V. I. Lenin

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

APRIL 12–27 (APRIL 25–MAY 10), 1905

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS NON-RUSSIAN
SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC
ORGANISATIONS {1}

APRIL 23 (MAY 8)

We are being offered something unacceptable. What, after all, does
Comrade Mikhailov want? Does he want the agreements to be concluded only by
the C.C. and local committees jointly? But the C.C.’s general resolutions
are binding on local committees. It is unreasonable to consider the special
case in which the Menshevik C.C. got something wrong. The local committees
should also be allowed to display initiative. We should authorise the local
commit tees as well to co-ordinate the activity with Social-Democratic
organisations locally. If the C.C. does not happen to find itself in
conditions where it cannot be located, it will, of course, always be
consulted.

| Trety ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov , Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1905 | |
| --- | --- |
| Printed from the text of the book | |

---
Notes:
{1}
The twenty-first sitting on April 23 (May 6) discussed a draft
resolution on the attitude towards non-Russian Social-Democratic
organisations motioned by V. V. Vorovsky (Orlovsky). It said: = “... The Third R.S.D.L.P. Congress, reaffirming the attitude of the Second
Congress on the question of federalism, authorises both the C.C. and the
local committees to do their utmost to reach agreement with the national
Social-Democratic organisations for the purpose of co-ordinating local
work, thereby paving the way for a possible unification of all
Social-Democratic parties into a single R.S.D.L.P.” ( Trety syezd R.S.D.R.P. , p. 365).

D. S. Postolovsky (Mikhailov) proposed the following text: = “authorises the C.C., as well as the local organisations, to make
joint efforts” (ibid.). He argued that agreement could be reached
only “when it was arranged not only by the C.C. but by the local
committees as well” (ibid., p. 371). This amendment was opposed by Lenin
and rejected by the Congress.

p. 162