V. I.

Lenin

“The Southern Constituent Conference” of the Mensheviks has passed
the following resolution on this question:

"After acquainting itself with documents which show that Comrade Lenin,
without taking any steps towards reaching an agreement with the ’Minority’ on
the question of R.S.D.L.P. representation in the International Bureau, has made
this question an issue there between the two sections of the Party, and has laid
stress on minor points of sectional differences, the Conference of Southern
Organisations expresses its profound regret on this score. At the same time it
requests Comrade Plekhanov to continue representing our section of the Party in
the International Bureau and urges all ’Majority’ organisations immediately to
give their opinion on this question, and for their part to authorise Comrade
Plekhanov to act as such representative in the interests of the unity which we
are striving to attain, and to preserve with regard to all other socialist
parties in all other countries the prestige of the R.S.D.L.P., which is equally
dear to all of us.”

This resolution compels the undersigned to state the actual facts of the case:

1) The Mensheviks cannot but know that all agreements are contingent on the
Central Committee located in Russia. By deliberately referring to “Comrade
Lenin” alone, they are telling an untruth.

2) Immediately after the Third
Congress, two members of the Central Commit tee in Russia applied to Plekhanov
in person, expressing the wish that he act both as representative of the
R.S.D.L.P. in the International Bureau and as editor of a theoretical organ. Plekhanov refused. The phrase “without ... any steps” is
based on a departure from the truth.

3) When, after this refusal, Plekhanov
resigned from the Iskra Editorial Board he declared in print (May 29),
without writing to the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., that he
would consent to represent only both sections of the R.S.D.L.P., and
likewise through the press asked those who recognise the Third Congress whether
they agreed to this.

4) Proletary’s Editorial Board immediately
published Plekhanov’s statement (in No. 5 of June 26 [13 1), adding that this
question had been referred to the Central Committee for decision.

5) Pending the
Central Committee’s decision on this question, I got in touch with the
International Bureau, on behalf of the Central Committee, in order to inform the
International Bureau about the Third Congress, and to inform the Central
Committee about the work of the International Bureau; at the same time I stated
that the question of R.S.D.L.P. representation on the International Bureau had
not yet been settled. [1]

In other words, the Central Committee maintained contacts
with the International Bureau through its representative abroad, pending a
decision on the question of a special representative on the Bureau.

6) When I
plainly and explicitly informed the International Bureau of the provisional
nature of my relations with it, I raised no question whatever
of a “struggle” or “differences”, but confined myself exclusively to communicating the decisions of the Third Congress, which I was
absolutely bound to do.

7) On June 16 Plekhanov sent a letter to the
International Bureau in which he (a) erroneously asserted that he had already
been authorised by both groups to act as their representative and (b) set forth
the history of the split from the time of the Second Congress, telling this
story with many digressions from the truth, wholly in the Menshevik spirit, and
calling the convocation of the Third Congress by the Central Committee
“an utterly arbitrary act”, dubbing the conciliators in our Party
“the Marsh”, and stating that “something like half the organisations ’with full rights’” were represented at the Congress, which was a
“combination of ultra-centralists and the Marsh”, etc.

8) I refuted this letter of Plekhanov’s point by point in my letter of July 24, 1905 to the International

Bureau. [2] (I learned of Plekhanov’s letter only a month after it had been sent by him, when the International Bureau
sent me a copy.) On the question of the “Marsh” I wrote in my
letter to the following effect. “It is true that there is a ’Marsh’ in
our Party. Its members were continually changing sides during the
controversies within our Party. The first of these turncoats was Plekhanov,
who went over from the Majority to the Minority in November 19O3, only to
leave the Minority on May 29 of this year, when he resigned from

Iskra’s

Editorial Board. We do not approve of changing sides like
that, but think we cannot be blamed if, after much vacillation, irresolute
people who were members of the ’Marsh’, are inclined to follow us.” Dealing
with the state of affairs after the split, I referred, in the same letter, to
the necessity of providing the International Bureau with “a complete
translation of all resolutions of the Conference”. “If
Iskra refuses to send the translation to the Bureau,” I added,
“we are prepared to do so ourselves.”

Let the readers now judge for themselves whether Plekhanov’s behaviour is
anything like impartial, and whether the statement of the facts by the new
conference bears any relation to the truth. Who is to blame for undermining the
prestige of the R.S.D.L.P.? For taking the initiative in acquainting the
International Bureau with the history of the split after the Second Congress?
For stressing “sectional differences”??

N. Lenin

P. S. To satisfy the Southern Conference’s desire to learn the opinion of the
Majority organisations, we are publishing elsewhere in this issue the resolution
of the Kostroma Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., [3] forwarded to us in
August 1905. The Editors have not received any other resolutions on this
question.

---
Notes:
[1]
“A Letter to the International Socialist Bureau”, 1905. See present
edition, Vol. 8, p. 456.— Ed .

[2]
See pp. 142-45 of this volume.— Ed .

[3]
The Kostroma Committee, which adhered to the Bolshevik stand, opposed the appointment of Plekhanov as representative to the
International Socialist Bureau.