1

Will the Soviet permit the reading of a proposal from the P.P.S.? (Plekhanov: "Yes, that is desirable.") "The Polish Socialist Party has always considered it necessary to establish close rapprochement between the Polish and Russian socialist camps for the sake of greater success in the struggle against our common enemy — tsarism. Unfortunately, up to now such rapprochement has not been able to be realized, which has produced a series of inconveniences in practical activity for both sides. In view of this, we joyfully welcome the restoration of the RSDLP as a consolidated whole, with central institutions answerable for all manifestations of its activity, since this gives us the opportunity to take the first step along the path toward the realization of the goal we have long envisioned. It is clear to us that the prolonged absence of proper relations between you and us has produced a whole series of mutual misunderstandings and rough spots, which must be eliminated and smoothed over before we proceed to the final regulation of the desired agreement. Therefore, our Central Workers' Committee has decided to turn to you with a proposal to convene in the near future abroad a conference in which delegates of your party would participate to discuss with our three delegates the foundations and conditions of joint struggle of both parties. The results of this conference could form the basis of a future agreement between the corresponding institutions of the RSDLP and the P.P.S. – In anticipation of a reply at your earliest convenience, etc."

In response to this letter, the CC turned to the P.P.S. with a request to provide more detailed information about what kind of conference it was projecting, composed of representatives of which institutions precisely, when and where. Moreover, it asked to inform us how the P.P.S. would regard the participation in the conference of Polish social-democrats{129}.

The P.P.S. answered us with the following letter:

"Esteemed comrades! Your letter somewhat surprised us, since the answers to the questions it contains are already contained, as it seems to us, in our first letter. The conference proposed by us would have a preparatory character for clarifying the foundations of rapprochement of our parties; it could work out, for example, a draft of a permanent treaty.

On our side, three delegates for negotiations with you have been appointed by the CC, which is in our party the highest instance between congresses. We believe that you will appoint representatives for negotiations with us from the corresponding instance of your party, or from that institution which has the right and corresponding authority to conduct such negotiations.

We propose the congress abroad. The place is a secondary matter, although Vienna would be more convenient for us. Our CC appointed delegates for negotiations with your party, and not with the social-democratic party of Poland and Lithuania, and therefore there can be no question of the participation of delegates from the social-democratic party of Poland and Lithuania."

These are all the documents concerning the P.P.S.'s approach to our party. It seems to me personally that the P.P.S.'s proposal, on condition of its refusal to invite delegates from Polish social-democracy to the conference it projects, cannot be accepted by us. As for the proposal from the Finns, we can respond to it with a principled agreement to a preliminary conference. Therefore, I think our resolution could be formulated as follows:

"The RSDLP in principle agrees to a preliminary conference with representatives of various revolutionary and oppositional parties — for agreement on certain particular questions."

As for Comrade Martov's proposal to arrange a preliminary conference of only social-democratic groups, it hardly seems expedient, because besides the Bund, Polish social-democracy, and the party 'Proletariat'{130}, there are still other social-democratic organizations on the borderlands, the attraction of which would hardly be convenient, and their non-invitation to the conference could offend them.

2

Comrades Axelrod and Martov claim that the Latvians have two factions{131}. (Martov: "Two tendencies.") Now it turns out that we must meet at a conference with the one that leans toward the Socialist-Revolutionaries, toward "Liberation" and gravitates toward terror (according to Comrade Axelrod's words), while the second faction is very weak. It is necessary to find out more precisely how matters stand. If these are only two tendencies, then this does not concern us, and we unite with the existing Latvian party. If, however, there are actual factions there, then we risk finding ourselves in a very awkward position by making an unsuccessful choice. It is necessary to clarify beforehand both the strength and the direction of these factions. As for the Caucasus, in my opinion it is necessary to draw it into the conference. To do this, we should ascertain whether there exist social-democratic organizations there that could work hand in hand with us.

3

I join the proposal to invite both Latvian organizations. As for the Armenian-federalist organization{132}, then after the indications given by Comrade Martov about this organization's proximity to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, there can be no question of inviting it to the conference. Furthermore, it is unclear to me what Comrade Plekhanov's proposal consists in, which insists on the necessity of an immediate reply to the Finns.

4

It seems to me that a requirement for unanimity in deciding questions of a principled character would be superfluous{133}. I cannot imagine that anyone among the social-democrats would not withdraw if some monstrous resolution were adopted at the conference.