A considerable part of the comrades working in Russia, including the Bureau of the Committees of the Majority, are speaking out in favor of a single center in Russia.

What precisely does such a reform mean? In a single center, comrades working in Russia should predominate—this undoubtedly flows from the indicated tendency. The implementation of it depends entirely on the will of the Congress that elects the composition of the center. Consequently, there is nothing here to dispute and nothing to discuss.

But further, what will be the relationship of the Central Organ to the Central Committee? The Central Organ, we are told, is a commission appointed by the Central Committee. One (or two) members of the editorial board of the Central Organ can (say the same comrades) enter, as a part and as a lesser part, into the Central Committee. The question then arises: in what will the participation of this foreign part of the Central Committee in the affairs of the Central Committee be expressed? To participate really in the affairs of the Central Committee "by correspondence"—this is patent utopianism, one can speak of this only in mockery. Abroad, only with great difficulty, at the cost of an abyss of trouble, labor, cursing, and unpleasantness, does one succeed in achieving poor post factum information, and one can speak of "participation in the decision of affairs" from abroad only "for the sake of importance" or for hypocrisy.

Thus, one of two things: either the foreign members (respectively, the foreign member) of the Central Committee stipulate for themselves, according to the party statute (for other "agreements" are invalid), periodic meetings of the entire Central Committee abroad. If so, then this supreme center factually completely coincides with the present Council of the party, that is, it becomes an institution that meets 3–4–5 times a year and merely gives general direction to all work. Or else the Central Committee assembles in Russia and there decides all affairs, without the foreign member; then the latter is merely listed, and admittedly fictitiously listed, as a member of the Central Committee. In fact, he cannot participate in the decision of general affairs. Under such conditions, one could with full justification doubt whether people would be found for this "post" (or for this sinecure?) of "foreign members" of the Central Committee!

Another (and the last possible) supposition. The entire composition of the Central Committee, as a single center, consists of comrades working in Russia. Only such a center will be a really unified Russian center. Abroad it appoints its agency. Practically this agency will exist, however, as an independent center: indeed, imagine the editorial board of the Central Organ. It is clear that here an entire collegium is needed, which is formed, takes shape, becomes harmonized only through a long and protracted process (Russia, in order to form a new Central Organ after the II Congress, spent a year and a half of effort, and this despite the enormous interest of all of Russia in the grave all-party crisis!). In practice this collegium conducts the weekly organ completely independently. The Russian Central Committee responds to its conduct of affairs at best with a "conference" once every half-year (or once every 1½ years)—in what does such a "conference" differ from a "Council"?—or with a "letter" from an individual member of the Central Committee. In practice this foreign collegium conducts agitation and preparation of workers abroad (reports and meetings) before hundreds of party members. The Central Committee is physically unable in fact to direct this work, in fact to guide this work of the foreign collegium. The Central Committee is physically unable to participate in this work otherwise than through rare conferences with the persons conducting it. And once more: in what will these conferences differ from a Council??

Conclusion: in fact, in practice a "single" center will either be a fiction, or it will reduce itself, necessarily and inevitably reduce itself, to the present system of what is mockingly called "three-centerism." In fact, in practice the difference of geographical conditions, political conditions, conditions of the character of work will inevitably and necessarily cause and will cause (until the fall of autocracy) two centers in our party, united only from time to time by "conferences," which in fact will always play the role of the supreme or highest "Council" of the party.

It is perfectly understandable that the reaction against the foreign element provoked among Russians a universal outcry: down with the foreign element! down with two centers! This reaction is legitimate and laudable, for it signifies an enormous growth of party forces and party self-consciousness after the II Congress. This reaction expresses a step forward for our party—on this there is no dispute. But one should not allow oneself to be seduced by words or raise into a "system" the mood of this given moment, the transitory "anger" against the "foreign elements." No party system can be built on anger. Nothing is easier than to pass a simple and brief rule: "one center," but by such a decision we do not at all move closer to the solution of a very complex question concerning the methods of real (and not paper) unification of the various functions of work in Russia and abroad.

Written in February 1905

First printed in 1926 in Lenin Miscellany V

Printed from the manuscript