I must report to the Congress on one failed attempt at agreement with the S-Rs. Comrade Gapon came from abroad. He met with the S-Rs, then with *Iskra*, and then with me. He told me that he stands on the point of view of social-democracy, but for certain considerations he does not consider it possible to declare this openly. I told him that diplomacy is a very good thing – but not among revolutionaries. I shall not convey the details of our conversation – its content is set forth in *Vpered*.[61] He made on me the impression of a man unconditionally devoted to revolution, with initiative and intelligence, though, unfortunately, without a coherent revolutionary worldview.

After some time I received from Comrade Gapon a written invitation to a conference of socialist organizations, which, in Gapon's conception, was intended to coordinate their activity. Here is the list of those 18 organizations which, according to this letter, were invited to Gapon's conference:

1) Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries. 2) RSDLP. *Vpered*. 3) RSDLP. *Iskra*. 4) Polish Socialist Party. 5) S-Ds. of Poland and Lithuania. 6) PPS. "Proletariat." 7) Latvian SDLP. 8) Bund. 9) Armenian S-D. Workers' Organization. 10) Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Droshak). 11) Belorussian Socialist Hromada. 12) Latvian S-D. Union. 13) Finnish Party of Active Resistance. 14) Finnish Workers' Party. 15) Georgian Party of Socialist-Federalist-Revolutionaries. 16) Ukrainian Revolutionary Party. 17) Lithuanian S-D. Party. 18) Ukrainian Socialist Party.{88}

When we asked why – we received the answer that the invitation to the Finnish Workers' Party was conveyed through the Party of Active Resistance, since, according to what the S-R who spoke of this said, they did not know how to communicate it directly. Meanwhile, to anyone even slightly acquainted with affairs abroad, it is known that one can get in touch with the Finnish Workers' Party through the leader of the Swedish SDLP Branting, for instance. Representatives of the PPS were present at the conference, but there was no representative of the S-Ds. of Poland and Lithuania. And it was impossible to obtain information as to whether they had been invited. From the Lithuanian S-Ds., the revolutionary Ukrainian Party came no response, as that same S-R informed us.

From the very beginning the national question was raised. The PPS raised the question of several constituent assemblies. And this gives me grounds to say that in future it will be necessary either to refuse altogether to participate in such conferences, or to arrange conferences of representatives of workers' parties of a single nationality, or to invite to conferences representatives of local party committees from districts with non-Russian populations. But I by no means draw from this the conclusion that conferences are impossible on account of principled disagreements. It is only necessary that the questions be posed in a purely practical manner.

We cannot control the composition of conferences from abroad, etc. It is necessary that the Russian center be represented and necessarily with the participation of representatives of local committees. The question on account of which we withdrew was the question concerning the Latvians. Upon leaving the conference, we presented the following statement:

"The important historical moment which Russia is experiencing places before the social-democratic and revolutionary-democratic parties and organizations acting in the country the task of practical agreement for a more successful assault on the autocratic regime.

Attaching therefore extraordinary serious significance to the conference convened for this purpose, we naturally must treat with the utmost strictness the question of its composition.

In the conference convened by Comrade Gapon, unfortunately, this necessary condition for the fruitfulness of its work was not sufficiently observed, and we were compelled, in view of this, already at the very beginning of its constitution to take measures which would ensure the real success of this meeting.

The purely practical character of the conference required, for example, first and foremost, that access to participation in it be granted only to such organizations as constitute a genuinely real force in Russia.

And yet the composition of the conference in the sense of the reality of certain organizations proved to be highly unsatisfactory. Even such an organization whose fictional character stands beyond all doubt was represented at it. We speak of the Latvian S-D. Union.

The representative of the Latvian SDLP demanded the exclusion of this Union, lending an ultimative character to this demand.

The complete fictional character of the latter, which became apparent subsequently at a special meeting of representatives of four S-D. organizations with the participation of delegates of the "Union," naturally compelled us – the remaining S-D. organizations and parties present at the conference – to join in this ultimative demand.

But at that very moment, from the first steps, we encountered sharp resistance from all the revolutionary-democratic parties, which by their refusal to satisfy our ultimative demand preferred one fictional group to a number of known S-D. organizations.

Finally, the practical significance of the conference was further diminished by the absence of a whole series of other S-D. organizations, the participation of which, insofar as we were able to ascertain, was not ensured by proper measures.

Compelled by all of this to leave the conference, we nevertheless express the confidence that the failure of one attempt will not halt the persistent striving for its repetition in the very near future and that the task of practical agreement standing before all revolutionary parties will be fulfilled by that coming conference with the composition of organizations genuinely working in Russia, not fictional ones.

For the Latvian SDLP — For *Vpered* of the Russ. RSDLP — For the Cent. Com. of the Bund — For the Arm. S-D. organization — April 3, 1905.

A week and a half or two weeks later Comrade Gapon conveyed to me the following statement:

"Dear Comrade! In sending you two declarations issued from the conference known to you, I request that you communicate them to the forthcoming III Congress of the RSDLP. I deem it my duty to note personally that I accept these declarations with certain reservations on questions of socialist program and the federalist principle.

With this statement two interesting documents were conveyed, in which the following passages call attention to themselves:

"The application of the federal principle in relations between nationalities remaining under one state roof…

Socialization, that is, the transition to public management and the use of the laboring agricultural population of all lands, the cultivation of which is based on the exploitation of alien labor, whereby the determination of concrete forms, the sequence in implementing this measure and its extent remains within the sphere of competence of the parties of separate nationalities, in accordance with the particular characteristics of the local conditions of their country; the development of public, municipal and communal economy…

…Bread to the hungry!

Land and its riches to all toilers!

…A Constituent Assembly from representatives of all places of the Russian Empire, with the exception of Poland and Finland!

…The convening for the Caucasus, as an autonomous part federally linked with Russia, of a constituent assembly…"

The result of the conference, as is evident from the cited quotations, fully confirmed the fears that prompted us to leave the conference. Here before us is a copy of the S-R. program with all manner of concessions to nationalist non-proletarian parties. It was strange to decide the questions raised at the conference without national proletarian parties participating. It put forth, for example, the demand for a separate constituent assembly for Poland. We can be neither for nor against. Our program recognizes the principle of self-determination of nationalities. But it is inadmissible to decide this question without the S-Ds. of Poland and Lithuania. The conference divided up the constituent assembly – and this without the presence of workers' parties! We cannot permit the practical resolution of such questions apart from the party of the proletariat. – But at the same time I find that principled disagreements do not exclude nevertheless the possibility of practical conferences, but, first, – in Russia, second, – by verifying the reality of forces, and third, – by separating national questions or, at the very least, by inviting to the conference representatives of local committees from those districts where there are national S-D. and non-S-D. parties.

I move to the proposed resolution on practical agreements with the S-Rs. (reads the draft in the version of Comrade Voinov):

"Taking into account:

1. that the party of socialist-revolutionaries represents the extreme revolutionary wing of petty-bourgeois democracy;

2. that temporary combat agreements of S-Ds. with the organization of S-Rs. for the purpose of struggle against autocracy are in the present circumstances on the whole desirable;

3. that such agreements should in no case limit the complete independence of the S-D. workers' party and violate the integrity and purity of its proletarian tactics and its principles, —

III Congress of the RSDLP instructs the CC and local committees, where necessary, to enter into temporary combat agreements with organizations of the S-Rs., whereby local agreements may be concluded only under the direct control of the CC."

I agree with this draft. Only, cannot one somehow soften the ending, for example, instead of "under the direct control of the CC" leave merely "under the control of the CC"?