Before proceeding with his report, Lenin pauses on the debates of the previous session, which concerned the question of how far one could touch upon the private meetings of the Iskra supporters that took place during the party congress. He interprets yesterday's decision of the congress to mean that speakers should mention facts not recorded in the minutes only to a minimal degree, and therefore, in recounting the meetings of members of the Iskra organization, he intends to concern himself only with the results of voting.

After this introduction, he moves on to recount the period immediately preceding the party congress. In the Organizational Committee, whose task was to prepare the congress, Iskra supporters predominated, and its activities were conducted precisely in the Iskraist direction. But already during the preparation of the congress, it became evident that the OC was far from complete unity. First of all, its membership included a Bundist, who sought to use every opportunity to obstruct the convening of a congress in the Iskraist direction; this member of the OC always pursued his own line. There were also two members of "Southern Worker" in the OC; although they considered themselves Iskra supporters and even declared their accession to Iskra, concerning which negotiations were conducted for a very long time, it was still impossible to recognize them as fully such. Finally, even among the Iskra supporters themselves who were part of the OC, there was no complete unity; there were disagreements among them. It is important to note further the OC's decision on the question of imperative mandates. This question arose long before the congress and was resolved to the effect that imperative mandates should be abolished. The editorial board expressed itself on this question in the same sense and most definitively. This decision extended to itself as well. It was decided that at the congress, representing the highest authority of the party, no party member, nor even editorial board members, should consider themselves bound by any obligations to the organization that sent them there. In view of this decision, I worked out a draft of the congress's Tagesordnung[18] with commentaries to it, which I decided to submit to the congress in my own name. In this draft, at point 23, a note was made in the margin about the election of three persons to the editorial board and to the Central Committee{30}. In connection with this point stands yet another circumstance. Since the editorial board consisted of 6 persons, it was decided by general agreement that, if during the congress it should become necessary to arrange an editorial board meeting and the votes should split evenly, comrade Pavlovich should be invited to the meeting with a deciding vote.

Long before the congress began, delegates started arriving. The OC provided them the opportunity to become preliminarily acquainted with the editorial board. It was entirely natural that the Iskra supporters wished to appear at the congress united, coordinated, and with this aim private conversations were held with arriving delegates, and meetings were also arranged to work out unity of views. At these meetings the physiognomy of certain delegates became sufficiently clear. For instance, at one such meeting, when I read a report on the national question{31}, a delegate from the mining district spoke in the spirit of the PPS{32}, displaying altogether extreme confusion of views.

Such were the circumstances preceding the congress.

Now I will explain how it came about that I was the only delegate from the League, whereas the latter had elected two. It turned out that from the Russian organization of Iskra{33}, which was also supposed to send two delegates, not a single one arrived at the congress. Then before the congress began, at a meeting of Iskra supporters that took place, it was decided that one of the two delegates elected by the League would renounce his mandate, transferring it to the other delegate, while he himself would appear as a delegate from the Iskra organization, taking for himself two of its mandates, so that, in the case of the arrival from Russia of an elected delegate, he would transfer one of the two Iskra organization mandates to him. Both I and Martov, naturally, wished to be a delegate from Iskra, given the insignificant role that the League played. We resolved this dispute by drawing lots.

The first preliminary question – on the election of the congress bureau – provoked some, though insignificant, disagreement between myself and Martov. The latter insisted on electing nine persons, including even a Bundist in that number. Meanwhile, I considered it necessary to elect a bureau that could display firm, steadfast policy, and, if necessary, was even able to apply the so-called "iron hand." There were elected: Plekhanov, Lenin, and Pavlovich.

Besides five Bundists at the congress there were two delegates from the Foreign Union of Russian Social-Democrats and an almost always voting with them delegate from the Petersburg "Union of Struggle." These persons from the very beginning greatly prolonged the debates. Already the congress's standing orders consumed an inordinately amount of time. There were endless disputes about the Bund's place in the party, lasting several sessions. A Bundist member of the mandate verification commission produced similar obstructions. He hindered at every step, disagreed with the other members of this commission on not a single question, in which I also participated, and constantly remained in a state of "special opinion." When remarked that the congress might thus be prolonged, the Bundist answered "let it be prolonged," and expressed readiness to sit in the commission for as long as might be necessary. Only well after midnight did we manage to complete the mandate verification work.

In the very first days of the congress sessions an incident occurred with the OC. According to the statute it had worked out, only "prominent party figures" could be invited to the congress with consultative voice. The mandate verification commission rejected the request of the "Struggle" group that it be permitted a mandate. In this commission there participated two OC members who categorically spoke against admitting a representative from "Struggle" to the congress. When the commission's reporter informed the congress of this decision, prolonged debates arose "for" and "against" admission, with one of the Iskra supporters expressing the opinion that a representative from "Struggle" should certainly not be invited to the congress, since this group occupied itself with only intrigues, sought to get into every crack, everywhere sowed discord, etc. (Trotsky: "It's wrong not to name the speaker – it was I who said this." P. Axelrod: "Apparently the reporter does not consider it advantageous for himself.") Indeed, it was comrade Trotsky who so sharply characterized the "Struggle" group. In the very heat of the disputes over admitting a representative of the "Struggle" group to the congress, one of the delegates from "Southern Worker"{34}, who had arrived late at the congress and was only now appearing, asked the assembly to take a 5-minute break to become acquainted with all the circumstances relating to the question being debated. When this break was allowed, OC members arranged a meeting right there at the window. It should be noted that even before the congress began, some OC members had certain grievances against the editorial board. Thus, the Bundist member of the OC was extremely indignant that the editorial board designated its donation of 500 marks to the German Social-Democrats for the elections as sent by it and by the OC, without having obtained prior permission from the latter. In this innocent act, quite natural given the impossibility of quickly communicating with Russian comrades, the Bundist saw that the editorial board living abroad was disposing of the OC's name without asking it. In the OC there was even submitted a proposal to issue a reprimand to the editorial board for this, which was issued, since comrade NN, a former member of the Iskra organization, joined the Bundist. When I informed Martov of this, the latter was greatly angered, declaring that this was "vile." (Martov: "No, I did not use the word 'vile'.") I do not remember the exact expression. Martov further added that he "would not let it rest at that." I, meanwhile, persuaded him that this was not so important and that it was better to say nothing, not giving significance to this incident. When the meeting that had been taking place at the window concluded, comrade Pavlovich, who was part of its membership, informed the two other bureau members that by the proposal of the tardy delegate from "Southern Worker," also a member of the OC, by a majority vote, with the exception of himself, Pavlovich, the decision had been adopted to invite to the congress a representative from "Struggle," Ryazanov, with the right of consultative voice. Comrade Pavlovich energetically opposed this decision and, given the absence of imperative mandates, considered himself entitled to protest at the congress against such a decision. We, the bureau members, as well as the editorial board and other Iskra supporters, were intensely outraged by this OC ruling. An OC member, whom I have already mentioned, NN, had himself spoken against admitting a representative from "Struggle" to the congress in the mandate verification commission session; now, in the OC meeting, he, on the contrary, agreed to his invitation. He was now himself pushing Ryazanov through to the congress. We, thus, found ourselves in a trap. Then we resolved to make an energetic struggle against this outrageous OC ruling. Many spoke against it. In my speech on this occasion I said the following: "what a storm of indignation is aroused at European congresses by those people who say one thing in commissions and another at the congress." In saying this, I had in view NN, a member of the Iskra organization. When comrade Pavlovich informed the congress of his protest against such an OC decision, a member from "Southern Worker" found in this a violation of discipline, a disorganizing maneuver, etc., and demanded from the congress a worthy punishment for comrade Pavlovich for such an action. But we refuted all these arguments. The OC majority proved defeated. A resolution was adopted that the OC, as a collegial body, has no right to influence the composition of the congress after the congress has elected a mandate verification commission. The proposal to invite Ryazanov was rejected. But even after the congress I had occasion to hear from some Iskra supporters doubt as to why a member of "Struggle" should not have been admitted to the congress. (Deich: "I expressed this very thing at the congress as well.") Quite true, and on other questions too, of which I shall yet speak, comrade Deich did not always vote together with all the Iskra supporters, for instance, on the question of the equality of languages. There are also expressed now by certain Iskra supporters views that are in the highest degree strange, as if the Central Committee should reflect in its activity every wavering and primitive view in the party. In this spirit certain unstable, vacillating Iskra supporters also spoke at the congress. Thus it turns out that the view that all those who call themselves Iskra supporters are such in reality is completely false. There are Iskra supporters who are even ashamed to call themselves Iskra supporters – this is a fact. There are Iskra supporters who struggle against Iskra, who place various obstacles in its path, who hinder its activity. Iskra became popular, it became fashionable to call oneself an Iskra supporter, but this does not prevent many from remaining what they were before, before its recognition by many committees. Such unreliable Iskra supporters did it much harm. If they still struggled with it directly, openly… But no, they act insidiously, from the corner, imperceptibly, secretly.

The second point of the Tagesordnung at the party congress was devoted to the party program. The supporters of "Workers' Cause," the Bundists, and various individual delegates, who were given the nickname "swamp" during the congress, made an unbelievable obstruction. Debates on the program were incredibly prolonged. Akimov alone submitted not just one dozen amendments. They disputed literally over individual words, over this or that conjunction. One Bundist, who was part of the commission reviewing the draft program, quite reasonably asked – whose draft are we considering, the one proposed by the Iskra editorial board or the one submitted by Akimov? – there were so many amendments to discuss. These amendments were trifling, and the program was adopted decisively without any serious changes whatsoever; nonetheless, debates on it required around 20 sessions. This is how unproductive the congress's work was because of the opposition made to it by various anti-Iskraist and quasi[19]-Iskraist elements.

The second major incident occurring at the congress after the OC incident was the incident regarding the equality of languages or, as it was ironically called at the congress, "the freedom of languages." (Martov: "Or 'about asses.'" Laughter.) Yes, and "about asses." The matter was as follows. In the draft party program it is stated that all citizens are equal, regardless of sex, nationality, religion, etc. The Bundists were not satisfied with this and began demanding that the right of each nationality to study in its own language be included in the program, as well as to address various public and state institutions in it. In response to a remark made by one talkative Bundist, who cited the state stud farm as an example, comrade Plekhanov remarked that there could be no talk of a stud farm, since horses do not speak, but "only asses speak." The Bundists took offense at this, evidently taking this joke at their own expense.

In the question of the equality of languages, a split manifested itself for the first time. Besides Bundists, the "Workers' Cause" supporters, and the "swamp," some of the Iskra supporters also spoke for "freedom of languages." Comrade Deich's votes on this question caused us astonishment, outrage, indignation, etc.; he now abstained, now voted against us. In the end, this question was resolved amicably and unanimously.

In general, in the first half of the congress all Iskra supporters acted together. The Bundists said that a conspiracy was being waged against them. One Bundist in his speech characterized the congress as a "compact majority." In response to this, I expressed a wish that our entire party be transformed into one compact majority[20].

The second half of the congress presented a completely different picture. From this moment begins Martov's historical turning point. The disagreements that manifested themselves between us were far from insignificant. They stemmed from Martov's incorrect assessment of the present moment. Comrade Martov departed from the line which he had previously maintained.

The fifth paragraph of the Tagesordnung was devoted to the statute. Disagreements between myself and Martov arose already in the commission over its first point. We defended different formulations. Whereas I proposed to recognize as a party member one who, sharing the party program and rendering it material support, enters into some party organization, – Martov found it sufficient, besides the first two conditions, to have work under the control of one of the party organizations. I stood by my formulation and pointed out that we cannot make any other definition of a party member without departing from the principle of centralism. To recognize as a party member a person not entering into any party organization means to declare oneself against all party control. Here Martov was introducing a new principle, completely contradicting the principles of Iskra. Martov's formulation broadened the boundaries of the party. He referred to the fact that our party should be a mass party. He was opening wide the doors to all opportunists, broadening the boundaries of the party to complete vagueness. Under our conditions this presents great danger, since it is very difficult to establish a boundary between a revolutionary and an idle talker; therefore we needed to narrow the concept of the party. Martov's error consisted in that he was widely opening the party's doors to every adventurer, whereas it was revealed that even at the congress a whole third belonged to those who were undermining it. Martov in this case displayed opportunism. His formulation introduced a false dissonance into the statute: every party member should be under the control of an organization so that the Central Committee would have the possibility to reach the last party member. My formulation gave stimulus for organization. Comrade Martov was demeaning the concept of "party member," whereas, in my opinion, it should stand high, very high. To Martov's side went "Workers' Cause," the Bund, and the "swamp," with the help of which he pushed through the first paragraph of the statute.

Then Martov began to speak of "shameful rumors" being spread about him. There was no offense in the indications of with whom Martov found himself in alliance. I myself was subjected to the same reproaches when I found myself in alliance with comrade Brouckère. And I was not at all offended when Martov sent me a note in which he said: "look, who is voting with you." True, my alliance with Brouckère was temporary and accidental. Meanwhile, Martov's alliance with the Bund proved to be lasting. I was against Martov's formulation because it was a Versumpfung[21]. I warned Martov of this, and our opponents, following Martov like one man, eloquently illustrated this error. But the most dangerous thing consists not in that Martov fell into the swamp, but in that, having accidentally fallen into it, he did not try to get out of it, but sank deeper and deeper. The Bundists felt that they had become masters of the situation, and put their imprint on the party statute.

During the second half of the congress too, there formed a compact majority, but one consisting of a coalition of Martovist plus the "swamp," plus a compact minority of "Workers' Cause" and the Bund. And this compact majority stood against the Iskra supporters. One Bundist, seeing dissension among the Iskra supporters, said: "It's pleasant to argue when the leaders fight." I do not understand why the Bund left under such circumstances. It turned out to be master of the situation and could have pushed through much. Most likely, it had an imperative mandate.

After the first paragraph of the statute was spoiled, we needed to bind the broken pot as tightly as possible, with a double knot. We naturally conceived a fear that we would be undermined, let down. With this in view, it became necessary to introduce mutual co-optation into the central institutions, in order to assure the party of unity in their actions. A struggle arose again over this question. It was necessary to ensure that by the Third Congress of the party the same thing that happened with the OC could not be repeated. It was necessary to create a consistent, honest Iskraist ministry. On this point we were defeated again. The paragraph on mutual co-optation into the central institutions was defeated. Martov's error, supported by the "swamp," became even more apparent. From this moment the coalition formed completely, and under threat of defeat we were compelled to load our rifles with double charges. The Bund and "Workers' Cause" sat and by their votes decided the congress's fate. From this arose a stubborn, fierce struggle.

Let us now proceed to the private meetings of the Iskra organization. At these meetings we occupied ourselves principally with the question of the Central Committee's composition. During all four meetings of the Iskra organization debates raged around comrade NN, to whom part of the Iskra supporters wished to express political distrust, but not at all in the literal sense of this word, for absolutely no one attributed anything shameful to NN, but in the special sense of NN's suitability for the Iskraist ministry; from this arose desperate fights. At the last meeting of the 16 members, 9 persons spoke against NN, 4 – for, the rest abstained. Here as well the question was decided of in what composition to now conduct the ministry.

Martov and I proposed different "troikas"; we could not agree on them. Not wishing to split the vote at the congress, we decided to propose a compromise list. We made all manner of concessions: I agreed to a list with two Martovist members. The minority would not accept this. Incidentally, a member of "Southern Worker" did not wish to stand in our list, while agreeing at the same time to be in the list of the Martovist members. "Southern Worker" – an outside element – decided the question of the Central Committee. After the Iskra supporters split, we had to gather our like-minded comrades and embarked on heated agitation. The unexpected departure of the Bund suddenly changed the entire situation. With its departure a compact majority and minority formed again. We proved to be in the majority and pushed through to the Central Committee those whom we wished.

Such were the circumstances that led to the split. A grave tactlessness on Martov's part was to bring to the congress the question of confirming all six editors of Iskra, when he knew that I would insist on the electability of the editorial board. This meant reducing the question of choosing the editorial board to an expression of distrust toward individual editorial board members.

On Saturday, at 5 o'clock, the elections ended. We proceeded to discuss resolutions. We had only a few hours left for this. Owing to obstacles and delays on the part of the "swamp," we were forced to throw out of the Tagesordnung a mass of important points; thus, we had no time whatsoever to discuss all questions of tactics.

The congress's attitude toward the resolutions was so unanimously positive that we gained the impression of an established conciliatory mood; it seemed to us that from the disagreements that had occurred, Martov was not making a matter of state. He even remarked concerning a question from one of the "Southern Worker" members about the legitimacy of the elections that the minority submits to all congress resolutions. All resolutions were adopted peacefully and cordially; disagreements arose only concerning Starover's resolution on liberals. It suffers from vagueness, and opportunism showed itself in it again; we struggled against it and achieved the passage of another resolution on the same question.

The general impression of the congress was that we waged a struggle against undermining. We were placed in an impossible position to work. The conclusion was such: "God preserve us from such friends," i.e., quasi-Iskra supporters. Martov completely failed to understand this moment. He elevated his erroneous position to a principle. Standing in glaring contradiction with the actual needs of the party is Martov's assertion about the "siege conditions" created by the majority. In order to make the work more successful, it was necessary to remove the obstructing elements and place them in a position in which they could not damage the party; only in such a case would we succeed in working fruitfully at the next congress. This is why it was necessary to establish complete unity among the party's central institutions.

The first half of the congress is diametrically opposed to the second. The cardinal points of the entire congress reduce to four major moments, namely: 1) the OC incident; 2) the debates concerning the equality of languages; 3) the debates concerning the first point of the statute; and 4) the struggle over elections to the party centers.

In the first half of the congress we together with Martov were against the OC, the Bund, "Workers' Cause," and the "swamp." In the second half he accidentally fell into the swamp. From accidental Versumpfung, now, after the congress, a real Versumpfung emerges. (Applause.)