V. I.

Lenin

May 31 (June 13) and June 5 (18), 1904 [1]

Speeches Concerning An Inter-Party Conference, May
31 (June 13)

I

Does the Council wish to have the Polish Socialist Party
proposal read out? (Plekhanov: “Yes, it would be desirable.”) “The Polish Socialist Party has always
believed in the need for close association between the Polish
and Russian social ist camps with a view to making the struggle
against the common enemy—tsarism—more effective. Up to the present this was unfortunately not possible, with
resultant inconveniences for both sides in their practical
work. We there fore warmly welcome the re-establishment of the
R.S.D.L.P. as a united whole, with central institutions
responsible for all its activities, since this allows the first
step to be taken towards what has long been our purpose. We
realise that the prolonged absence of regular contacts between
you and ourselves has given rise to a number of mutual misunderstandings and dissonances, which must be settled and
smoothed out before the final framing of the desired agreement
can be undertaken. Accordingly, our Central Working Committee
has decided to propose to you that a conference should be held
abroad at an early date at which delegates from your Party could
discuss with three delegates of ours the possibilities and
conditions for joint struggle by our two parties. The results of
this conference could serve as the basis for an agreement to be
concluded between the appropriate bodies of the B.S.D.L.P. and
the P.S.P. Hoping for an early reply, etc.”

In reply to this letter the Central Committee asked the
P.S.P. for fuller particulars as to the nature of the conference, the exact bodies to be represented, and the proposed time
and place. It also inquired how the P.S.P. would feel about having the
Polish Social-Democrats take part.

The P.S.P. replied with the following letter:

“Dear Comrades, “We were somewhat surprised by your letter, for it seems to us
that the answers to the questions it asks are already contained in our
original letter. The conference we propose would be of a preliminary
nature, to explore the possibilities of closer association between
our parties; it could, for example, work out the draft of a permanent
agreement.

“Our three delegates to negotiate with you have been appointed by
the Central Committee, which is between congresses the highest
authority in our Party. Presumably the delegates you appoint to
negotiate with us will represent the corresponding authority in your
Party, or whatever body the powers to conduct such negotiations are
vested in.

“We would propose meeting at some place abroad. The actual
spot is a secondary matter, though Vienna would suit us
best. The delegates have been appointed by our Central Committee
to negotiate with your Party, and not the Social- Democratic
Party of Poland and Lithuania, and there can therefore be no
question of delegates from the latter participating.”

Those are all the documents relating to the P.S.P. overtures to
our Party. I for my part would say that, with the
P.S.P. refusing to invite delegates from the Polish
Social-Democrats to the projected conference, we cannot accept
its proposal. As to the proposal of the Finns, we could consent
in principle to a preliminary conference. Accordingly I think
our resolution could be formulated as follows:

“The R.S.D.L.P. consents in principle to a preliminary conference
with representatives of various revolutionary and opposition parties,
with a view to reaching agreement on certain specific issues.”

As regards Comrade Martov’s proposal for a prior conference of
Social-Democratic groups only, I doubt whether this is advisable,
because besides the Bund, the Polish Social-Democrats, and the
Proletariat

Party, [2] there are other Social-Democratic organisations in the border regions, which it
would hardly be convenient to invite to the conference, while if not
invited they might be offended.

II

Comrades Axelrod and Martov say the Letts have two groups. (Martov: “Two trends.”) The way it comes
out now is that we are to hold a conference with the one that
gravitates towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Osvobozhdeniye and inclines towards terrorism (according to Comrade Axelrod), while the other group is very
weak. We must find out more exactly how matters stand. If they
are merely two trends, that is no concern of ours and we are
joining forces with what is the Lettish Party. But if they are
distinct groups, we may land in a very awkward position by
choosing the wrong one. We must first find out both their
strength and their complexion. As for the Caucasus, it should, 1
think, be brought into the conference. For that we must find out
if there are Social-Democratic organisations there which could
make common cause with us.

Speeches On Co-Optation to the Committees and the Right of the Central Committee To Appoint
New Members to Them, June 5 (18)

I

In this resolution, irrespective of its practical conclusion, I
would suggest altering the beginning. Since we cannot pass any
decisions on the rights and wrongs of the Moscow dispute for
lack of sufficient information, the resolution ought not to be
linked up either with any disputes there have been. I would in
general propose that where one part of an organisation lodges a
complaint against the other, the other part should be notified,
so as to have a chance to put its case too. For example, as
regards the Moscow dispute things were not as Comrade Martov
says they were. According to my information, three out of the
five members wanted to co-opt two new members to the committee,
and the rest were willing, only provided another member from
their side was co-opted too, which would still have maintained—and even strengthened—the predominant
trend. It was only the majority’s categorical refusal to agree
to this combination that made the Moscow comrades want to invoke
the Rules. And while one Central Committee member was in favour
of the committee majority’s interpretation of the Rules, another
Central Committee representative opposed it.

I say this only by way of a statement of fact and to have it recorded
in the minutes. And so, I move that the beginning of Comrade Martov’s
resolution be altered so that it will lay down a definite ruling to operate henceforth, in the
future. As for the ruling itself, I would suggest that all
fractions be treated as a full unit.

II

This incident goes to show anew that in cases where one side
lodges a complaint, the other side should at once be notified,
so that it may offer its explanations. Only in that case shall
we be in a position to adopt appropriate decisions on the
disputes. According to our information, what happened was
this. The Nikolayev Committee consisted of people belonging to
the majority. Then all of them were arrested. Thereupon the
Central Committee, or possibly a representative of it, appointed three members to the Nikolayev Committee, among them
two who had not previously been in Nikolayev and one who had
already worked there before and possessed numerous contacts. It
may be that at the moment of the arrests this third one was not
in Nikolayev either. When the Central Committee’s candidates
arrived in Nikolayev, they already found there two minority
members who wanted to work, and agreed to admit them. So the
fact is that the three co-opted the two. That is how it was. To
verify it, inquiries can be made of the committee members, if
they have not been arrested yet.... (Mar toy:
“They already have....”)

According to our information, the facts are quite different
from what has been represented, and to my way of thinking the
two majority members were right in acting as they did. The place
where the candidates named by the Central Committee happen to
be cannot serve as a reason for not admitting them. I again
suggest passing a resolution to the effect that in cases of
complaints both sides shall be given a hearing. As to the actual
point at issue, I disagree with Comrade Martov’s resolution in
principle. The Central Committee cannot be deprived of the
right to appoint its own candidates to the committees. Of
course, all authority is open to abuse, but to combat that evil
there is control—in the form of the press, for example, or
action by the Council, etc. I join in the view that in the
co-optation of new members the question of group distinctions
should not be allowed to have any place. I do not know so far of a single case of the
Central Committee forcing anyone upon a committee. All this talk of
forcible appointment causes it to be very careful, and sheer tact
restrains it from exercising its right.

III

There are a few comments I want to make. First of all I should
like to point out that the claim that two of the candidates were
sent to the Nikolayev Committee from Odessa or even by the
Odessa Committee is based on some sort of misunderstanding. Most
likely there was a Central Committee agent in Odessa, who duly
took steps to re-establish the Nikolayev Committee after the
arrests. At any rate we know quite definitely that these three
people were appoint ed to it by the Central Committee, not
anybody else. I say this in passing, so as to remove any
possible misunderstandings on this score. Secondly, Comrade
Martov’s statement that he too does not know of a single case of
the Central Committee forcing its candidates on local committees
is very important, particularly as the editorial board, through
its agents, has full information about what goes on in the
Party. As to the young woman who Comrade Martov says demanded to
be co-opted to the Moscow Committee without a ballot, that
example can hardly carry any weight, for we do not know either
the circumstances of the case or the extent of her authorisation; and anyway, she was in fact admitted to the
committee only after a ballot. Thirdly, I also think it very
important to note Comrade Martov’s remark that in normal
conditions the Central Committee’s power of influencing the
composition of the local committees cannot be restricted. It
has been said here that people accuse the Central Committee of
artificially “manufacturing” the committees; but then, accusations of a similar nature are not infrequently to be
heard against the Central Organ. And since, as acknowledged by
Comrade Martov himself, there are in reality no such cases, and
the whole thing comes down to no more than the possibility of them, I don’t think that is a sufficient
reason for restricting the Central Committee’s powers, particularly as in practice the mere fact of such an approach
will arouse a certain resentment. I am quite ready to concur in Comrade Martov’s opinion that the two members of the Nikolayev
Committee whom he speaks of are very valuable revolutionary
workers—but then, they were , in point of fact, admitted
to the committee.

In general, one may say that, precisely because of the various
imputations that have been current recently, the Central Committee has
acted with the greatest circumspection and has been in no haste to
avail itself of its right to appoint new members to the local
organisations. And I have nothing against these cautious tactics being
formally laid down for a time, by way of precluding and putting an end
to false rumours about the Central Committee.

As regards our point about notifying the other side in cases of a
complaint being lodged, I move the following resolution: “The
Party Council requests Party organisations, in all cases of a
complaint or inquiry being addressed to it by any part of an
organisation, immediately and fully to notify the other part of the
organisation of the contents of that complaint or inquiry, for in
order to settle disputes the Party Council must have a statement of
both sides of the case. The same applies to complaints by one
organisation against another.” [3]

Speech On the Newspaper

Rassvet , [4] June 5 (18)

Unfortunately, there is not very much I can say in defence of
Rassvet . So far this experiment does have to be acknowledged not altogether successful. Bonch-Bruyevich is not
an experienced journalist and was entitled to expect help from
other Party writers. This help was not forthcoming, and under
the circumstances it is not fair to put all the blame for the
failure on him alone. It is only five months so far since the
beginning of publication. The paper may still get on its feet,
particularly if other writers come to its aid. Something has,
after all, been accomplished: contacts among the sects are
broadening, both in America and in Russia. It should also be
mentioned that financially this publication does not tax the
Party’s resources, since it is financed out of other funds. I
think closing it down would be premature and move that the
experiment be continued.