as well as the project for arranging regular contributions—remained on the pages of the circulars. It is characteristic, incidentally, that there was no communication whatsoever among members living in the same city on League affairs, not to speak of communication between cities; a considerable part of the League’s work was performed by persons outside the League, for example, comrades arriving from Russia. All this Comrade Deutsch has apparently forgotten.** Who, then, displays “obvious ignorance of the past of the League”—the Central Committee or the member of the League Administration, Comrade Deutsch? Comrade Deutsch’s appeal that “all members of the League should assemble for a congress as soon as possible” surprises us by its restless haste. For every member of the League who submits to the decisions of the Second Congress of the Party, his attitude towards the circular of the Central Committee and the future congress of the League is quite definite. The Party Rules have changed the role of the League; its old Rules lose their force; it is desirable and possible to reorganise the League in order to give it viability only on the general organisational principles adopted in the Party, and since these principles and the entire plan of Party organisation are best known to the Central Committee, it is quite natural that it should propose the fundamental provisions of the new Rules of the League for our consideration. Rules drawn up on the basis of these fundamental provisions will, at last, give the League the opportunity to enter into the general Party life and activity.

In conclusion, we cannot but express our protest against those gross violations of Party discipline by means of which an official of the League permits himself to hamper the organisational activity of a Party institution and calls upon other comrades to similarly violate discipline and the Rules. Phrases such as “I consider myself not entitled to take part in such work at the invitation of the Central Committee,” or: “Comrades! ... we must in no case leave it (the Central Committee) to draw up the new Rules for the League,” etc., belong to that sort of agitational methods which can only arouse indignation in anyone who has even the slightest understanding of what the concepts: party, organisation, Party discipline, mean. Methods of this sort are all the more outrageous because they are used in relation to a newly created Party institution, thus constituting an undoubted attempt to undermine confidence in it among Party comrades, and, moreover, are put into circulation under the guise of “member of the League Administration” and behind the back of the Central Committee.

* There appears to be a misprint in the text; the sense requires “technique.” Ed.
** It is enough to remind Comrade Deutsch how much trouble was caused to us and the Russian committees by the city of Berlin, where members of the League established relations with Russia independently, behind the back of the editorial board. Comrade Deutsch has probably not forgotten the recent story of the comrades who were sent to Russia recently by the Administration and were not accepted by the Organising Committee. We could cite not a few such facts. Members of the Administration: Sharko, Litvinov.
*** We remind Comrade Deutsch of his own and quite just remarks, according to which support groups work well only where there are no members of the League. Also characteristic is the remark of another of our comrades on the Administration in his letter concerning the forthcoming congress: “the congress can remove the dissatisfaction of League members with the state of affairs inside the organisation, since until now membership in the League has been merely some kind of honorary title, thus creating a kind of paper organisation. The past year has shown that the affairs of the League are declining, ties are weakening.” Taking this opportunity, we for our part declare that the disorganisation and non-viability of the former League is beyond any doubt for us. It is not in the interests of the League, in our opinion, to close our eyes to its shortcomings merely because a higher instance may, by its directives, encroach upon our “rights”! Members of the Administration: Sharko, Litvinov.

*Orthodox, Bonch-Bruyevich, Perova, Insarova, Insarov, Konyagin, Lenin, Litvinov, Petrov, Plekhanov, S. Sarafsky, Sharko.*

Geneva.

Written in October 1903.

First published in 1904
in the book “Minutes of the Second Congress
of the Foreign League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy”

Printed according to the text of the book.