I must confess that the arguments with which Comrade Ivanov defends his idea of monocentrism seem to me unconvincing{72}. (Reads Comrade Ivanov's argumentation):

"Regarding §§ 4 and 5. A system of two centers with a balancer – the Council – is condemned by life itself. From the history of the party crisis it is evident that it is – too favorable soil for the development of disagreements, squabbles, court intrigues. It means the subordination of Russia to the foreign center: the CC is unstable in its composition due to failures, the foreign center is constant, the Council lives abroad. All the most important objections against one center, based on the factual separation of Russia from abroad, on the one hand, only confirm the idea of the possibility and probability of a split between the two centers, on the other hand, to a large extent fall away, if the congress makes mandatory periodic meetings between Russian and foreign members of the CC."

The charming qualities mentioned here, however, turned out to be equally inherent in both the foreign center and the "truly Russian" CC. In Comrade Ivanov's entire construction I see an error provided for by logic: post hoc, ergo propter hoc{60}. Since three centers have, excuse the expression, caused us trouble – then let us have one center. I do not see the "propter" here! Our misfortunes were conditioned not by the mechanism, but by personalities: the point is that certain individuals, hiding behind a formalistic interpretation of the charter, evaded carrying out the congress's will. Did not the "truly Russian" CC transform itself "dialectically" into its opposite? Comrade Ivanov reasons thus: the foreign center behaved badly – it must be placed in a "siege state" and dealt with an iron hand. I have always, as is known, been a supporter of both the "siege state" and an iron hand, therefore I shall not object to such measures, but did not the CC deserve the same? Moreover, who would dispute that the foreign center can be permanent while the CC cannot. After all, this is a fact. But practically I shall refrain from any dispute: previously we had a Council, and now there will be a meeting (between the foreign and Russian parts of the CC). Merely three extra letters. Our cart was rolling entirely to the right toward the foreign center – Comrade Ivanov is putting straw on the right for the future, but in my opinion, it should be put on the left as well, on the side of the CC. I would have joined Comrade Mikhailov's proposal about the dissolution of committees, but I really do not know what the periphery is? We need to smoke out the "assessors and keepers of the seal," but how exactly can one define the concept – periphery? "Two-thirds of the votes of the periphery!" – but who will be able to keep an exact record of it? I must, moreover, warn the congress against filling the charter with a multitude of paragraphs. It is easy to write good paragraphs, but in practice they usually turn out to be superfluous. One should not turn the charter into a collection of pious wishes…

2

Comrade Kitaev's proposal is more practical, according to which to convene an emergency congress requires a number equal to half the votes of the previous congress.

3

4

A list of newly confirmed organizations is published immediately in the party's foreign center with an indication of the moment of their confirmation by the CC.

5

I speak in favor of the original version of § 6, published in "Vperyod"{73}, since otherwise an incorrectness results.

6

7

I stood for the dissolution of committees, but in the Party Council, at the moment when our factional enmity flared up, I spoke against it, because to apply this right was to some extent improper. If this paragraph threatens committees composed of intellectuals, I thoroughly speak in favor of it. The intelligentsia must always be kept with an iron hand. It always stands at the head of all sorts of squabbles, and therefore I propose instead of the word "periphery" to place the words: "organized workers" (submits his amendment in writing): "§ 9. A local committee must be dissolved by the CC if two-thirds of local workers included in party organizations speak in favor of its dissolution."

One cannot rely on the small intelligentsia periphery, but on hundreds of organized workers one can and must. I wish to closely connect this paragraph with the question of accountability. In this respect we need to follow the example of the Bund{75}, which always knows exactly the number of organized workers. And if our CC always knows how many organized workers are in a given organization, the CC must take their opinion into account and is obliged to dissolve the local committee by the demand of organized workers.

8

In the interests of the foreign center I must speak in favor of Comrade Kitaev's amendment. With weekly issues of the newspaper it is necessary to be informed of affairs and have a sufficient quantity of material{76}.

9

I am for unanimous cooption{77}. The CC is not large, and we need to ensure the unity of its composition in the interests of positive work and in the interests of political leadership.

10

I agree with Comrade Kuznetsov: § 13 should be deleted from the charter and a corresponding resolution submitted to the bureau by Comrade Belsky{78} should be adopted.