DRAFT OF FOUR DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONGRESS

The Congress recognizes that the supporters of the party majority,
composing resolutions against the disorganizers and demanding the 3rd Congress,
have exhausted all means of honest comradely struggle against
fellow party members. Now that the centers created by the party have
definitively shirked responsibility to the party, the Congress
is forced to recognize them as standing outside the party.
The Congress [strongly] states that for the supporters of partisanship there is no
other way out than to work separately and independently from the disorganizers.
The Congress resolves therefore that no supporters of the minority or
new-Iskrists may be admitted to any of the organizations of our
party.
The Congress instructs the Central Committee of the party to issue
a short brochure explaining this resolution, for the information of
the entire Russian and international social democracy.

2. Resolution on Plekhanov's conduct in the party crisis.
The Congress recognizes as correct Plekhanov's position on
programmatic, tactical, and organizational questions, which he
held at the Second Party Congress and at the Congress of the Foreign League.
The Congress recognizes that after the League Congress, Plekhanov, in the interests
of party peace and the elimination of the split already committed by the Mensheviks,
proposed a policy of concessions to people whom he correctly
characterized before the entire party (Iskra No. 52, November 7, 1903) as revisionists and anarchistic individuals.
The Congress expresses deep regret that Plekhanov did not maintain this position, that he began to seek, by the most
unscrupulous means and against the will of the party, the satisfaction
of all the demands of the Mensheviks, that he stooped, in the interests
of justifying the Mensheviks, to defending their principled
position, which he himself recognized as incorrect, and to fabricating
unprecedented disagreements with the majority of the party.
The Congress strongly condemns this policy of duplicity towards
fellow party members, for such a policy, whatever humane motives
it may evoke in relation to individuals, cannot fail to have a demoralizing influence on the party.

5, Resolution on the principled position of the New-Iskrists.
The Congress recognizes the absolute necessity of combating the principled
position of the Mensheviks or New-Iskrists, who have deviated
from revolutionary social democracy towards opportunism.

Even at the Second Party Congress, this became apparent both in individual
reasonings and in the entire composition of the minority from among the
opponents of the old Iskra and the least principled shades.
After the second Congress, this turn of the Mensheviks towards Economist opportunism became so clear that they
themselves acknowledged the gulf between the old and the new Iskra. And indeed,
on a number of issues, the new Iskra put forward absolutely incorrect slogans and theories that obscured the class consciousness of the
proletariat.
This includes the theory of organization-as-process, which reduces Marxism to a justification of disorganization and intellectual anarchism.
This includes the return to incorrect views about the relationship of the party to the class, diminishing
the tasks of the party as the vanguard, leader, and organizer of the class. Equally incorrect and reactionary were the
disagreements put forward by the new Iskra with the old Iskra on the issue
of relations with liberals and on the plans of the zemstvo campaign, —
on the preparation of the uprising and the notorious utopian nature of thoughts
about its appointment and conduct, — on the tasks of arming the masses,
technical and organizational leadership of them during the revolution, — on the impossibility and undesirability of the revolutionary
democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie
in the era of the overthrow of the autocracy, etc.
All these views drag the party back not only in theoretical, but also directly
in practical terms, being especially harmful and pernicious for the party of the revolutionary proletariat in the
revolutionary moment being experienced by Russia. The Congress therefore instructs
all party members to explain the incorrectness of such views
in their propaganda and agitation.

4. Resolution on the relations between workers and intellectuals
in the socialdemocratic party.
The Congress strongly condemns the policy of sowing
*) distrust and hostility between workers and intellectuals in social-
democratic organizations, which the New-Iskrists are pursuing.
The Congress reminds conscious workers of how they experienced
several years ago similar methods of struggle from the
Economist wing of the party and rejected these methods. Empty
phrases about the initiative of the workers and about the elective principle, *) The word "sowing" is superscripted over the word "settlement".
Ed.

DRAFT OF FOUR DRAFT RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONGRESS

thrown out by the New-Iskrists, are not accompanied by any real
improvement in the work in our organizations and demagogically
promise the impossible. Under free political conditions
our party can and [should] be built entirely on the principle of the elective principle. Under the autocracy this is unfeasible
for the entire mass of the thousands of workers belonging to the party.
The Congress once again repeats and reminds of the task of conscious
supporters of the socialdemocratic workers' party: to strengthen with all their might the connection of this party with the mass of the working class,
constantly raising broader strata of proletarians and semi-proletarians
to full socialdemocratic consciousness, developing their revolutionary and social-democratic initiative,
taking care to single out from the working mass as much as possible
workers capable of fully leading the movement and all organizations of the party.
The Congress repeats on behalf of the party the advice of revolutionary social
democrats: to create as many workers' organizations as possible
belonging to our party; to strive to ensure that workers'
organizations that do not wish or are unable to join the party, at least adhere to the party; to strive
to ensure that as many conscious social- democrats workers [participate] join as members in the committees
of the party [so that].

*) Point 1 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on the
Disorganizing Behavior of the Mensheviks or New-Iskrists" (see pp. 200 —
201). Instead of the resolutions provided for in points 1, 2 and 3 of Lenin's general plan,
one general resolution on the seceded part of the party was submitted to the congress.
2) Point 2 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on
Plekhanov's Conduct in the Party Crisis" (see p. 201). The congress did not adopt a special
resolution on Plekhanov.
The article "What Not to Do" by Plekhanov in No. 52 of Iskra is meant.
) The characterization of the Mensheviks as "revisionists and individual-
ist-anarchists" is taken from "What Not to Do" by Plekhanov.
5)
Point 5 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on the
Disorganizing Behavior of the Mensheviks or New-Iskrists."
c) See p. 87: "Opportunism = a small betrayal, betrayal = a big
opportunism" (Parvus).
7) The words of Comrade Trotsky from his brochure: "Our Political Tasks,"
published in Geneva by the editorial board of Iskra in 1904, shortly after the split.
(Pages 25-26.)
8) This part of the document is a list of the main issues
of tactics that divided the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at that moment.

°) Point 4 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on Relations between Workers and Intellectuals in the Social Democratic Party" (see pp. 202-203). The corresponding resolution was adopted by the congress.
10) The number 7 indicates the intertwining of themes 5 and 7, i.e., the question of the uprising with the question of a combat agreement for the uprising. In the general plan, points 6 and 8 are missing, for which, according to Lenin's note in his "list of resolutions" (p. 194), special secret resolutions were to be submitted.
п) On the abolition of the Starover resolution, see Protocols, p. 526.
12) Point 10 serves as the plan for the "Resolution on the zemstvo plan of the new Iskra." At the congress, a separate resolution on the plan of the zemstvo campaign of "Iskra" was not submitted.
13) A word is missing. It could be "conversations," "proposals," etc.
14) Refers to the first letter of "Iskra" about the plan of the zemstvo campaign. (Works, vol. YH, pp. 410-416.)
15) Point 11 was developed in the congress resolution on the attitude to the peasant movement. (Protocols, pp. 522-523.)
1в) Point 12 served as the plan for the "Resolution on the Attitude to the Peasant Movement" (see the present Collection pp. 267-268).
17) Point 13 served as the plan for the "Resolution on Work in the Army." A separate resolution on work in the army was not submitted at the congress.
18) Jc nachdem — depending on the circumstances.
19) Point 14 served as the plan for the "Resolution on Propaganda and Agitation." (Protocols, p. 527.)

CHANGE IN THE CLAUSE
OF THE STATUTE ON CENTERS.
[February 1905] *).
A significant part of the comrades working in Russia, including the bureau of the committees of the bolshevik majority, advocates for one center in Russia2).

What exactly does such a reform mean? Comrades working in Russia should prevail in one center - this undoubtedly follows from the indicated tendency. Its implementation depends entirely on the will of the congress, which chooses the composition of the center. Consequently, there is nothing to argue about and nothing to talk about here.

But further, what will be the relationship of the Central] Organ to the Central Committee? The Central Organ, we are told, is a commission appointed by the Central] Committee. One (or two) members of the edit[orial board] of the Central Organ can (the same comrades say) enter, as a part and as a smaller part, into the Central] Committee. The question then is, in what will the participation of this foreign part of the Central] Committee in the affairs of the Central Committee be expressed? To participate "by correspondence" in the affairs of the Central] Committee is a clear utopia, one can only talk about this in jest. Abroad, only with great difficulty, at the cost of an abyss of troubles, labor, swearing, and unpleasantness, is it possible to achieve a poor enlightenment Postfactum'a. One can only speak of "participation in decision-making" from abroad "for the sake of importance" or for hypocrisy.

So, one of two things: either the foreign members (respective] 3) ) foreign member) of the Central] Committee stipulates for himself in the party charter (because other "agreements" are invalid) periodic meetings of the entire Central] Committee abroad.

If so, then this supreme center actually fully coincides with the current Council of the Party, i.e., it becomes an institution that meets 3-4-5 times a year and only gives general direction to all work. Or, the Central] Committee] gathers in Russia and decides all matters there, without a foreign member; then the latter is only listed and knowingly fictitiously listed as a member of the Central] Committee. In fact, he cannot participate in the decision of general affairs. Under such conditions, one could rightly doubt whether people would be found for this "post" (or this sinecure?) of "foreign members" of the Central] Committee!

Another (and last possible) assumption. The entire composition of the Central] Committee, as one center, is comrades working in Russia. Only such a center will be a truly unified Russian center. Abroad, it appoints its agency. In practice, however, this agency will exist as an independent center: in fact, imagine the editorial board of the Central] Organ. It is clear that a whole collegium is needed here, which is formed, develops, and harmonizes only through a long and долгм path (Russia, in order to create a new Central Orgau, after the 11th congress, spent a year and a half of effort, and this with the tremendous interest of all of Russia in the difficult all-party crisis!). In practice, this collegium runs a weekly organ completely independently. The Russian Central] Committee responds to its conduct of affairs at best with a "meeting" once every six months (or once every 1*/2 years) - how does such a "meeting" differ from a "Council"? - or a "letter" from an individual member of the Central] Committee. In practice, this foreign collegium conducts agitation and prepares workers abroad (reports and meetings) before hundreds of party members. The Central] Committee is physically unable to effectively direct this work, to effectively manage this work of the foreign collegium. The Central] Committee is physically unable to participate in this work except through rare meetings with the people who are conducting it. And again: how will these meetings differ from the Council??

Result: in fact, in practice, "one" center will either be a fiction, or it will be reduced, inevitably and unavoidably reduced, to the current system of what is mockingly called "three-centrism." In fact, in practice, the difference in geographical, political conditions, conditions of the nature of work inevitably and unavoidably вызо

CHANGE IN THE CLAUSE OF THE STATUTE ON CENTERS

вет and will cause (until the fall of the autocracy) two centers in our party, united only from time to time by "meetings", which in fact will always play the role of the supreme or higher "Council" of the Party.

It is quite understandable that the reaction against the foreign country provoked a general cry among the Russians: down with the foreign country! down with two centers! This reaction is legitimate and commendable, for it signifies a tremendous growth of party forces and party self-consciousness after the II Congress. This reaction expresses a step forward for our party, there is no arguing about this. But one should not let oneself be deceived by words or elevate to a "system" the mood of the moment, the transient "anger" against "foreigners." No party system can be built on anger. There is nothing easier than to establish a simple and brief rule: there is one center, but such a decree does not bring us any closer to solving the very complex question of how to really (and not on paper) unite the various functions of work in Russia and abroad. *)
*) The document is dated February, since on February 10, 1905 Lenin
received a letter from M. 31. Litvinov ("Prolet. Revol."
39(4). 1925, p. 14), reporting that the bureau of committees of the majority
had spoken out in favor of a single center.
2) "The center must be one and moreover R u s s i a n". (From "Announcement
on the convocation of the Third Party Congress" signed by B. K. B.). (Works, vol. VII,
p. 430).
3) Respective - respectively.

6.
OSS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE [ORGANIZATIONAL]
COMMITTEE *).
April 18 (5), 1905
1)
The Organizational] Committee, having considered the data at its disposal regarding the number of party organizations that have unequivocally declared themselves in favor of a congress, states that resolutions in favor of a congress have been passed by 26 (twenty-six) committees (St. Petersburg, Moscow, North, Nizhnii, Tver, Tula, Riga, Voronezh, Saratov, Odessa, Caucasus Union — 8 votes,— Nikolaev, Urals, Orlovsko-Bryanskii, Kursk, Smolensk], Kremenchug, Polesskii, Northern-Western, Kharkov, Kiev*), Samara, Siberia). Note. There is no written resolution from Kremenchug.
The Central] Committee passed a resolution on the immediate convocation of the III Party Congress on March 4, Old Style, and decided to send its delegate to the congress and two representatives to the Party Council from the Central] Committee (appointed on April 4/17).
Thus, 55 votes (51 without Kiev) out of 77 were in favor of the immediate convocation of the congress. The remaining 21 votes belong to: 8 committees (Astrakhan, Kazan, Kuban, Don, Gornozavodsk, Ekaterinoslav, Crimean, Union and League), 3 to the Party Council and 2 to the editors of "Iskra."
Note. Member of the Organizational] Committee] Comrade Lenin remains of a dissenting opinion, rejecting the right to a decisive vote for the Kazan, Kuban, and Kremenchug committees.
*) Regarding the Kiev Committee, there are two contradictory resolutions: one, sent to the Organizational Committee, is in favor of a congress, the other, published in No. 95 of Iskra, is against a congress. The congress itself will have to sort out this contradiction 2).

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE

2)
The Organizational] Committee states that at present, delegates from the following committees have been elected and are abroad: St. Petersburg, Moscow, North, Nizhegorod, Tula, Riga, Voronezh, Saratov, Odessa, Caucasus (4)3), Nikolaev, Ural, Orlovsko-Bryansk, Kursk, Northern-Western, Kharkov, Kiev, Samara, Siberia4), Smolensk4), from the Central] Committee (1 delegate and 2 representatives of the Central] Committee in the Council), Tver5), with a total of 52 votes. In addition, delegates have arrived from organizations with consultative votes: St. Petersburg group, Kharkov group, Tver periphery, Arkhangelsk "committee" (regarding the invitation of the Arkhangelsk delegate to the congress, the Organizational] Committee leaves the question open until the meeting at the congress venue). The following measures have been taken to invite delegates from the Baku group and the Tiflis committee, with the right to a consultative vote: the Organizational] Committee] sent all documents and written invitations on March 13, Old Style, and the Central] Committee instructed the local agent to invite these organizations. The Nizhny Novgorod and Riga committees have been notified of the invitation to the congress of the Sormovo and Riga groups on the basis of the declaration of the Central] Committee of March 4. The Nizhny Novgorod Committee did not respond, the Riga Committee ruled that the Riga group does not meet the conditions necessary to participate in the congress with the right to a consultative vote, according to the declaration of the Central] Committee of March 4. The Organizational] Committee], in view of the fact that the grounds for depriving the Riga group of the right to a consultative vote are insufficiently clarified, and in view of the impossibility, due to lack of time, to verify these grounds, again decides to propose to the Riga group to send a delegate to the congress, of which it immediately informs the Riga group (execution is taken over by the Central] Committee). Member of the Organizational] Committee] Comrade Freliks — M. M. Litvinov] remained of a dissenting opinion on this issue, finding that the conclusion of the Riga Committee is sufficiently motivated and correct in substance.
The notification of the Moscow group of typographical workers was entrusted to Comrade Yuri [L. B. Kamenev (?) Ed.] and a report on the execution of this assignment will be presented by him at the congress venue.
Lenin Miscellany, V