One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (THE CRISIS IN OUR PARTY)

G. The Party Rules. Comrade Martov’s Draft

From the programme, the Congress passed to the Party Rules (we
leave out the question of the Central Organ, already touched on
above, and the delegates’ reports, which the majority of the
delegates were unfortunately unable to present in a satisfactory
form). Needless to say, the question of the Rules was of
tremendous importance to all of us. After all, Iskra had acted from the very outset not only as a press organ but
also as an organisational nucleus. In an editorial in its fourth issue (“Where To Begin”) Iskra had put
forward a whole plan of organisation, [1]
[1] In his speech on the adoption of Iskra as the Central Organ, Comrade Popov said, inter alia : “I recall the article ’Where To Begin’ in No. 3 or No. 4 of Iskra . Many of the comrades active in Russia found it a tactless article; others thought this plan was fantastic, and the majority [?—probably the majority around Comrade Popov] attributed it solely to ambition” (p. 140). As the reader sees, it is no new thing for me to hear my political views attributed to ambition—an explanation now being rehashed by Comrade Axelrod and Comrade Martov. — Lenin which it pursued
systematically and steadily over a period of three years . When the Second Party Congress adopted
Iskra as the Central Organ, two of the three points of the preamble of the resolution on the subject (p. 147) were
devoted precisely to this organisational plan and to “ Iskra ’s” organisational ideas : its role in
directing the practical work of the Party and the leading part it had played in the work of attaining unity. It is
quite natural, therefore, that the work of Iskra and the entire work of organising the Party, the entire work of
actually restoring the Party, could not be regarded as finished until definite ideas of organisation had
been adopted by the whole Party and formally enacted. This task
was to be performed by the Party’s Rules of Organisation.

The principal ideas which Iskra strove to make the basis of the Party’s organisation amounted essentially to the
following two: first, the idea of centralism, which defined in
principle the method of deciding all particular and detail
questions of organisation; second, the special function of an
organ, a newspaper, for ideological leadership—an idea which took into account the temporary and special requirements
of the Russian Social-Democratic working-class movement in the
existing conditions of political slavery, with the initial base of operations for the revolutionary
assault being set up abroad. The first idea, as the one matter
of principle, had to pervade the entire Rules; the second, being
a particular idea necessitated by temporary circumstances of
place and mode of action, took the form of a seeming departure from centralism in the proposal to set up two centres , a Central Organ and a Central Committee .
Both these principal Iskra ideas of Party organisation had been developed by me in the Iskra
editorial (No. 4) “Where To

Begin” [2] and in What Is To Be Done? [3] and, finally, had been explained in detail, in a form that was
practically a finished set of Rules, in A Letter to a Comrade . [4]

Actually, all that remained was the work of formulating the paragraphs of the
Rules, which were to embody just those ideas if the recognition
of Iskra was not to be merely nominal, a mere conventional phrase. In the preface to the new edition of my
Letter to a Comrade I have already pointed out that a simple comparison of the Party Rules with that pamphlet is
enough to establish the complete identity of the ideas of
organisation contained in the two. [5]

A propos of the work of formulating Iskra ’s ideas of organisation in the Rules, I must deal with a certain
incident mentioned by Comrade Martov. “. . . A statement of
fact,” said Martov at the League Congress (p. 58), "will show
you how far my lapse into opportunism on this paragraph [i.e.,
Paragraph 1] was unexpected by Lenin. About a month and a half
or two months before the Congress I showed Lenin my draft, in
which Paragraph 1 was formulated just in the way I proposed it
at the Congress. Lenin objected to my draft on the ground that
it was too detailed, and told me that all he liked was the idea
of Paragraph 1—the definition of Party membership—which he would incorporate in his Rules with
certain modifications, because he did not think my formulation
was a happy one. Thus, Lenin had long been acquainted with my
formulation, he knew my views on this subject. You thus see that
I came to the Congress with my visor up, that I did not conceal
my views. I warned him that I would oppose mutual co-optation,
the principle of unanimity in cases of co-optation to the
Central Committee and the Central Organ, and so on."

As regards the warning about opposing mutual co-optation, we
shall see in its proper place how matters really stood. At
present let us deal with this “open visor” of Martov’s Rules. At
the League Congress, recounting from memory this episode of his
unhappy draft (which he himself withdrew at the Congress because
it was an unhappy one, but after the Congress, with his
characteristic consistency, again brought out into the light of
day), Martov, as so often happens, forgot a good deal and
therefore again got things muddled. One would have thought there
had already been cases enough to warn him against quoting
private conversations and relying on his memory (people
involuntarily recall only what is to their advantage!)—nevertheless, for want of any other, Comrade
Martov used unsound material. Today even Comrade Plekhanov is
beginning to imitate him—evidently, a bad example is contagious.

I could not have “liked” the “idea” of Paragraph 1 of Martov’s
draft, for that draft contained no idea that came up at
the Congress. His memory played him false. I have been fortunate
enough to find Martov’s draft among my papers, and in it
“ Paragraph 1 is formulated not in the way he proposed it at the Congress ”! So much for the “open
visor”!

Paragraph is clearly evident from this juxtaposition that there is no
idea in Martov’s draft, but only an empty phrase . That Party members must work under the control and
direction of the organs of the Party goes without saying; it cannot be otherwise , and only those talk
about it who love to talk without saying anything, who love to
drown “Rules” in a flood of verbiage and bureaucratic formulas
(that is, formulas useless for the work and supposed to be
useful for display). The idea of Paragraph 1 appears only when the question is asked: can the organs of the Party exercise actual direction over Party members
who do not belong to any of the Party organisations ? There is not even a trace of this idea in
Comrade Martov’s draft. Consequently, I could not have been acquainted with the “views” of Comrade Martov “on this
subject”, for in Comrade Martov’s draft there are no views on this subject. Comrade Martov’s statement of fact
proves to be a muddle .

About Comrade Martov, on the other hand, it does have to be said
that from my draft “he knew my views on this subject” and did
not protest against them, did not reject them, either on the
editorial board, although my draft was shown to everyone two or
three weeks before the Congress, or in talking to the delegates,
who were acquainted only with my draft. More, even at the Congress , when I moved my draft

Rules [6]
[6] Incidentally, the Minutes Committee, in Appendix XI, has published the draft Rules “ moved at the Congress by Lenin ” (p. 393). Here the Minutes Committee has also muddled things a little. It has confused my original draft (see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 476-78.— Ed.) , which was shown to all the delegates (and to many before the Congress), with the draft moved at the Congress , and published the former under the guise of the latter. Of course, I have no objection to my drafts being published, even in all their stages of preparation , but there was no need to cause confusion. And confusion has been caused, for Popov and Martov (pp. 154 and 157) criticised formulations in the draft I actually moved at the Congress which are not in the draft published by the Minutes Committee (cf. p. 394, Paragraphs 7 and 11). With a little more care, the mistake could easily have been detected simply by comparing the pages I mention. — Lenin and defended
them before the election of the Rules Committee, Comrade Martov distinctly stated: “I associate myself with
Comrade Lenin’s conclusions. Only on two points do I disagree with him ” (my italics)—on the mode of
constituting the Council and on unanimous co-optation (p. 157). Not a word was yet said about any difference
over Paragraph 1.

In his pamphlet on the state of siege, Comrade Martov saw fit to
recall his Rules once more, and in great detail. He assures us
there that his Rules, to which, with the exception of certain
minor particulars, he would be prepared to subscribe even now
(February 1904—we cannot say how it will be three months
hence), “quite clearly expressed his disapproval of hypertrophy
of centralism” (p. iv). The reason he did not submit this draft
to the Congress, Comrade Martov now explains, was, firstly, that
“his Iskra training had imbued him with disdain for
Rules” (when it suits Comrade Martov, the word Iskra means for him, not a narrow circle spirit, but the most
steadfast of trends! It is a pity, however, that Comrade
Martov’s Iskra training did not imbue him in three years with disdain for the anarchistic phrases by which the
unstable mentality of the intellectual is capable of justifying
the violation of Rules adopted by common consent). Secondly,
that, don’t you see, he, Comrade Martov, wanted to avoid
“introducing any dissonance into the tactics of that basic
organisational nucleus which Iskra constituted”. Wonderfully consistent, isn’t it? On a question of
principle regarding an opportunist formulation of
Paragraph 1 or hypertrophy of centralism, Comrade Martov was so afraid of any dissonance (which is terrible only from the
narrowest circle point of view) that he did not set forth his
disagreement even to a nucleus like the editorial board! On the
practical question of the composition of the central bodies, Comrade Martov appealed for the assistance of the Bund
and the Rabocheye Dyelo -ist! against the vote of the majority of the Iskra organisation (that real basic organisational nucleus ). The “dissonance” in his phrases,
which smuggle in the circle spirit in defence of the quasi-editorial board only to repudiate the “circle spirit” in
the appraisal of the question by those best qualfied to
judge—this dissonance Comrade Martov does not notice. To
punish him, we shall quote his, draft Rules in full, noting for our part what views and what hypertrophy they reveal [7] :

"Draft of Party Rules.—I. Party membership.—1) A member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is one who,
accepting its programme, works actively to accompish its aims
under the control and direction of the organs of the
Party.—2) Expulsion of a member from the Party for conduct
incompatible with the interests of the Party shall be decided by
the Central Committee. [The sentence of expulsion, giving the
reasons, shall be preserved in the Party files and shall be
communicated, on request, to every Party committee. The Central
Committee’s decision to expel a member may be appealed against
to the Congress on the demand of two or more committees.]" I
shall indicate by square brackets the provisions in Martov’s
draft which are obviously meaningless, failing to contan not only “ideas”, but even any definite conditions or
requirements—like the inimitable specification in the “Rules” as to where exactly a sentence of expulsion is
to be preserved, or the provision that the Central Committee’s
decision to expel a member (and not all its decision in
general?) may be appealed against to the Congress. This, indeed,
is hypertrophy of verbiage, or real bureaucratic formalism,
which frames superfluous, patently useless or red-tapist, points
and paragraphs. “II. Local Committees.—3) In its local work, the Party is represented by the Party committees” (how new
and clever!). "4) [As Party committees are recognised all those
existing at the time of the Second Congress and represented at
the Congress.]—5) New Party committees, in addition to those mentioned in Paragraph 4, shall be appointed by the
Central Committee [which shall either endorse as a committee the
existing membership of the given local organisation, or shall
set up a local committee by reforming the latter].—6) The
committees may add to their membership by means of co-optation.—7) The Central Committee has the right to
augment the membership of a local committee with such numbers of
comrades (known to it) as shall not exceed one-third of the
total membership of the committee." A perfect sample of
bureaucracy. Why not exceeding one-third? What is the purpose of
this? What is the sense of this restriction which restricts
nothing, seeing that the augmenting may be repeated over and over again? "8) [In the event of a local committee
falling apart or being broken up by persecution" (does this mean
that not all the members have been arrested?), "the Central
Committee shall re-establish it.]" (Without regard to Paragraph
7? Does not Comrade Martov perceive a similarity between
Paragraph 8 and those Russian laws on orderly conduct which
command citizens to work on weekdays and rest on holidays?) "9)
[A regular Party Congress may instruct the Central Committee to
reform the composition of any local committee if the activities
of the latter are found incompatible with the interests of the
Party. In that event the existing committee shall be deemed
dissolved and the comrades in its area of operation exempt from subordination [8] to it.]” The provision contained in this
paragraph is as highly useful as the provision contained to this
day in the Russian law which reads: “Drunkenness is forbidden to
all and sundry.” "10) [The local Party committees shall direct
all the propagandist, agitational, and organisational activities
of the Party in their localities and shall do all in their power
to assist the Central Committee and the Central Organs of the
Party in carrying out the general Party tasks entrusted to
them.]" Phew! What in the name of all that’s holy is the purpose
of this? "11) [The internal arrangements of a local organisation, the mutual relations between a committee and the
groups subordinate to it" (do you hear that, Comrade Axelrod?),
"and the limits of the competence and autonomy" (are not the
limits of competence the same as the limits of autonomy?) "of
these groups shall be determined by the committee itself and
communicated to the Central Committee and the editorial board of
the Central Organs.]" (An omission: it is not stated where these
communications are to be filed.) "12) [All groups subordinate to
committees, and individual Party members, have the right to
demand that their opinions and recommendations on any subject be
communicated to the Central Committee of the Party and its
Central Organs.]—13) The local Party committees shall contribute from their revenues to the funds of the Central
Committee such sums as the Central Committee shall assign to
their share.—III. Organisations for the Purpose of
Agitation in Languages Other than Russian.—14) [For the
purpose of carrying on agitation in any non-Russian language and
of organising the workers among whom such agitation is carried
on, separate organisations may be set up in places where such
specialised agitation and the setting up of such organisations
are deemed necessary.]—15) The question as to whether such
a necessity exists shall be decided by the Central Committee of
the Party, and in disputed cases by the Party Congress." The
first

part of this paragraph is superfluous in view of subsequent provisions in the Rules, and the second part,
concerning disputed cases, is simply ludicrous. "16) [The local
organisations mentioned in Paragraph 14 shall be autonomous in
their special affairs but shall act under the control of the
local committee and be subordinate to it, the forms of this
control and the character of the organisational relations
between the committee and the special organisation being
determined by the local committee." (Well, thank God! It is now
quite clear that this whole spate of empty words was superfluous.) "In respect of the general affairs of the Party,
such organisations shall act as part of the committee organisation.]—17) [The local organisations mentioned in
Paragraph 14 may form autonomous leagues for the effective
performance of their special tasks. These leagues may have their
own special press and administrative bodies both being under the
direct control of the Central Committee of the Party. The Rules
of these leagues shall be drawn up by themselves, but shall be
subject to endorsement by the Central Committee of the
Party.]—18) [The autonomous leagues mentioned in Paragraph
17 may include local Party committees if, by reason of local
conditions, these devote themselves mainly to agitation in the
given language. Note . While forming part of the autonomous league, such a committee does not cease to be a
committee of the Party.]" (This entire paragraph is extremely
useful and wonderfully clever, the note even more so.) "19) [The
relations of local organisations belonging to an autonomous
league with the central bodies of that league shall be controlled by the local committees.]—20) [The central press
and administrative bodies of the autonomous leagues shall stand
in the same relation to the Central Committee of the Party as
the local Party committees.]—IV. Central Committee and
Press Organs of the Party.—21) [The Party as a whole shall
be represented by its Central Committee and its press organs,
political and theoretical.]—22) The functions of the
Central Committee shall be: to exercise general direction of all
the practical activities of the Party; to ensure the proper
utilisation and allocation of all its forces; to exercise
control over the activities of all sections of the Party, to
supply the local organisations with literature; to organise the
technical apparatus of the Party, to convene Party congresses.—23) The functions of the press organs of the
Party shall be: to exercise ideological direction of Party life,
to conduct propaganda for the Party programme, and to carry out
theoretical and popular elaboration of the world outlook of
Social-Democracy.—24) All local Party committees and autonomous leagues shall maintain direct communication both with
the Central Committee of the Party and with the editorial board
of the Party organs and shall keep them periodically informed of
the progress of the movement and of organisational work in their
localities.—25) The editorial board of the Party press organs shall be appointed at Party congresses and shall function
until the next congress.—26) [The editorial board shall be
autonomous in its internal affairs] and may in the interval
between congresses augment or alter its membership, informing
the Central Committee in each case.—27) All statements issued by the Central Committee or receiving its sanction shall
on the demand of the Central Committee, be published in the
Party

organ.—28) The Central Committee, by agreement with the editorial board of the Party organs, shall set up special
writers’ groups for various forms of literary work.—29) The
Central Committee shall be appointed at Party congresses and
shall function until the next congress. The Central Committee
may augment its membership by means of co-optation, without
restriction as to numbers, in each case informing the editorial
board of the Central Organs of the Party.—V. The Party
Organisation Abroad.—30) The Party organisation abroad shall carry on propaganda among Russians living abroad and
organise the socialist elements among them. It shall be headed
by an elected administrative body.—31) The autonomous leagues belonging to the Party may maintain branches abroad to
assist in carrying out their special tasks. These branches shall
constitute autonomous groups within the general organisation
abroad.—VI. Party Congresses.—32) The supreme Party authority is the Congress.—33) [The Party Congress shall
lay down the Programme, Rules and guiding principles of the
activities of the Party, it shall control the work of all Party
bodies and settle disputes arising between them.]—34) The
right to be represented at congresses shall be enjoyed by: a)
all local Party committees; b) the central administrative bodies
of all the autonomous leagues belonging to the Party, c) the
Central Committee of the Party and the editorial board of its
Central Organs; d) the Party organisation abroad.—35)
Mandates may be entrusted to proxies, but no delegate shall hold
more than three valid mandates. A mandate may be divided between
two representatives. Binding instructions are forbidden.—36) The Central Committee shall be empowered to
invite to the congress in a deliberative capacity comrades whose
presence may be useful.—37) Amendments to the Programme or
Rules of the Party shall require a two-thirds majority; other
questions shall be decided by a simple majority.—38) A congress shall be deemed properly constituted if more than half
the Party committees existing at the time of it are represented.—39) Congresses shall, as far as possible, be
convened once every two years [If for reasons beyond the control
of the Central Committee a congress cannot be convened within
this period, the Central Committee shall on its own responsibility postpone it.]"

Any reader who, by way of an exception, has had the patience to
read these so-called Rules to the end assuredly will not expect
me to give special reasons for the following conclusions. First
conclusion: the Rules suffer from almost incurable dropsy. Second conclusion: it is impossible to discover in these
Rules any special shade of organisational views evincing a
disapproval of hypertrophy of centralism. Third conclusion:
Comrade Martov acted very wisely indeed in concealing from the
eyes of the world (and withholding from discussion at the
Congress) more than 38/39 of his Rules. Only it is rather odd
that à propos of this concealment he should talk about an open visor.

---
Notes:
[1] Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[2]
See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 13-24.— Ed .

[3]
See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 347-529.— Ed .

[4]
See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 231-52.— Ed .

[5]
See pp. 132-33 of this volume.— Ed .

[6]
Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[7]
I might mention that unfortunately I could not find the first variant
of Comrade Martov’s draft, which consisted of some forty-eight paragraphs
and suffered even more from “hypertrophy” of worthless formalism. — Lenin

[8]
We would draw Comrade
Axelrod’s attention to this word. Why this is terrible! Here are
the roots of that “Jacobinism” which goes to the length even
. . . even of altering the composition of an editorial board
.... — Lenin