Date: 1905-04
Source: ru:LS/v5

Then the blame will fall upon him, while we shall have demonstrated our willingness to compromise. If he accepts, then we shall take the next step toward reconciliation. Thus:
I strongly advise that the decision regarding representation be rescinded,
and that the scientific body be reorganized on this condition. 2) Regarding the proposal for mediation by the International Socialist Bureau. The full text will be sent to you, although Lyadov has already prepared it for you. The International Socialist Bureau proposes that, in order to achieve reconciliation, a conference be convened—on our part and on the part of the Mensheviks—with the chairmanship entrusted to members of the International Socialist Bureau. Foreign social-democrats (such as Bebel and others) are vigorously campaigning for the International Socialist Bureau to exert pressure upon us. Letters to this effect have even been sent from the British Social-Democratic Federation (I have a copy of one such letter—written in the usual conciliatory tone, asserting that it is a crime, in these times, to quarrel, and so forth). I wrote to the International Socialist Bureau, stating that I am not competent to resolve this matter on my own; rather, a decision must be made by the Central Committee as a whole, and I intend to submit the matter to them without delay. I then inquired whether they had in mind merely mediation—or perhaps an arbitration tribunal, binding upon both sides—since it is crucial for me to communicate this point to the Central Committee. I have yet to receive a response from them. My view is as follows: We must unconditionally agree to attend the conference. Let us set the date around September 1st. It is imperative that we dispatch 1–2 members of the Central Committee from Russia to the conference (do not forget that our congress is scheduled for September 1st, and that it is absolutely essential in every respect). We should accept mediation with gratitude. However, we must reject any compulsory arbitration ruling, based on the resolution adopted at the Third Congress—which bound us unconditionally and stipulated that the terms of a complete merger with the Mensheviks must be submitted for approval at the Fourth Congress. The Third Congress charged us with preparing and elaborating these terms, but did not authorize their final ratification. In fulfilling the mandate of the Third Congress, we may accept mediation, striving to work out the most detailed modus operandi for an agreement—and for a gradual merger—right now. If we succeed, we will implement the agreement immediately, while submitting the merger plan to the Fourth Congress, which must then be convened at the same time and in the same place as the mandatory congress of all Menshevik organizations. It is critically important to bear in mind that the Mensheviks do not possess a central authority whose decisions are binding upon them. Iskra is not subordinate to the Organizational Commission. We must not play the role of fools by negotiating with individuals who lack both the authority and the power to speak

V. I. LEPIN — TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

on behalf of the entire minority. Therefore, we must make it clear from the outset that the delegates representing the minority at the meeting with the International Socialist Bureau must be appointed both by the Organizational Commission and by Iskra—and moreover, they must undertake to survey all Menshevik organizations within a brief period, providing us with a comprehensive list of those organizations. Of course, if, from a Russian perspective, you deem it more important that Russian Mensheviks hold the majority, then you may discuss whether special delegates from Iskra are necessary. That is a decision best left to your discretion. But do not forget that without Iskra’s consent, any agreements we reach will amount to nothing more than a mere formality. One further question remains: Should we inform the International Socialist Bureau about the secret resolution passed at the Third Congress? Is it appropriate for us to do so? I am hesitant. Certainly, sharing this information with our socialist comrades in Europe does not constitute “publication,” and we can certainly require them not to publish it. But is it truly advisable? You must decide for yourselves. Even without disclosing the resolution of the Third Congress that binds us, it is quite easy to provide a satisfactory explanation.
I will print an open letter from the Organizational Commission in No. 10 of Pravda (which is already in preparation), having refrained from publishing it earlier—because I was waiting for your clarifications, which only arrived yesterday. Please be sure to clearly indicate on each document whether it has been printed and whether it is being distributed immediately *) *).
Therefore, please respond as soon as possible, on behalf of
Werner, G.A. Bogdanov, and Schmidt [P.P. Rumyantsev]—at the very least: 1) Will you write the reply to the International Socialist Bureau yourselves, or will you entrust this task to me? 2) Do you approve of my response, or not? 3) If not, I would greatly appreciate it if you could expedite your reply, so that we may reach a full understanding: any misunderstanding in such matters—or any ambiguity, or lack of clarity—can lead to grave dangers.
P.S. Please forward my letters to D. S. Postolovsky; I do not have his address ***).
J) Plekhanov’s letter dated June 16, 1905, was published in Red Chronicle, No. 1 (12), 1925, p. 119. Its contents were briefly summarized by Vladimir Ilyich in Pravda, No. 20, dated October 10 (September 27), 1905, as follows: “Plekhanov sent a letter to the International Bureau…” *) The end of the paragraph, beginning with the words “having refrained from publishing it earlier,” was added in N.K. Krupskaya’s own hand. Ed.
**) N.K. Krupskaya crossed out “Werner and Schmidt” and wrote instead: “Reinert, Javein, and Schmidt.” Ed.
***) The entire postscript was written in N.K. Krupskaya’s own hand. Ed.

LENIN COLLECTION
On June 16, he sent a letter in which he (a) mistakenly claimed that he was already authorized to represent both factions, and (b) recounted the history of the split since the Second Congress, presenting it with a number of distortions that were entirely in the Menshevik spirit—calling the convocation of the Third Congress by the Central Committee “a completely arbitrary act,” labeling those who sought reconciliation within our party as “the swamp,” claiming that at the Congress there had been “something akin to a vote of no confidence” among the “full-fledged” organizations, that the Congress was “a union of ultra-centrists and the swamp,” and so on.
2) Vladimir Ilyich’s letter to the International Socialist Bureau, dated July 24, 1905, contained a refutation of Plekhanov’s letter. (See Collected Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 9–12.)
3) At the twentieth session of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., held on May 11 (April 23), 1905, a resolution—“not subject to publication”—was adopted by Kitayev [A.M. Essen] and Osipov [Zemlyachka]: “The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. instructs the Central Committee to take all necessary measures to prepare and elaborate the terms of a merger with the dissenting faction of the R.S.D.L.P. II, while the final ratification of such terms must be reserved for the new Party Congress.” Two additional resolutions concerning the attitude toward the Mensheviks were adopted at the Third Congress. (See Collected Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 475–476, note 18.)
For details regarding the secret resolution, see page 501 in this collection.
4) See notes 6 and 7 on page 482.