1

In this resolution,{136} independently of its practical conclusion, I would propose to alter its beginning. Since in essence we cannot reach definite decisions regarding the Moscow conflict due to insufficient data, the resolution should not be connected with preceding conflicts. I would propose in general that whenever one part of an organization addresses a complaint about another part, this address should be brought to the attention of the other interested party so as to give it the opportunity to express itself in turn. For example: regarding the Moscow conflict, matters did not stand as comrade Martov states. According to my information, three out of five desired to supplement the committee with two new members, to which the others agreed, but on the condition of introducing another from their side—that is, preserving and even strengthening the predominant orientation. Only a categorical refusal by the majority to agree to this combination prompted the Moscow comrades to appeal to the statute. If one member of the Central Committee spoke in favor of the statute's interpretation by the committee majority, then another representative of the Central Committee spoke against such an interpretation.

I am presenting this solely for the record and for inclusion in the minutes. Accordingly, I propose to alter the beginning of comrade Martov's resolution in the sense that it aims at establishing a certain rule henceforth, for the future. As to the substance, I would express myself in favor of counting every fraction as a unit.

2

The fact cited by Martov is completely new to me.{137} We have quite definite information to the effect that the minority of the Moscow Committee proposed the cooption of one of its candidates, not linking this question, however, with factional differences. Then, speaking to the substance, I would consider it more correct and more in accord with the spirit of the statute to count every fraction as a unit; nevertheless, this question is so insignificant that I agree to vote for comrade Martov's resolution.

3

This incident{138} once again brings to mind the necessity that in case of a complaint from one side, the other side should immediately be notified so that it can provide its own explanations. Only in this way will we have the opportunity to adopt one or another decision concerning the conflicts that arise. According to our information, matters stood as follows. The Nikolaev Committee consisted of representatives of the majority. Then came a complete collapse. After this, the Central Committee, or perhaps its representative, appoints three members to the Nikolaev Committee, including two who had not been in Nikolaev, and one who had already worked there and had a whole series of connections. It is possible that even this one was not present at the moment of the collapse in Nikolaev. When the Central Committee's candidates arrived in Nikolaev, they found two members from the minority there, willing to work, and agreed to accept them. Consequently, three coopted two. That is how matters stand. To verify, one can make inquiries of the committee members, if they have not yet collapsed… (Martov: "They have already collapsed…")

According to our information, these facts present themselves in a completely different light, and it seems to me that the two members of the majority acted correctly. The place of residence of the candidates appointed by the Central Committee cannot serve as a pretext for not accepting them. Once again I propose a resolution that in case of a complaint, both sides should be heard. Furthermore, as to the question of substance, I disagree with comrade Martov's resolution on principle. One cannot deprive the Central Committee of the right to introduce its candidates into committees. Of course, any authority can be abused, but to combat this evil there exists control—in the form, for example, of the press or the activity of the Soviet, etc. I align myself with the opinion that the question of factional nuances in the cooption of new members should have no place. To this day I know of no instance of forcible introduction of members by the Central Committee. All such talk about forcible introduction causes the Central Committee to be very cautious, and simple tact suggests to it not to use its right.

4

I wish to make several remarks. First of all, I would like to point out that the assertion that two candidates were sent to the Nikolaev Committee from Odessa or even by the Odessa Committee is based on some misunderstanding. In all probability, there was a Central Committee agent in Odessa who took measures to restore the Nikolaev Committee after the collapse. In any case, we know quite definitely that three persons were appointed there by none other than the Central Committee. I am saying this, incidentally, to eliminate possible misunderstandings here. Secondly, comrade Martov's statement that he too knows of no instance of the Central Committee forcibly introducing its candidates into local committees is very important—all the more important because the editorial board, through its agents, is fully informed about the situation in the party. As for the young woman who, according to comrade Martov, demanded to be introduced into the Moscow Committee without a ballot, this example can hardly have any significance, since neither the circumstances of the matter nor the degree of authority of this young woman are known to us; and besides, after all, this young woman was accepted into the committee anyway after a ballot. Thirdly, I also consider it very important to note comrade Martov's phrase that under normal conditions it is impossible to limit the influence of the Central Committee on the composition of local committees. If accusations are raised against the Central Committee for artificially "manufacturing" committees, similar complaints are often also directed at the Central Organ. But since in fact there are no such instances, as comrade Martov himself asserts, and the entire question reduces merely to the possibility of such instances, it seems to me that this last motive is still insufficient to restrict the power of the Central Committee, especially since practically such a formulation of the question alone will introduce a certain irritation. I am prepared to concur with comrade Martov's opinion that the two members of the Nikolaev Committee he mentions are very valuable revolutionary activists—but after all, they were accepted into the committee.

In general, one can say that the Central Committee, precisely because of all manner of complaints in recent times, has proceeded with the utmost caution and has not hastened to exercise its right to introduce new members into local organizations. And I have nothing against the careful tactics being formally fixed for a time—in order to avoid and to put an end to false rumors about the Central Committee.

Furthermore, as to the question raised by us concerning the notification of the second interested party in case of a complaint, I propose the following resolution: "The Party Soviet requests that party organizations in all cases where any part of an organization addresses a complaint or question to the Party Soviet immediately communicate the full content of this complaint or question to the other part of the organization, for it is necessary for the Party Soviet to have an exposition of the matter from both sides in order to resolve the dispute. The same request applies also to cases where one organization complains about another organization"{139}.