V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v16;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

BONAPARTIST TRICKS

[A New Deception of the Party.]

A SEPARATE REPRINT FROM VPERYOD, NO. 13.

Geneva, March 28 (15).
We have just received* the following communication from Tver: On March 9, at a meeting of the periphery together with the Committee, in the presence of a representative of the C.C., the question of the attitude towards the Third Party Congress, which is being convened by the C.C. (appeal to the party of March 4, 1905), was discussed. The resolution of the Tver Committee was read: “Welcoming the call of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. to prepare for the Third Party Congress (resolution of the C.C. of March 4, 1905), the Tver Committee, at its meeting, resolved: to take part in this congress by sending a delegate. In view of the statement made by the Tver Committee to the representative of the Organising Bureau regarding its participation in the congress being organised by this Bureau, the Tver Committee considers it its duty to point out that this statement was made by it in view of the reference of the Bureau’s representative** to the decision of the C.C. to make the congress being organised the regular one.”

The meeting of the periphery did not endorse the resolution of the Tver Committee. By a majority of 7 votes against 1, with 1 abstention, the following resolution was adopted: “Having at last waited for the C.C.’s call to prepare for the immediate convocation of the Third Congress, and welcoming this act of the C.C., we declare that we have already taken part in the party congress being convened by the Organising Bureau. We consider it possible to avail ourselves of the proposals made by the C.C. in its appeal ‘To the Party’ of March 4 only on condition of a formal agreement between the C.C. and the Organising Bureau.” (For—6, against—3). To characterise the mood of the other three who voted against, I will cite another resolution proposed by two comrades who voted against: “Welcoming the C.C.’s decision to convene the Third Party Congress, the local organisation strongly recommends it and the Organising Bureau to come to an agreement with each other. If, however, no agreement is reached, the local organisation reserves its freedom of action.”

The following emerges from this communication: 1) The Tver Committee together with the periphery declared, by the committee’s own admission, its consent to participate in the congress being organised by the Bureau of Committees of the Majority; 2) subsequently, the Tver Committee, under the influence of new promises by the C.C. to convene the Third Congress, withdrew its consent.³ The periphery, however, did not follow the committee and did not renounce participation in the congress already convened by the Bureau; 3) the new promises of the C.C. to convene the Third Congress were given by it in an “appeal to the party of March 4, 1905,” which has not yet been published and is unknown to us.

To appraise the conduct of our celebrated C.C. at its true worth, let us remind the comrades, firstly, of the Party Rules, and, secondly, of certain facts. According to the Rules, the congress is convened by the Council, not by the C.C. Consequently, the C.C. makes promises for which it is not responsible. The C.C. promises to do what it, the C.C., cannot do according to the Rules. The C.C. promises or proposes, but the Council disposes. Party members who are naive enough to listen to the C.C.’s promises and are poorly acquainted with the Rules find themselves duped. How the Council “disposes” is shown by the facts. In its decision of March 8 (N.S.), the Council declares (Iskra, No. 89) that it “in agreement with the majority of party workers” (perhaps including the Tver Committee?) “considers it inexpedient to convene a party congress at such a moment.” Is this not clear enough? Is it not evident from this that the Council is again and again shamelessly deceiving the party, for it has received no “agreement” from the “majority of party workers”?

Further, on March 10 (N.S.), i.e., a day later, the Council adopts another decision, contradicting the previous one (Iskra, No. 91), in which it expresses its consent to send two representatives to the congress convened by the Russian Bureau of Committees of the Majority, but says not a word about consent to the convocation of the congress.

Let us add that the Council not only officially opposes the “expediency” of convening a congress, but at the same time rigs the votes for the congress, increasing the number of supposedly fully-fledged committees and refusing to inform the party when and which new committees it recognises as approved. In the Council’s decision of March 8 (analysed in Vperyod, No. 10), the Polesye, North-Western, Kuban and Kazan Committees are named as competent as of January 1, 1905, whereas the last two committees were not at all approved by the C.C., and the first two were approved* only as of April 1, 1905.

We ask the party members who want not only to be counted but to be party members in fact: do they really intend to tolerate this game? The Council rigs the votes and declares against the congress, while the C.C. gives “promises” about the congress, taking advantage of the naivety of people who do not know that according to the Rules these promises cannot have formal significance! Do not the facts fully confirm what we already wrote in Vperyod, No. 8, February 28/15, concerning the first reports that the C.C. had “agreed” to the congress? Let us note that since then a month has passed, that since then Iskra has issued Nos. 88, 89, 90, 91 and 92 (dated March 10, O.S.), without uttering a single word about this “delicate” question of the C.C.’s “consent” to the congress! We can only repeat what was said in Vperyod, No. 8:

“We have just received a communication which may be interpreted as meaning that the C.C. has agreed to an immediate congress. While in no case guaranteeing the authenticity of this news for the present, we nevertheless consider it plausible. For many months the C.C. fought against the congress, breaking up organisations, boycotting and disorganising committees that declared for the congress. This tactic has suffered a collapse. Now, guided by its rule ‘expediency is everything, formality is nothing,’⁴ the C.C., for the sake of ‘expediency’ (i.e., for the sake of preventing the congress), is ready to declare formally a hundred times that it stands for the immediate convocation of the congress. We hope that neither the Bureau nor the local committees will allow themselves to be fooled by the tricks of the party ‘Shidlovsky Commission.’**”

Postscript. Geneva, March 29 (16). We have to keep a veritable diary of the tricks of the C.C. We have received the following letter from the C.C., sent by it to the Bureau of Committees of the Majority.

“On March 4 the C.C. resolved to address an appeal to the party committees to prepare for the Third Party Congress and for its part decided to take measures to convene the congress as soon as possible.

“Since the success of an all-party congress and the speediest realisation of its convocation depend on the harmonious work of as many comrades and organisations as possible who now declare for the congress, the C.C. appeals to the Organising Bureau of the committees of the so-called ‘majority’ with a proposal for mutual agreement in this matter and for joint work with the aim of the speediest convocation of the congress and the achievement of the fullest representation at it of the *entire* party. March 6, 1905. C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.”****

Truly, the patience and trustfulness of the Russian committees are boundless! Why does the C.C. not publish its appeal of March 4? Why does it utter lying phrases about an “agreement” with the Bureau? The Bureau invited *all* without exception, the *entire* party, to the congress; it did this openly, publicly, more than a month ago. The Bureau long ago replied to the C.C. that *no postponements are now possible*. Whoever wants an all-party congress not merely in words, let him come, that is all. And finally, what significance could an agreement between the Bureau and the C.C. have, when according to the Rules the congress is convened not by the C.C. but by the Council, which has declared against the congress?

It is to be hoped that now everyone will see the double game of the Council and the C.C. And the Bureau, we are confident, will not retreat one step from the work of convening the congress at the time it has already fixed and communicated to the C.C.*****