V. I.

Lenin

The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

April 12 (25)-April 27 (May 10), 1905

24

Speech on an Agreement with the Socialists-Revolutionaries

April 23 (May 6)

Ihave to inform the Congress of an unsuccessful attempt to come to an agreement
with the Socialists-Revolutionaries. Comrade Gapon arrived abroad. He met with
the Socialists-Revolutionaries, then with the Iskra people, and
finally with me. He told me that he shared the point of view of the
Social-Democrats, but for various reasons did not deem it possible to say so
openly. I told him that diplomacy was a good thing, but not between
revolutionaries. I shall not repeat our conversation; it was reported in

Vperyod . [1]

He impressed me as being an enterprising and clever man,
unquestionably devoted to the revolution, though unfortunately without
a consistent revolutionary outlook.

Sometime later I received a written invitation from Comrade Gapon to attend a
conference of socialist organisations, convened, according to his idea, for the
purpose of co-ordinating their activities. Here is a list of the eighteen
organisations which, according to that letter, were invited to Comrade Gapon’s
conference:

(1) The Socialist-Revolutionary Party, (2) the Vperyod R.S.D.L.P., (3)
the Iskra R.S.D.L.P., (4) the Polish Socialist Party, (5) the
Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania, (6) the P.S.P.,
Proletariat , (7) the Lettish Social-Democratic Labour Party, (8)
the Bund, (9) the Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation, (10) the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Droshak), ( II ) The Byelorussian
Socialist

Hromada, (12) the Lettish Social-Democratic League, (13) the
Active Resistance Party of Finland, (14) the Workers’ Party
of Finland, (15) the Georgian Party of Socialist-Federalist
Revolutionaries, (16) the Ukrainian Revolutionary Party,
(17) the Lithuanian Social-Democratic Party, and (18) the
Ukrainian Socialist Party.

Ipointed out both to Comrade Gapon and to a prominent Socialist-Revolutionary
that the dubious make-up of the conference might create difficulties. The
Socialists-Revolutionaries were building up an overwhelming conference
majority. The convocation of the conference was greatly delayed. Iskra
replied, as documents submitted to me by Comrade Gapon show, that it preferred
direct agreements with organised parties. A “gentle” hint at
Vperyod’s being an alleged disrupter, etc. In the end Iskra
did not attend the conference. We, the representatives of both the
Vperyod Editorial Board and the Bureau of Committees of the Majority,
did attend. Arriving on the scene, we saw that the conference was a
Socialist-Revolutionary affair. As it became clear, either the working-class
parties had not been invited at all, or there was no record of their having been
invited. Thus, the Active Resistance Party of Finland was represented, but not
the Workers’ Party of Finland.

Whenwe asked for the reason, we were told that the invitation to the Workers’
Party of Finland had been sent via the Active Resistance Party, since, in the
words of the Socialist-Revolutionary who offered the explanation, they did not
know how to send it directly. Yet anyone who is at all familiar with things
abroad knows that connections with the Workers’ Party of Finland can be
established, if only through Branting, the leader of the Swedish
Social-Democratic Labour Party. There were representatives from the
Polish Socialist Party in attendance, but no representative from the Social-Democracy of Poland and
Lithuania. Nor was it possible to ascertain whether an invitation had been
extended. No reply had been received from the Lithuanian Social-Democracy or
from the Ukrainian Revolutionary Party, we were told by the same
Socialist-Revolutionary.

Fromthe outset the national question was made an issue. The Polish Socialist
Party raised the question of having several constituent assemblies. This gives
me reason to say that in the future it will be necessary for us either to refuse outright to take
any part in such conferences, or to convene a conference of
representatives of the working-class parties of one nationality, or to
invite to the conference representatives of local party committees from
the regions with a non-Russian population. But I certainly do not infer
from this that conferences are impossible because of differences on points
of principle. All that is necessary is that only practical questions be
taken up.

Wecannot control the composition of conferences, etc., from abroad. The Russian
centre must be represented, and representatives of the local committees must
take part with out fail. The question that led to our withdrawal concerned the
Letts. On leaving the conference we submitted the following declaration:

“Theimportant historical period through which Russia is passing confronts
the Social-Democratic and revolutionary-democratic parties and organisations
working within the country with the task of reaching a practical agreement for a
more effective attack on the autocratic regime.

“While,therefore, attaching very great importance to the conference called
for that purpose, we must naturally subject the composition of the conference to
the closest scrutiny.

“Inthe conference called by Comrade Gapon this condition, so essential to
its success, has unfortunately not been properly observed, and we were therefore
obliged, at its very initiation, to take measures calculated to ensure the
genuine success of the gathering.

“Thefact that the conference was to deal solely with practical matters
made it necessary, in the first place, that only organisations truly
constituting a real force in Russia should be afforded participation.

“Actually,the composition of the conference, as far as the reality of some
of the organisations is concerned, is most unsatisfactory. Even an organisation
of whose fictitious nature there is not the slightest doubt, found
representation. We refer to the Lettish Social-Democratic League.

“Therepresentative of the Lettish Social-Democratic Labour Party objected
to the seating of this League and couched his objection in the form of an
ultimatum.

“Theutter fictitiousness of the ’League’, as subsequently established at a
special meeting of the representatives of the four Social-Democratic
organisations and the delegates of the ’League’, naturally compelled us, the
remaining Social-Democratic organisations and parties attending the conference,
to endorse the ultimatum.

“Atthe outset, however, we came up against the strong resistance of all
the revolutionary-democratic parties, which, in refusing to meet our peremptory
demand, showed that they preferred one fictitious group to a number of
well-known Social-Democratic organisations.

“Finally,the practical significance of the conference was still further
lowered by the absence of a number of other Social-Democratic organisations,
whose participation, as far as we could ascertain, no proper measures had been
taken to ensure.

“Thoughcompelled, in view of all this, to leave the conference, we express
our conviction that the failure of this one attempt will not stand in the way of
earnest efforts to renew the endeavour in the very near future, and that the
task that confronts all revolutionary parties of reaching a practical agreement
will be accomplished by the coming conference, to be composed of organisations
actually working in Russia, and not of fictitious organisations.

“For the Lettish S.D.L.P . . . . . . F. Rozin.

“For the Vperyod R.S.D.L.P . . . . . N. Lenin.

“For the Central Committee of the Bund . . . I. Gelfin.

“For the Armenian Social-Democratic Labour Organisation . . . Lerr.”

Aweek and a half or two weeks later Comrade Gapon sent me the following
statement:

“Dear Comrade “Iam forwarding to you two declarations issued by the conference of which
you know, and I request that you communicate their contents to the forthcoming
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. I deem it my duty to state that for my own part
I accept these declarations with certain reservations on the questions of the
socialist programme and the principle of federalism.

“Georgi Gapon.”

Thisstatement was accompanied by two interesting documents, containing the
following striking passages:

“Theapplication of the federative principle to the relations between
nationalities remaining under one state roof....

“Socialisation,i.e., the transfer under public administration to the use
by the labouring agricultural population of all lands whose cultivation is based
on the exploitation of the labour of others; the determination of the concrete
forms this measure is to take, of the order in which it is to be instituted, and
of its scope, is to remain within the jurisdiction of the parties of the
different nationalities, in keeping with the specific local conditions of each
country; the development of public, municipal, and communal economy....

“... Bread for the starving!

“Theland and its bounties for all the toilers!

AConstituent Assembly of representatives of all parts of the Russian Empire,
exclusive of Poland and Finland!

Convocationof a Constituent Assembly for the Caucasus, as an autonomous part of
Russia with which it is to be federated...

Theresult of the conference, as appears from these quotations, has fully
confirmed the fears which induced us to leave the conference. We have here
a copy of the Socialist-Revolutionary programme with all sorts of
concessions to the nationalist non-proletarian parties. It was strange
taking part in deciding the questions raised at the conference without
the participation of the national proletarian parties. For instance, the
conference presented the demand for a separate Constituent Assembly for
Poland. We can be neither for nor against the demand. Our
programme recognises the principle of the self-determination of
nationalities. But to decide this question without the Social-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania
is impermissible. The conference divided up the Constituent Assembly, and
this in the absence of the working-class parties! We cannot allow any
practical solution of such questions to be reached without the party of
the proletariat.

Atthe same time, I find that differences on points of principle do not exclude
the possibility of practical conferences, provided, first, that they be held in
Russia; secondly, that the reality of the forces be verified; and, thirdly,
that questions concerning the various nationalities be dealt with separately,
or at least, that representatives of the local committees of the regions where
there are Social-Democratic and non-Social-Democratic national parties be
invited to the conference.

Inow pass to the proposed resolution on practical agreements with the
Socialists-Revolutionaries. ( The speaker reads the draft as worded by Comrade Voinov ):

“Confirmingthe attitude of the R.S.D.L.P. towards the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party as set forth in the resolution of the
Second Congress, and

1. Whereas temporary militant agreements between the
Social-Democratic Party and the organisation of the
Socialists-Revolutionaries for the purposes of combating the
autocracy are on the whole desirable at the present time; and

2. Whereas such agreements should under no circumstance restrict the
complete independence of the Social-Democratic Labour Party, or affect
the integrity and purity of its proletarian tactics and
principles;— Therefore,the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. instructs the C.C.
and the local committees, should the necessity arise, to enter into
temporary militant agreements with the Socialist-Revolutionary
organisations, provided that local agreements are concluded only under the direct
supervision of the C.C.”

Iagree with this draft. We might perhaps tone down the end. For
instance, instead of “under the direct supervision of the
Central Committee”, we might have only “under the supervision of the Central Committee”.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 162-66 of this volume— Ed .