V. I.

Lenin

Geneva, March 29 (16)

Wehave just received the following report from Tver:
“A periphery meeting held jointly with the Committee on March 9, and
attended by a representative of the Central Committee, discussed the question of
the attitude to the Third Party Congress which is being convened by the
C.C. (appeal to the Party dated March 4, 1905). The resolution of the Tver
Committee was read out: ’The Tver Committee welcomes the call of the Central
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to prepare for the Third Party Congress (resolution
of the C.C. dated March 4,1905) and it has resolved at its meeting to
participate in the Congress by sending a delegate. In view, however, of the
statement made by the Tver Committee to a representative of the Organising
Bureau about participating in the Congress organised by that Bureau, the Tver
Committee feels obligated to point out that this statement was made in response
to the Bureau representative’s [1] assurance of the C.C. decision to make
the Congress then in preparation a regular one."’

Theperiphery meeting did not support the resolution of the Tver Committee. The
following resolution was adopted by a majority of seven votes to one with one abstention:
“Having at last received the call of the Central Committee to prepare for
the immediate convocation of the Third Congress, and welcoming this act of the
C.C., we declare that we have already decided to take part in the Party
Congress that is being convened by the Organising Bureau. We consider it
possible to avail ourselves of the offer made by the C.C. in its appeal ’To the
Party’ dated March 4 only on the condition that a formal agreement is reached
between the C.C. and the Organising Bureau” (6 for, 3 against). To note
the mood of the other three comrades, who voted in the negative, I cite the
other resolution, offered by two of the comrades who thus voted: “The
local organisation welcomes the decision of the Central Committee to convene a
Third Party Congress and strongly urges it and the Organising Bureau to come to
an agreement between themselves. Should an agreement not eventuate, the local
organisation leaves itself a free hand.”

Itfollows from this report that: (1) the Tver Committee, together with the
periphery, had declared, according to the Committee’s own admission, its consent
to participate in the Congress organised by the Bureau of Committees of the
Majority; (2) subsequently, the Tver Committee, under the influence of the
C.C.’s new promises to convene the Third Congress, withdrew its consent. The
periphery, however, did not support the Committee and did not decline
to participate in the Congress which the Bureau had called; (3) the
C.C.’s new promises to convene the Third Congress were given in the appeal “To the Party,
dated March 4, 1905”, which has so far remained unpublished and is unknown to
us.

Toappraise the behaviour of our famous C.C. at its true worth, we would remind
our comrades, first, of the Party Rules, and secondly, of certain
facts. According to the Rules a congress is convened by the Council ,
and not by the Central Committee. Consequently, the C.C. is giving promises it
cannot live up to. It promises to do what, under the Rules, it cannot do. The
C.C. promises or proposes, but the Council disposes. As for those members of
the Party who are naïve enough to lend an ear to the C.C.’s promises and are
unfamiliar with the Rules, they find themselves in the position of dupes. How
the Council “disposes” the facts reveal. In its resolution of March
8 (new style) the Council declares ( Iskra , No. 89) that “with the assent of the majority of the Party workers” (perhaps including the Tver Committee?)
“it considers it inexpedient to convene the Party Congress at such a moment”. Can anything be clearer? Does this not show that the
Council, time and again, is shamelessly deceiving the Party, since it never
did have the “assent” of the “majority of Party workers”?

Further,on March 10 (N.S.), that is, two days later, the Council adopted
another resolution ( Iskra , No. 91) agreeing to send two representatives
to the Congress convened by the Russian Bureau of Committees of the Majority,
but saying not a word about agreeing to the convening of the Congress .

Wewould add that the Council not only takes a position officially against the
“expediency” of convening the Congress but rigs the votes to the Congress by increasing the number of allegedly qualified committees and
refusing to inform the Party which now committees it considers to be accredited
and when they were accredited. In the resolution of the Council of March 8
(discussed in Vperyod , No. 10 [2]

),

the

commit tees considered qualified as of January 1,1905, were those of Polesye, the North-West, Kuban, and Kazan,
whereas the last two committees were not accredited at all by the C.C. and the
former will not be qualified until April 1, 1905.

Weask the Party members who wish to be real and not just registered members
whether they are going to stand for this game. The Council rigs the votes and
declares against the Congress, while the C.C. gives “promises” as
regards the Congress, taking advantage of the naïveté of people
who do not know that according to the Rules these promises can have no formal
weight. Do not the facts wholly confirm what we wrote on February 28
(15) in Vperyod , No. 8, at the first reports of the C.C. ’s
“assent” to the Congress? We would remark that a month has passed since then, that Iskra has since issued Nos. 88, 89, 90,
91, and 92 (dated March 10, 0.5.) without saying a word on this
“ticklish” question of the C.C.’s “assent” to the
Congress. We can only repeat what we said in Vperyod , No. 8:

“Wehave just received a report that can be interpreted to mean that the
Central Committee agrees to an immediate congress. We can in no way vouch for the authenticity of the report at the present moment, but
we consider it probable. The C.C. has campaigned against the Congress for many
months; it has cashiered the organisations and boycott ed and disorganised the
committees that have declared for the Congress. These tactics have failed. Now,
following the rule ’expediency is everything, formality is nothing’, the C.C.,
for the sake of ’expediency’ ( that is, for the sake of preventing the Congress ) is prepared formally
to declare a hundred times if need he that it is for the immediate con vocation of the Congress. We hope that neither the Bureau nor the local committees will
let themselves be deceived by the subterfuges of the Party’s
’Shidlovsky Commission’." [3]

P.S. Geneva, March 30 (17). We are obliged to keep a regular diary of
the C.C.’s subterfuges. We have received the following letter of the C.C. to the
Bureau of Committees of the Majority:

“The Central Committee decided on March 4 to call upon the committees of
the Party to prepare for the Third Congress of the Party and on its part has
decided to take steps to convene the Congress at the earliest possible date.

“Sincethe success of an all-Party congress and its speedy
convocation depend on the unanimous collaboration of the utmost possible number
of all comrades and organisations that are declaring now for the
Congress, the C.C. proposes to the Organising Bureau of Committees of the
so-called ’Majority’ to enter into an agreement on this matter and work together
towards convening the Congress speedily and to wards ensuring the fullest
possible representation of the entire Party. March 6,1905. C.C.,
R.S.D.L.P.”

Infiniteindeed is the long-suffering patience of the Russian committees and
their credulity! Why does not the C.C. publish its appeal of March 4? Why does
it mouth mendacious phrases about an “agreement” with the Bureau?
The Bureau invited everyone to the Congress without exception, the
entire Party; it did so over a month ago openly and publicly. The
Bureau answered the C.C. long since that no delays were now
possible. Everyone who wants an all-Party congress not merely
in words is invited; it’s as clear as that. Besides, what sense would there be
in an agreement between the Bureau and the C.C., when it is not the C.C. that
convenes the Congress under the Rules but the Council, which has gone on record
against the Congress?

Itis to be hoped that everyone now will see through the double game
which the Council and the C.C. are playing. The Bureau, we are sure, will
not retreat a single step from its work of convening the Congress upon the
date it has set for it and of which it has notified the C.C .

---
Notes:
[1]
The representative of the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, who
made the report on the Third Congress. at a meeting of the Tver Committee
and the periphery in February, informs us that this assertion of the Tver
Committee is “inaccurate”. “I told them”, he declares, “according to
the direct statement of C.C. member
Nikitich, [4] that the C.C. had intended to announce the Third Congress, thus
making the Congress convened by the Bureau a regular congress by agreement,
hut that it had not had time for various reasons to enter into
official negotiations with the Bureau on the question.”
— Lenin

[2]
See pp. 225-27 of this volume.— Ed .

[4]
Nikitich—L. B. Krasin.

[3]
The Shidlovsky Commission (headed by Senator
Shidlovsky) was set up by the tsarist government on January 29 (February 11),
1905, “to enquire into tile causes of the discontent among the
workers”, but actually to deceive the workers and draw them away from the
revolutionary struggle. Speaking of the “subterfuges of the Party’s
Shidlovsky Commission’ " Lenin had in mind the double-dealing of the Central
Committee, where the Mensheviks had seized control and which formally went on
record for a Third Congress while actually opposing the convocation of the Party
Congress.