Date: 1904
Source: ru:PSS/v7
Source: CW vol 7

Speeches and statements, an addition to § 12 of the draft party statute, and a draft resolution on the publication of a journal for sectarians were published in 1904 in the book: "The Second Regular Congress of the RSDLP. Full Text of the Minutes." Geneva, published by the CC

Printed according to the text of the book; part of the documents – according to manuscripts.

1. Statements during the discussion of the list of questions to be considered by the congress{81}. July 17 (30)

1

According to the plan, the question of the program is placed second. The national question is part of the program and is resolved in its discussion. The question of regional and national organizations, in general, is an organizational one. However, the question of the attitude towards nationalities, in particular, is a tactical one and represents the application of our general principles to practical activity.

2

The first point on the list relates specifically to the organization of the Bund. The sixth, however, concerns the organization of the party. After establishing a general law regarding local, regional, national, and other organizations, a specific question is raised: which organizations and under what conditions are to be admitted into the party?

2. Speeches during the discussion of the agenda of the congress{82}. July 18 (31)

1

I want to make one remark. It is said that it is incorrect to place the question of the Bund first, as the reports should come first, the program second, and the Bund third. The arguments for this order do not stand up to criticism. They boil down to the fact that the party as a whole has not yet agreed on the program: it may happen that we will disagree precisely on the program. These words surprise me. True, we do not have an adopted program now, but the assumption of a split over the program issue is extremely speculative. In the party, insofar as the question concerns literature, which has recently reflected the opinions of the party most fully, such trends have not been observed. There are both formal and moral reasons for placing the question of the Bund first. Formally, we stand on the ground of the Manifesto of 1898, and the Bund has expressed a desire to fundamentally change the organization of our party. Morally, many other organizations have expressed disagreement with the Bund on this issue; thus, sharp disagreements have arisen, even leading to polemics. Therefore, the congress cannot proceed to united work without removing these disagreements. As for the delegates' reports, it is possible that they will not be read at all in pleno[62]. Therefore, I support the order of questions approved by the Organizing Committee.

2

After the congress decided the question of the first point on our agenda, the only disputed question regarding the order of the subsequent points is the third point. This point reads: "Creation of the Central Organ of the party or its confirmation." Some comrades believed that this point should be moved further back, because, firstly, one cannot speak about the Central Organ until the questions of the organization of the party in general and its center in particular, etc., are resolved, and, secondly, many committees have already expressed their views on the essence of this question. I find the last argument incorrect, as the statements of the committees are not binding for the congress and formally do not have a decisive vote at the congress. The other objection is also incorrect, because before deciding the question of organizational details, the party's statute, etc., it is necessary to finally resolve the question of the direction of Russian Social-Democracy. Precisely on this question, we have been divided for so long, and the disagreements dividing us on this question cannot be removed by merely adopting the program: this can only be achieved by immediately deciding, after the question of the program, the question of what kind of Central Organ of the party we must create anew or what exactly to confirm from the old one with certain changes.

For this reason, I support the agenda that was approved by the Organizing Committee.

Checked against the manuscript

3. Statements on the question of the actions of the organizing committee{83}. July 18 (31)

1

I cannot agree with Comrade Egorov. It is he who violated the statute of the congress, it is he who denies the point on imperative mandates{84}. I have no doubt about the existence of the Organizing Committee, just as I have no doubt about the existence of the Iskra organization. It also has its own organization and its own statute. But, as soon as the statute of the congress was reported, it was declared to its delegates that they have complete freedom of action at the congress. What position are we, members of the commission to verify the composition of the congress, in, having heard two members of the Organizing Committee, Comrades Stein and Pavlovich, yesterday, and now hearing a completely new proposal? There are experienced comrades here who have participated in international congresses many times. These comrades could tell you how such a phenomenon always caused a storm of indignation when people say one thing in the commissions and another at the congress.

2

The Organizing Committee can meet, but not as a body influencing the affairs of the congress. The practical activities of the Organizing Committee do not stop, but its influence on the congress, apart from the commission, does stop.

4. Statements on the question of the participation of Polish Social-Democrats at the congress{85}. July 18 (31)

1

The commission, in its report, finds the presence of Polish comrades at the congress desirable, but only with a consultative vote. In my opinion, this is entirely correct, and it seems quite reasonable to begin the commission's resolution with this statement. It would also be very desirable to have Latvians and Lithuanians present, but, unfortunately, this is unfeasible. The Polish comrades could always state their terms for unification, but they did not do so. Therefore, the Organizing Committee acted correctly in being restrained towards them. The letter from the Polish Social-Democracy read here again does not clarify the issue. For this reason, I propose inviting the Polish comrades as guests.

2

I do not see any strong arguments against the invitation. The Organizing Committee made the first step towards bringing the Polish comrades closer to the Russian ones. By inviting them to the congress, we will take the second step along the same path. I do not see any complications arising from this.

5. Speech on the question of the Bund's place in the RSDLP. July 20 (August 2)

I will first touch upon Comrade Hoffman's speech and his expression "compact majority"{86}. Comrade Hoffman uses these words reproachfully. In my opinion, we should not be ashamed but proud that there is a compact majority at the congress. And we will be even more proud if our entire party becomes one compact and most compact 90%-majority. (Applause.) The majority acted correctly by placing the question of the Bund's position in the party first: the Bundists immediately proved this correctness by submitting their so-called statute, which in essence proposed a federation{87}. If there are members in the party who propose a federation and members who reject it, then there was no other way to act than to put the question of the Bund first. You cannot force love, and you cannot talk about the internal affairs of the party without firmly and resolutely deciding whether we want to go together or not.

It would have been impossible to act as if the question of the Bund should be put first. You cannot force affection, and it is impossible to speak about the internal affairs of the party without firmly and resolutely deciding whether we want to go together or not.

The essence of the disputed question was sometimes not quite correctly presented in the debates. The point is that, according to many party members, federation is harmful, federation contradicts the principles of Social-Democracy, in their application to the given Russian reality. Federation is harmful because it legalizes particularity and estrangement, elevating them into a principle, into a law. There is indeed complete estrangement between us, and we must not legalize it, not cover it with a fig leaf, but fight against it; we must resolutely acknowledge and declare the necessity of moving firmly and resolutely towards the closest unity. This is why, in principle, at the very threshold (as the well-known Latin expression goes), we reject federation, we reject all obligatory barriers between us. In the party, there will always be different groupings, groupings of comrades who do not fully agree on questions of the program, tactics, and organization, but let there be one division into groups throughout the party, i.e., let all those who think alike unite into one group, and not so that groups are formed in one part of the party, separately from groups in another part of the party, and then not groups of different views and shades of views, but parts of the party, combining different groups, come together. I repeat: we do not recognize any obligatory barriers and therefore, in principle, we reject federation.

I move on to the question of autonomy. Comrade Lieber said that federation is centralism, while autonomy is decentralization. Does Comrade Lieber consider the members of the congress to be six-year-old children, to whom such sophisms can be served? Is it not clear that centralism requires the absence of any barriers between the center and the most remote, most backwater parts of the party? Our center will have the unconditional right to reach every individual member of the party directly. The Bundists would only laugh if someone proposed such "centralism" within the Bund, where the Central Committee of the Bund could not communicate with all the Kovno groups and comrades except through the Kovno Committee. Incidentally, about committees. Comrade Lieber exclaimed with pathos: "Why talk about the autonomy of the Bund as a single-centered organization? After all, you won't give autonomy to some Tula Committee, will you?" You are mistaken, Comrade Lieber: we will undoubtedly and necessarily give autonomy to even "some" Tula Committee, autonomy in the sense of freedom from petty interference by the center, while, of course, the obligation to submit to the center remains. I took the words "petty interference" from the Bundist leaflet "Autonomy or Federation." The Bund has put forward this freedom from "petty interference" as a condition, as a demand to the party. The presentation of such ridiculous demands in itself shows how confused the disputed question appears to the Bund. Does the Bund really think that the party would allow the existence of a center that "pettily" interfered in the affairs of any organization or group of the party? Does this not amount precisely to that "organized distrust" which has already been spoken of at the congress? Such distrust permeates all the proposals and all the arguments of the Bundists. Indeed, for example, is not the struggle for full equality and even for the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination an obligation of our entire party? Therefore, if any part of our party did not fulfill this obligation, it would undoubtedly be subject to condemnation based on our principles; it would undoubtedly have to provoke a correction from the central institutions of the party. And if this duty was not fulfilled consciously and deliberately, despite the full possibility of fulfilling it, then non-fulfillment would be treachery.

Furthermore, Comrade Lieber asked us rhetorically: how to prove that autonomy can ensure the absolutely necessary independence for the movement of Jewish workers? A strange question! How to prove that one of the proposed paths is correct? The only means is to follow this path and test it in practice. To Comrade Lieber's question, I answer: come with us, and we undertake to prove to you in practice that all legitimate requirements for independence are fully satisfied.

Whenever there are disputes about the place of the Bund, I always remember the English coal miners. They are excellently organized, better than other workers. And they want to use this to defeat the general demand for an 8-hour working day, made by all proletarians. The coal miners understand the unity of the proletariat just as narrowly as our Bundists. Let the sad example of the coal miners serve as a warning to the comrades of the Bund!

Checked against the manuscript

6. Speech on the Question of the Party Program. July 22 (August 4)

First of all, I must note the extremely characteristic confusion by Comrade Lieber of the leader of the nobility with the layer of the working and exploited. This confusion is significant for all the debates. Everywhere, individual episodes of our polemics are mixed with the establishment of principled foundations. It cannot be denied, as Comrade Lieber does, that the transition of a (certain) layer of the working and exploited population to the side of the proletariat is possible. Recall that in 1852, Marx, referring to the uprisings of French peasants, wrote (in "The Eighteenth Brumaire") that the peasantry acts now as a representative of the past, now as a representative of the future; one can appeal to the peasant, not only to his prejudice but also to his reason. Further recall that Marx later recognized as entirely correct the assertion of the Communards that the cause of the Commune is also the cause of the peasantry. I repeat, there can be no doubt that under certain conditions, the transition of one or another layer of the working class to the side of the proletariat is by no means impossible. The whole thing is to define these conditions accurately. And in the words "they adopt the standpoint of the proletariat," the condition being discussed is expressed with complete accuracy. It is precisely these words that most decisively separate us, Social-Democrats, from all sorts of allegedly socialist currents in general and from the so-called Socialist-Revolutionaries in particular.

I move on to the controversial passage from my pamphlet "What Is To Be Done?" which has caused so much discussion here. It seems that after all these discussions, the question has already been clarified to such an extent that I have little left to add. It is obvious that here a principled setting of a major theoretical question (the development of ideology) was confused with one episode of the struggle against "Economism." And, moreover, this episode was conveyed completely incorrectly.

To prove this last point, I can first refer to the comrades Akimov and Martynov who spoke here. They vividly showed that it is precisely an episode of the struggle against "Economism" that is being discussed here. They came forward with views that have already been called (and rightly called) opportunism. They went as far as "refuting" the theory of impoverishment, disputing the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even to the "Erfullungstheorie," as Comrade Akimov put it. True, I do not know what this means. Did Comrade Akimov mean to say "Aushohlungstheorie," the "theory of the hollowing out" of capitalism, i.e., one of the most popular, widespread ideas of Bernsteinian theory? Comrade Akimov, in defense of the old bases of "Economism," even came forward with such an incredibly original argument that in our program, the word "proletariat" does not appear once in the nominative case. At most, exclaimed Comrade Akimov, the proletariat appears in the genitive case. Thus, it turns out that the nominative case is the most honorable, and the genitive case is second in honor. It only remains to pass this consideration—perhaps through a special commission—to Comrade Ryazanov, so that he may supplement his first scholarly work on letters with a second scholarly treatise on cases...

That leaves only to convey this idea—perhaps through a special commission—to Comrade Ryazanov, so that he may supplement his first scholarly work on letters with a second scholarly treatise on cases...

As for the direct references to my pamphlet "What Is To Be Done?", it is very easy for me to prove that they are taken out of context. They say: Lenin does not mention any opposing tendencies at all, and absolutely asserts that the workers' movement always "goes" towards subordination to bourgeois ideology. Is that really so? Have I not said that the workers' movement is drawn towards bourgeoisness with the benevolent assistance of Schulte-Delitzches and their ilk? And who is meant by "their ilk"? None other than the "Economists," none other than those who, for example, used to say that bourgeois democracy in Russia is a phantom. It is now easy to speak cheaply about bourgeois radicalism and liberalism when examples of them are before everyone's eyes. But what was it like before?

Lenin does not take into account at all that workers also participate in the development of ideology. Is that so? Have I not said many times that the greatest shortcoming of our movement is the lack of fully conscious workers, worker-leaders, worker-revolutionaries? Is it not said there that the development of such worker-revolutionaries should become our next task? Is the importance of developing the trade union movement and creating a special trade union literature not pointed out there? Is there not a desperate struggle being waged there against all attempts to lower the level of advanced workers to the level of the masses or to the level of the middle strata?

I will conclude. We all know now that the "Economists" bent the stick in one direction. To straighten the stick, it was necessary to bend it in the other direction, and I did that. I am confident that Russian Social-Democracy will always energetically straighten the stick, bent by all kinds of opportunism, and that our stick will therefore always be the straightest and most fit for action.

Checked against the manuscript

7. Report on the Party Statute. July 29 (August 11)

Lenin (the reporter) gives an explanation regarding the draft statute he has proposed. The basic idea of the statute is the division of functions. Therefore, for example, the division into two centers is not the result of dividing these centers by location (Russia and abroad), but a logical consequence of the division by functions. The Central Committee has the function of practical leadership, while the Central Organ has the function of ideological leadership. For the unification of the activities of these two centers, to avoid disunity between them, and, in part, to resolve conflicts, a Council is necessary, which should not at all have the character of a purely arbitral institution. The paragraphs of the statute concerning the relations between the Central Committee and the local committees and defining the sphere of competence of the Central Committee cannot and should not enumerate all the points in which the Central Committee is competent. Such an enumeration is impossible and inconvenient because it is unthinkable to foresee all possible cases, and, moreover, unenumerated points would seem not to fall under the competence of the Central Committee. It is necessary to leave it to the Central Committee to define the sphere of its own competence, because in any local matter, general party interests can be involved, and it is necessary to give the Central Committee the opportunity to intervene in local affairs, perhaps against local interests, but in the interests of the party as a whole.

8. Speech during the discussion of the general part of the party program. July 29 (August 11)

This insertion makes it worse. It creates the impression that consciousness grows spontaneously. In the international Social-Democracy, there is no conscious activity of the workers outside the influence of Social-Democracy.

9. Speeches during the discussion of the general political demands of the party program. July 30 (August 12)

1

Lenin finds Strakhov's amendment unsuccessful, as the commission's formulation emphasizes precisely the will of the people.

2

Lenin is against the word "regional," as it is very unclear and can be interpreted to mean that Social-Democracy demands the division of the entire state into small regions.

3

Lenin finds the addition of the word "foreigner" superfluous, as it goes without saying that the Social-Democratic party will defend the extension of this paragraph to foreigners.

10. Speech during the discussion of the general political demands of the party program. July 31 (August 13)

The word "militia" adds nothing new and introduces confusion. The words "universal arming of the people" are clear and entirely Russian. I find Comrade Libera's amendment unnecessary.

11. Proposals for the points of the general political demands of the party program?

1) At the end of point 6, leave "and language."

2) Insert a new point:

"The right of the population to receive education in their native language, the right of every citizen to use their native language in meetings, public and state institutions."

3) Strike out the phrase about language in point 11.

Written between July 30 and August 1, 1903.

Published for the first time, from the manuscript.

12. Speeches during the discussion of the part of the party program concerning the protection of workers. July 31 (August 13)

1

Lenin has nothing against a 42-hour rest period, and to Libera, he notes that the program speaks of supervision over all industries. If a size is specified, it only limits the meaning. When our program becomes a bill, we will add the details.

2

I am against Comrade Lyadov's amendment. His first two amendments are unnecessary, as in our program, we demand labor protection for all branches of the economy, including agriculture. As for the third, it relates entirely to the agrarian section, and we will return to it when discussing our draft agrarian program.

13. Speech during the discussion of the agrarian program. July 31 (August 13)

First page of the manuscript of V.I. Lenin's speech at the Second Congress of the RSDLP during the discussion of the agrarian program on July 31 (August 13), 1903.

I will first point out a detail that emerged in the debates. Comrade Egorov expressed regret that there was no report, which could significantly facilitate and guide all our debates. I was supposed to be the reporter, and I must, so to speak, defend myself regarding the absence of the report. In my defense, I will say that I do have a report: it is my response to Comrade X, which precisely answers the most widespread objections and misunderstandings caused by our agrarian program, and which was distributed to all delegates of the congress. A report does not cease to be a report just because it is printed and distributed to delegates rather than read to them.

I will move on to the content of the speeches of the speakers, who, unfortunately, did not take into account precisely this report of mine. For example, Comrade Martynov did not even take into account the earlier literature on our agrarian program when he again and again spoke about redressing historical injustice, about a pointless return 40 years back, about the destruction of feudalism not of the present, but of the feudalism that existed in the 1860s, and so on. One has to repeat oneself, responding to these arguments. If we relied only on the principle of "redressing historical injustice," we would be guided by a mere democratic phrase. But we refer to the survivals of serfdom around us, to the current reality, to what currently constrains and hinders the liberating struggle of the proletariat. We are accused of returning to the distant past. This accusation only shows a lack of knowledge of the most well-known facts about the activities of Social-Democrats in all countries. Everywhere and always, they put forward and implement the task of completing what the bourgeoisie left unfinished. That is exactly what we are doing. And to do this, it is necessary to return to the past, and Social-Democrats in each country do this, always returning to their 1789, to their 1848. Russian Social-Democrats, in the same way, cannot help but return to their 1861, and do so more energetically and more frequently, the smaller the share of democratic reforms our so-called "peasant reform" carried out.

may not return to their 1861, and the more energetically and frequently they do so, the smaller the share of democratic reforms our peasant, so-called, "reform" has implemented.

As for Comrade Gorin, he also makes the usual mistake by forgetting about the actually existing serfdom bondage. Comrade Gorin says that "hope for cut-off lands forcibly keeps the small peasant in anti-proletarian ideology." But in fact, it is not "hope" for cut-off lands, but the current cut-off lands that forcibly maintain the serfdom bondage, and there is no other way out of this bondage, out of this serfdom lease, except by transforming the so-called lessees into free owners.

Finally, Comrade Egorov posed a question to the authors of the program about its significance. He asked whether the program is a conclusion from our basic concepts of the economic evolution of Russia, a scientific anticipation of a possible and inevitable result of political transformations. (In this case, Comrade Egorov could agree with us.) Or is our program a practical agitational slogan, and then we cannot beat the record of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and then this program must be recognized as incorrect. I must say that I do not understand this distinction made by Comrade Egorov. If our program did not satisfy the first condition, it would be wrong, and we could not accept it. If the program is correct, then it cannot fail to provide a practically useful slogan for agitation. The contradiction between the two dilemmas of Comrade Egorov is only apparent: it cannot exist in practice, because a correct theoretical solution ensures a solid success in agitation. And we strive precisely for a solid success and are not at all disturbed by temporary failures.

Comrade Liber also repeated long-refuted objections, marveling at the "meanness" of our program and demanding "radical reforms" in the agrarian sphere. Comrade Liber forgot about the difference between the democratic and socialist parts of the program: he took the absence of anything socialist in the democratic program for "meanness." He did not notice that the socialist part of our agrarian program is in another place, namely in the workers' section, which also relates to agriculture. Only the Socialist-Revolutionaries, with their characteristic lack of principle, can and constantly confuse democratic and socialist demands, while the party of the proletariat is obliged to strictly separate and distinguish them.

Checked against the manuscript

14. Speeches and statements during the discussion of the agrarian program. August 1 (14)

1

Before moving on to the details, I want to object to some general positions, and first of all to Comrade Martynov. Comrade Martynov says that we must fight not against the feudalism that was, but against what exists now. This is true, but I will remind you of my answer to X. He referred to Saratov Province, I took the data from the same Saratov Province, and it turned out: the size of the cut-off lands is 600,000 desyatins, i.e., 2/5 of all the land owned by peasants under serfdom, and the lease is 900,000 desyatins; therefore, 2/3 of all leased land are cut-off lands. Thus, we restore land use by 2/3. We, therefore, fight not with a phantom, but with a real evil. We would come to what happened in Ireland, where a modern peasant reform was needed, turning farmers into small owners. The analogy between Ireland and Russia has already been pointed out in the economic literature of the Populists. Comrade Gorin says that the measure I propose is not the best, that it is better to transfer to the state of free lessees. But he is mistaken in thinking that transferring semi-free lessees to free ones is better. We do not invent a transition, but propose one where legal land use corresponds to the actual, thereby eliminating the current servile relations. Martynov says that it is not our demands that are mean, but the principle from which they flow is mean. But this resembles the arguments that the Socialist-Revolutionaries bring against us. In the countryside, we pursue two qualitatively different goals: first, we want to create the freedom of bourgeois relations, second, to wage the struggle of the proletariat. Our task, contrary to the prejudices of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, is to show the peasants where the revolutionary-proletarian task of the peasant proletariat begins. Therefore, the objections of Comrade Kostrov are unfounded. They tell us that the peasantry will not be satisfied with our program, that it will go further; but we are not afraid of this, for we have our socialist program, and therefore we are not afraid of the land redistribution, which so frightens Comrades Makhov and Kostrov.

I conclude. Comrade Egorov called our hope for the peasantry a chimera. No! We are not carried away, we are sufficiently skeptical, and therefore we say to the peasant proletariat: "You are now fighting alongside the peasant bourgeoisie, but you must always be ready to fight against this very bourgeoisie, and you will wage this struggle together with the urban industrial proletariat."

In 1852, Marx said that the peasants have not only prejudice but also reason. And, by pointing out to the poor peasantry the cause of their poverty, we can count on success. We believe that, given that Social-Democracy has now taken up the struggle for peasant interests, in the future we will take into account the fact that the mass of peasants will get used to seeing Social-Democracy as the defender of their interests, 2

Lenin proposes an amendment: instead of "will strive for," insert: "demands above all." During the debates, it was pointed out that "will strive for" was deliberately used in the draft to emphasize that this is what we intend to do not now, but in the future. To avoid such misunderstandings, I propose this amendment. By "above all," I mean that, in addition to the agrarian program, we still have other demands.

3

I am against Comrade Lyadov's proposal. We are not writing a bill, but merely indicating general features. Among the urban residents, we also have those belonging to taxable estates; besides, there are townspeople and others, and to include all this in our program, we would have to speak the language of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

4

Comrade Martynov's question seems to me superfluous. Instead of setting out general principles, we are being forced to delve into specifics. If we did this, we would never finish the congress. The principle is quite clear: every peasant has the right to dispose of his land, whether communal or private. This is only a demand for the peasant's right to dispose of his land. We insist that there should be no special laws for peasants; we want not only the right to leave the commune. All the specifics that will be needed when implementing this, we cannot decide now. I am against Comrade Lange's addition; we cannot demand the abolition of all laws on land use. That is too much.

5

Martynov is obviously in a misunderstanding. We are striving for the equal application of general legislation - that which is now accepted in all bourgeois states, namely, based on the foundations of Roman law, recognizing both common property and personal. We would like to consider communal land ownership as common property.

6

We are discussing the editing of additions to point four concerning the Caucasus. It is desirable to insert these additions after point a). There are two draft resolutions. If we adopt Comrade Karsky's amendment, the point will lose too much in its concreteness. For example, in the Urals, there are countless remnants; it is a real nest of serfdom. Regarding the Latvians, it can be said that they fall under the formula "and in other regions of the state." I support Comrade Kostrov's proposal, specifically: it is necessary to insert the requirement for the transfer of lands into the ownership of khizans, temporarily obligated, and others.

7

formula "and in other areas of the state." I support Comrade Kostrov's proposal, namely: it is necessary to insert the demand for land to pass into the ownership of khizans, temporarily obligated, and others{109}.

7

Comrade Liberman is unjustifiably surprised. He demands from us a single general measure, but such a measure does not exist. It is necessary to put forward one thing at one time and another at another. We do not have templates. Liberman points out that our demand for the abolition of serfdom coincides with the demands of liberals. But the liberals do not speak about how this demand will be carried out. We, on the other hand, say that it must be carried out not by the bureaucracy, but by the oppressed classes, and this is already the path of revolution. This is our fundamental difference from the liberals, who, with their discussions about reforms, "corrupt" the people's consciousness. If we were to concretize all the demands for the abolition of serfdom, we would end up with whole volumes. Therefore, we only point out the most important forms and types of enslavement. And our committees in various regions, in the development of the general program, will put forward and elaborate their partial demands. Trotsky's suggestion that we cannot touch upon local demands is incorrect insofar as the question of khizans and temporarily obligated is not merely a local issue. Moreover, it is known in agrarian literature.

8

Comrade Liberman proposes to abolish the clause on cut-off lands solely on the grounds that he does not like peasant committees. This is strange. Since we have agreed on the main issue that cut-off lands enslave the peasants, the establishment of committees is a detail over which it is illogical to reject the entire clause. The question of how we will influence the peasant committees is also strange. I hope that social democrats will then be able to organize congresses with fewer difficulties and agree there on how to act in each specific case.

9

Paragraph 5 is connected with paragraph 16 of the workers' program: this envisages precisely courts composed equally of workers and entrepreneurs; we must demand special representation for farm laborers and the poorest peasantry{110}.

10

I think this is unnecessary, as it would unreasonably expand the jurisdiction of the courts{111}. Our goal is to lower rent, and the establishment of tariffs would give landowners the opportunity to refer to specific facts to prove their rightness. Lowering rental prices excludes any thought of raising them. Kautsky, speaking about Ireland, notes that the introduction of industrial courts there yielded some results.

15. Speeches and interventions during the discussion of the party statute. August 2 (15)

1

Lenin briefly defends his formulation, emphasizing especially that it provides an incentive: "organize!"{112}. One should not think that party organizations should consist only of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diverse organizations of all kinds, ranks, and shades, ranging from extremely narrow and conspiratorial to very broad, free, loose organizations. The necessary feature of a party organization is its endorsement by the Central Committee.

2

First of all, I would like to make two remarks of a private nature. First, regarding the kind (I say this without irony) proposal of Axelrod to "bargain." I would gladly follow this call, as I do not consider our disagreement so essential that the life or death of the party depends on it. From a bad clause in the statute, we are still far from perishing! But since it has come to choosing between two formulations, I cannot abandon my firm conviction that Martov's formulation is a deterioration of the original draft, a deterioration that can bring considerable harm to the party under certain conditions. The second remark concerns Comrade Brukher. It is quite natural that, wishing to introduce the elective principle everywhere, Comrade Brukher adopted my formulation, which alone defines the concept of a party member with some precision. I therefore do not understand Comrade Martov's pleasure at Comrade Brukher's agreement with me. Can it really be that Comrade Martov actually takes as a guide for himself the opposite of what Brukher says, without examining his motives and arguments?

Comrade Martov's statement regarding Comrade Brucker's agreement with me. Can it really be that Comrade Martov actually takes as a guide for himself the opposite of what Brucker says, without examining his motives and arguments?

Moving on to the substance of the matter, I will say that Comrade Trotsky completely failed to understand the main idea of Comrade Plekhanov and therefore bypassed the whole essence of the question in his reasoning. He spoke about the intelligentsia and workers, about the class point of view and the mass movement, but he did not notice one fundamental question: does my formulation narrow or broaden the concept of a party member? If he had asked himself this question, he would easily have seen that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov's broadens it, being (as Martov himself aptly put it) "elastic." And precisely this "elasticity" in such a period of party life as we are experiencing undoubtedly opens the door to all elements of disintegration, wavering, and opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion, one must prove that there are no such elements, and Comrade Trotsky did not even think of doing this. And it cannot be proven, because everyone knows that there are many such elements, and they exist even in the working class. The safeguarding of the firmness of the line and the purity of the party's principles becomes all the more urgent now, since the party, restored in its unity, will take into its ranks a very large number of unstable elements, the number of which will grow as the party grows. Comrade Trotsky understood the main idea of my book *What Is To Be Done?* very incorrectly when he said that the party is not a conspiratorial organization (this objection was made to me by many others). He forgot that I assume in my book a whole series of different types of organizations, starting from the most conspiratorial and the narrowest and ending with relatively broad and "free" (lose)[65]. He forgot that the party should be only the vanguard, the leader of the vast mass of the working class, which, in its entirety (or almost entirely), works "under the control and guidance" of party organizations, but which does not and should not all enter the party. Indeed, look at the conclusions Comrade Trotsky draws due to his fundamental error. He told us here that if rows and rows of workers were arrested and all workers declared that they do not belong to the party, then our party would be strange! Is it not the other way around? Is not Comrade Trotsky's reasoning strange? He considers it sad what any experienced revolutionary could only be pleased with. If hundreds and thousands of workers arrested for strikes and demonstrations turned out not to be members of party organizations, this would only prove that our organizations are good, that we are fulfilling our task – to conceal a more or less narrow circle of leaders and to draw into the movement as wide a mass as possible. The root of the error of those who stand for Martov's formulation lies in the fact that they not only ignore one of the main evils of our party life, but even sanctify this evil. This evil consists in the fact that in an atmosphere of almost universal political discontent, under conditions of complete secrecy of work, under conditions where most of the activity is concentrated in narrow secret circles and even private meetings, it is extremely difficult, almost impossible, for us to distinguish between those who talk and those who work. There is hardly another country where the confusion of these two categories is so common, bringing such darkness, confusion, and harm as in Russia. Not only in the intelligentsia, but also among the working class, we suffer terribly from this evil, and Comrade Martov's formulation legalizes this evil. This formulation inevitably tends to make everyone and anyone a party member; Comrade Martov himself had to admit this with a reservation – "if you want, yes," he said. It is precisely this that we do not want! It is for this reason that we so resolutely rise against Martov's formulation. Better that ten working people do not call themselves party members (real workers do not chase after titles!) than that one talker has the right and opportunity to be a party member. This is the principle that seems to me irrefutable and which compels me to fight against Martov. It was objected to me that we do not give party members any rights, so there can be no abuses. Such an objection is completely unfounded: if we do not specify what particular special rights a party member receives, note that we do not provide any indications of restrictions on the rights of party members either. First of all. And secondly, and this is the main thing, regardless of rights, one must not forget that every party member is responsible for the party and the party is responsible for every member. Under our conditions of political activity, with the embryonic state of real political organization, it would be directly dangerous and harmful to give non-organization members the right of membership and to place responsibility on the party for people who do not belong to the organization (and perhaps do not belong intentionally). Comrade Martov was horrified at the thought that in court, a person who is not a member of a party organization would not be entitled, despite their energetic work, to call themselves a party member. This does not scare me. On the contrary, it would be a serious harm if in court a person who calls themselves a party member, without belonging to any of the party organizations, presented themselves in an undesirable light. It is impossible to refute that such a person worked under the control and guidance of the organization, precisely because of the vagueness of the term. In fact – there can be no doubt – the words "under the control and guidance" will lead to there being neither control nor guidance. The Central Committee will never be able to extend real control over all those who work but do not belong to organizations. Our task is to give actual control to the Central Committee. Our task is to safeguard the firmness, consistency, and purity of our party. We must strive to raise the status and significance of a party member higher, higher, and higher – and for this reason, I am against Martov's formulation.

Checked against the manuscript

3

Lenin insists on including the words about material support, since everyone acknowledges that the party should exist on the means of its members. One cannot refer to moral considerations in the matter of creating a political party.

16. Speeches during the discussion of the party statute. August 4 (17)

1

Lenin finds the first formulation inconvenient because it gives the Council a character of an arbitrator{113}. The Council, however, should not only be an arbitral institution, but also one that coordinates the activities of the Central Committee and the Central Organ. Additionally, he speaks in favor of appointing the fifth member by the Congress. There may be a case where the four members of the Council cannot choose the fifth; we would then be left without a necessary institution.

2

Lenin finds the arguments of Comrade Zasulich unsuccessful{114}. The case she presented is already a struggle; in such a case, no statutes will help. By leaving the choice of the fifth to the four members of the Council, we introduce struggle into the statute. It is necessary to note that the Council not only has the character of a conciliatory institution: for example, two members of the Council, according to the statute, have the right to convene it.

3

Lenin is in favor of keeping this provision; no one can be forbidden from reaching the center with a statement. This is a necessary condition for centralization{115}.

4{116}

Here there are two questions. The first is about a qualified majority, and I am against the proposal to lower it from 4/5 to 2/3. Introducing a motivated protest is unwise, and I am against it{117}. Far more important is the second question – about the right of mutual control of the Central Committee and the Central Organ over co-optation. Mutual agreement of the two centers is a necessary condition for harmony. Here the question is about the split of the two centers. Whoever does not want a split must be concerned with ensuring harmony. From the life of the party, it is known that there have been people who brought about splits. This is a principled, important question, on which the entire future fate of the party may depend.

5

One must not be concerned about harmony. It is known from the life of the party that there have been people who introduced splits. This is a principled question, an important one, on which the entire future fate of the party may depend.

5

If the charter was lame on one leg, Comrade Egorov makes it lame on both{118}. The Council co-opts only in exceptional cases. For both sides, for both centers, full trust is necessary precisely because this is a complex mechanism; without complete mutual trust, successful joint work is impossible. And the entire question of proper joint functioning is closely linked with the right of co-optation. The question of technical difficulties has been overestimated by Comrade Deich.

17. Addition to § 12 of the Party Charter Draft

Co-optation of members of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ is permissible only with the consent of all members of the Party Council.

Submitted on August 5 (18)

18. Speeches during the discussion of the party charter. August 5 (18)

1

I will briefly respond to both objections{119}. Comrade Martov says that I propose unanimous consent of both collegiums for co-optation of members; this is incorrect. The Congress decided not to give the right of veto to each member of the two, perhaps quite large, collegiums, but this does not mean that we cannot give this power to an institution that coordinates the entire activity of the joint work of the two centers. Joint work of the two centers requires complete unanimity and even personal unity, which is possible only with unanimous co-optation. After all, if two members find that co-optation is necessary, they can convene the Council.

2

Martov's amendment contradicts the already adopted point on unanimous co-optation into the CC and CO{120}.

3

Comrade Martov's interpretation is incorrect, for the exception contradicts unanimity{121}. I appeal to the Congress and ask to decide: should Comrade Martov's amendment be put to a vote.

4

In essence, I would not argue with Comrades Glebov and Deich, but I considered it necessary to mention the League in the charter, because, first, everyone knew about the existence of the League, second, to note the representation of the League in the party according to the old charters, third, because all other organizations are in the position of committees, while the League is included to highlight its special position{122}.

19. Draft resolution on the statement of Martynov and Akimov{123}

Recognizing the statement of Comrades Martynov and Akimov as contradicting our concept of members of the Congress and even of members of the party, the Congress proposes to Comrades Akimov and Martynov either to withdraw their statement or to clearly state their withdrawal from the party. Regarding the protocols, the Congress in any case grants them the right to be present at a special session when the protocols are approved.

Written on August 5 (18), 1903

First published in 1927 in Lenin Collection VI

Published from the manuscript

20. Speeches during the discussion of the statement of Martynov and Akimov. August 5 (18)

1

The Bureau discussed the statement of Comrades Martynov and Akimov, submitted by them at the morning session. I will not touch on the justification, although it is incorrect and extremely strange. No one anywhere declared the closure of the Union, and Comrades Martynov and Akimov made an incorrect indirect conclusion from the decision of the Congress on the League. But even the closure of the Union cannot deprive delegates of the right to participate in the work of the Congress. Similarly, the Congress cannot allow refusal to participate in voting. A member of the Congress cannot only approve the protocols and not participate in the rest of its work. The Bureau does not yet propose any resolution and puts this question up for discussion by the Congress. The statement of Martynov and Akimov is extremely abnormal and contradicts the title of a member of the Congress.

2

What a ridiculous and abnormal situation has arisen here. On one hand, we are told that they submit to the decisions of the Congress, and on the other – they want to leave because of the decision on the charter. Having come here as a delegate of an organization recognized by the Organizational Committee, each of us became a member of the Congress. The dissolution of any organization does not annul this title. How should we, the Bureau, proceed during the vote?

Not to count those who left at all – is impossible, for the Congress has already approved its composition. There is one logical conclusion here – to completely leave the ranks of the party. However, the protocols can be approved by specially inviting comrades from the Union, although the Congress has the right to approve its protocols without them.

21. Draft resolution on the exit of the Bund from the RSDLP{124}

Exit of the Bund

The Congress considers the refusal of the Bund delegates to submit to the decision of the majority of the Congress as the exit of the Bund from the RSDLP{125}.

The Congress deeply regrets this step, which, in its conviction, is a major political error of the current leaders of the "Jewish Workers' Union," an error that inevitably must harm the interests of the Jewish proletariat and the workers' movement. The arguments by which the Bund delegates justify their step, the Congress deems, in practical terms, completely unfounded fears and suspicions of insincerity and inconsistency of social-democratic convictions among Russian social democrats, and, in theoretical terms, the result of the unfortunate penetration of nationalism into the social-democratic movement of the Bund.

The Congress expresses the wish and firm conviction of the necessity for complete and closest unity of the Jewish and Russian workers' movements in Russia, unity not only in principle but also organizational, and resolves to take all measures to ensure that the Jewish proletariat is fully informed about the present resolution of the Congress, as well as generally about the attitude of Russian social democracy towards any national movement.

Written on August 5 (18), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Collection XV

Published from the manuscript

22. Addition to Martov's resolution on the exit of the Bund from the RSDLP

The Congress resolves to take all measures to restore the unity of the Jewish and non-Jewish workers' movements and to clarify the stance on the national question of Russian social democracy to the widest possible masses of Jewish workers.

Written on August 5 (18), 1903

Published for the first time, from the manuscript

23. Draft resolution on separate groups

Separate Groups

The Congress expresses its regret regarding the separate existence of such groups of social democrats as "Struggle," "Life," and "Will"{126}. Their isolation cannot help but cause disorganization unacceptable in the party, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, regrettable deviations from social-democratic views and social-democratic tactics towards so-called social-revolutionism (in "Will" and partly in "Struggle" in its agrarian program) or towards Christian socialism and anarchism (in "Life"). The Congress expresses the desire that the mentioned groups, as well as all other groups of persons who consider themselves social democrats, enter the ranks of the united and organized Russian social democracy. The Congress entrusts the Central Committee with gathering the necessary information and making a final decision on the place of the indicated and other separate groups within the party or on the party's attitude towards them.

Written on August 5 or 6 (18 or 19), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Collection XV

Published from the manuscript

24. Draft resolution on work in the military

Military

The Congress draws the attention of all party organizations to the importance of social-democratic propaganda and agitation among the military and recommends directing all efforts to the quickest consolidation and formalization of all existing connections among officers and lower ranks. The Congress considers it desirable to form special groups of social democrats serving in the military so that these groups occupy a defined position in local committees (as branches of committee organizations) or in the central organization (as institutions created directly by the Central Committee and directly subordinate to it).

Written on August 5–10 (18–23), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Collection XV

Published from the manuscript

25. Draft resolution on work among the peasantry

Peasantry

Subordinate to him).

Written August 5-10 (18-23), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XV

Printed from the manuscript

25. Draft Resolution on Work Among the Peasantry

Peasantry

The Congress draws the special attention of all Party members to the importance of developing and strengthening work among the peasantry. It is necessary to present the entire Social-Democratic program in its entirety to the peasantry (and especially to the rural proletariat), explaining the significance of the agrarian program as the first and most immediate demands under the existing system. Efforts should be made to form firmly united groups of Social-Democrats from conscious peasants and educated workers in the countryside, who are in constant contact with the Party committees. It is necessary to counteract the propaganda of the Socialist-Revolutionaries among the peasantry, which sows unprincipledness and reactionary Narodnik prejudices.

Written August 5-10 (18-23), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XV

Printed from the manuscript

26. Speech on the Election of the Editorial Board of Iskra{127}. August 7 (20)

Comrades! Martov's speech was so strange that I feel compelled to rise up decisively against his formulation of the question. I remind you first of all that Martov's protest against the very election of the editorial board, and his and his comrades' refusal to participate in the editorial board to be elected, is in glaring contradiction with what we all (including Martov) said when the Party organ was recognized as Iskra. We were then told that such recognition had no meaning, for one could not affirm a title without affirming the editorial board, and Comrade Martov himself explained to the objectors that this was not true, that a definite political direction was being affirmed, that the composition of the editorial board was not predetermined, and that the election of editors was still to come, according to point 24 of our agenda{128}. Therefore, Comrade Martov had absolutely no right now to speak of limiting the recognition of Iskra. Therefore, Martov's words, that his entering the trio without his old comrades on the editorial board would put a stain on his entire political reputation, only testify to a striking confusion of political concepts. To adopt this point of view means to deny the right of the Congress to new elections, to any change in the composition of officials, to a reshuffle of the bodies authorized by it. How much confusion such a formulation of the question introduces can be seen even from the example of the Organizing Committee. We expressed full trust and gratitude to it, but at the same time, we ridiculed the very idea that the Congress did not have the right to look into the internal relations of the OC, and at the same time, we dismissed any assumption that the old composition of the OC would constrain us in an "uncomradely" reshuffle of this composition and in forming a new CC from any elements. I repeat once again: in Comrade Martov's views on the admissibility of electing part of the former collegium, there is a great confusion of political concepts.

I will now turn to the question of the "two trios"{129}. Comrade Martov said that the whole project of the two trios was the work of one person, one member of the editorial board (namely, my project), and that no one else was responsible for it. I categorically protest against this statement and declare that it is directly incorrect. I remind Comrade Martov that several weeks before the Congress, I directly told him and another member of the editorial board that I would demand free election of the editorial board at the Congress. I abandoned this plan only because Comrade Martov himself proposed to me a more convenient plan for the election of the two trios instead. I then formulated this plan on paper and sent it first to Comrade Martov, who returned it to me with corrections—here it is, this very copy, where Martov's corrections are written in red ink{130}. A whole series of comrades saw this project dozens of times, all the members of the editorial board saw it, and no one ever formally protested against it. I say "formally," for Comrade Axelrod, if I am not mistaken, once threw out a private remark about his lack of sympathy for this project. But, of course, for the editorial board to protest, a private remark was not enough. The editorial board rightly adopted a formal decision even before the Congress to invite a certain seventh person so that, if necessary, to make a collective statement at the Congress, a firm decision could be reached, which was often not achieved in our six-member collegium. And all the members of the editorial board know that supplementing the six with a seventh permanent member of the editorial board had long been a subject of our constant concern. Thus, I repeat, the solution in the form of the election of the two trios was a completely natural solution, which I introduced into my project with the knowledge and consent of Comrade Martov. And Comrade Martov, together with Comrade Trotsky and others, defended this system of electing the two trios many, many times at a whole series of private meetings of the Iskra supporters. Correcting Martov's statement about the private nature of the two trios plan, I do not, however, mean to touch upon the same Martov's statements about the "political significance" of the step we took by not confirming the old editorial board. On the contrary, I fully and unconditionally agree with Comrade Martov that this step has great political significance—only not the kind he attributes to it. He said that this is an act of struggle for influence over the CC in Russia. I will go further than Martov. The struggle for influence was, until now, the entire activity of Iskra as a private group, but now the issue is greater, it is about the organizational consolidation of influence, not just the struggle for it. The extent to which we politically diverge from Comrade Martov is evident from the fact that he accuses me of this desire to influence the CC, while I consider it a merit that I sought and seek to consolidate this influence organizationally. It turns out that we are even speaking different languages! What would be the point of all our work, all our efforts, if their culmination was the same old struggle for influence, and not the complete acquisition and consolidation of influence. Yes, Comrade Martov is quite right: the step taken is undoubtedly a major political step, testifying to the choice of one of the directions now outlined in the further work of our Party. And I am not at all frightened by the terrible words about a "state of siege in the Party," about "exceptional laws against individual persons and groups," etc. In relation to unstable and wavering elements, we not only can, but must create a "state of siege," and our entire Party statute, our entire centralism now confirmed by the Congress, is nothing but a "state of siege" for the numerous sources of political vagueness. Special, even if exceptional, laws are needed precisely against vagueness, and the step taken by the Congress correctly outlined the political direction, creating a solid basis for such laws and such measures.

Printed from the manuscript

27. Speech on the Election of the Central Committee of the Party. August 7 (20)

We have been reproached for the existence of a compact majority. This in itself is not a bad thing. If a compact majority has formed here{131}, then it has already been weighed whether the elected CC will be capable. One cannot speak of chance. There is a full guarantee. The elections cannot be postponed. Very little time remains. Comrade Martov's proposal to postpone the elections is unfounded. I support Comrade Russakov's{132} proposal.

28. Draft Resolution on Publishing an Organ for Sectarians{133}

Considering that the sectarian movement in Russia, in many of its manifestations, is one of the democratic currents in Russia, the Second Congress draws the attention of all Party members to work among the sectarians with the aim of drawing them to Social-Democracy. As an experiment, the Congress authorizes Comrade V. Bonch-Bruevich to publish, under the control of the editorial board of the Central Organ, a popular newspaper "Among the Sectarians" and instructs the CC and the editorial board of the Central Organ to take the necessary measures for the implementation and success of this publication and to determine all conditions for its proper functioning.

Written August 10 (23), 1903

Printed from the manuscript

The CC should take the necessary measures to ensure the success of this publication and to determine all conditions for its proper functioning.

Written on August 10 (23), 1903

Printed from the manuscript

29. Speech during the discussion of Potresov's (Starover's) resolution on the attitude towards the liberals{134}. August 10 (23)

Starover's resolution will be misunderstood: the student movement and "Osvobozhdenie" are two different things. An identical attitude towards them would be harmful. Struve's name is too well-known, and the workers know him. Comrade Starover thinks that a specific directive should be given; in my opinion, we need a specific principled and tactical approach.

30. Speech on the question of the attitude towards the student youth. August 10 (23)

The term "false friends" is not used only by reactionaries, and we see that such false friends do exist among the liberals and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Precisely these false friends approach the youth with assurances that they do not need to distinguish between various trends. Our main goal, however, is to develop a coherent revolutionary worldview, and the further practical task is to have the youth, as they organize, turn to our committees.