V. I.

Lenin

Session of the Council of the R.S.D.L.P. (January 1904)

January 15-17 (28-30), 1904

8

Speeches On the Publication of Party Literature, January 17 (30)

8I

Ishall begin from the end. Comrade Martov has misunderstood
the Central Committee’s letters, particularly on the subject
of funds, and given a wrong interpretation of them. He leaves
out of account that these letters were a sequel to a conversation which he, Martov, had with Travinsky. Martov
himself wrote about the purport of that conversation in these
terms: “To Comrade Travinsky, as to yourself, I mentioned 5,000-6,000 as the expected minimum of what could
over a year be obtained for the Party from the two sources to which the members of the editorial board
have access." I must state that Travinsky spoke of this being
made available as a lump sum, not over the course of a year,
so that there is some misunderstanding. The fact is that we
counted on these 5,000 and apportioned funds between the
Russian and the foreign treasury accordingly.

Comrade Martov said that both the financial sources (incidentally, how greatly the editorial board in its
irritation misrepresents the matter is evident from the fact
that in letters to the Central Committee Martov actually used the
word “moneybags” in quotation marks and blamed us for this expression, when in reality it was his own
expression, not ours)—I repeat, Comrade Martov said that
both the financial sources were known to us. Yes, they are
known, but the point is not whether they are known, but
whether they are accessible. I know that one of these sources
could provide up to

10,000 a year , the other up to 40,000, but that does not
help, for to me they are inaccessible. And it is their conversion from accessible into inaccessible sources that
constitutes the cutting off of funds, which is an absolutely
impermissible method of waging the struggle in the Party.

Thereis also the fact of the recent arrests, involving people
who were due to obtain money in Russia. We have no money here,
getting any from Russia will be a long business, and it will
cost hundreds of rubles for the dispatch of special messengers. Some money will be coming through eventually, of
course, barring further mishaps, but not soon, nor, in all
likelihood, really enough.

Thatthere were threats in the Central Committee’s letter is
quite untrue. There was no question of any threatening, for
what the Central Committee was concerned for all along was the
publication of the Central Organ. The point about addresses
Comrade Vasilyev will deal with. According to our information,
the editorial board is sending agents of its own to
Russia. This implies a separate Central Organ treasury, which
means a de facto split in the Party. It is contrary to the Rules, which require that the Central Committee should
be kept fully informed and that all funds and all organisation of practical activities should be wholly
concentrated in its hands. The Central Organ is grossly
violating the Rules by setting up its own centre of travelling
agents, its own centre of practical leadership and intervention in the affairs of the committees. The existence
of these agents, contrary to the Party Rules, introduces
direct disorganisation into the work. The Central Committee
cannot and will not be answerable for order in the conduct of
affairs when disorder is systematically introduced by the
Central Organ itself. Here are letters from Odessa and Baku
which illustrate how the matter stands. The Odessa letter, of
December 24, says:

"We had a visit yesterday from

Zagorsky, [1] who announced that he had been delegated by the editorial board to inform the committees of
the latest developments, the negotiations, the present position in the
editorial board and the editors’ request to send in material and
contributions and to commission leaflets or suggest topics for
leaflets of general interest, and also for pamphlets, to issue which a
special group has been set up. He repeated all the old stuff and worked hard to prove the minority right, nobleminded and
’loyal’. The committee heard him out, then asked some questions, one of them being whether the Central Committee was
informed of his mission; whereupon, instead of giving a
straight yes or no, he proceeded to exonerate himself and
prove that the editorial board had every right to approach the
committees without the Central Committee’s knowledge. He
insisted that his communication should be discussed and a
resolution drawn up there and then, in his presence; to which
the committee replied that it took note of the communication,
but that as to discussing it and passing a resolution, it
would do that when it saw fit, while now it was going on to
its regular business." [2] And here is what we read in a letter of January 1 from Baku: “The Baku
Committee. has received a visit from

Martyn, [3] who came with a com  munication from the Central Organ and with the
undisguised object of sowing distrust in the Central
Committee. When, at the end of his statement, he inquired as
to the committee’s opinion, the answer he got was: The
Central Committee has our implicit confidence. And when he
retorted that he would like to know their attitude to the
Central Organ, he was told without any mincing of words that
after what they had just heard (the statement of his mission)
confidence in the latter ’had been shaken’." [4]

Equallyimproper and against the rules of secrecy is it that
the Central Organ gives information on the composition of the
Central Committee not only to the committees, but to private
individuals (as for instance to Druyan, as the Central
Committee pointed out in a letter to the Central Organ). As to
“waging war”, the fact is that Comrade Martov here confuses two totally different things. In the sphere of
positive work and procuring funds any warfare (boycotts and
the like) is most certainly impermissible, and the Central
Committee has never engaged in any such thing. In the sphere
of literature, however, “war   is permissible, and no one has ever restricted the Central Organ’s polemics. You
vill recall that even at a much earlier period the Central
Committee expressed complete readiness to publish both Dan’s
letter on the slogans of the opposition and Martov’s pamphlet
Once More in the Minority , though both contain attacks upon itself.

The Central Committee has never once caused any delay in
issuing the Central Organ’s publications. Nor has there been a
single case of the Central Committee improperly or unfairly
distributing literature, of its “discriminating” against the minority committees. On the contrary, Travinsky
has here testified and proved that the minority committees
were first of all generously supplied; Comrade Martov has had
to admit that in this respect the Central Committee’s activities are above reproach. As to refusing people Party
literature, the matter stands as follows. Every Party member without exception (if he inspires confidence as regards
secrecy precautions, etc.) is given literature free to transport to Russia and there hand over to the Central
Committee agents for distribution. But when people have the
hardihood to call themselves members of the Party and at the
same time refuse to hand over literature to the Central
Committee agents for general distribution, then naturally the
Central Committee cannot (and has not even the right to) deal
with such individuals. And if these people afterwards buy up
literature for their separate parochial enterprises which
disorganise the common work, so much the worse for them.

---
Notes:
[1]
Zagorsky —pseudonym of the Menshevik V. N. Krokhmal.

[2]
Lenin is quoting a letter of December 24, 1903 (January 6, 1904), from
I. K. Lalayants to N. K. Krupskaya.

[3]
Martyn —pseudonym of the Menshevik V. N. Rozanov.

[4]
Lenin is quoting a letter of January 1 (14), 1904, from
L. B. Krasin to the Foreign Branch of the Central Committee.