V. I.

Lenin

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

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

Speech on the Amendments to the Resolution on the Provisional
Revolutionary Government

April 19 (May 2)

On the whole I share the opinion of Comrade Zimin. It is only natural that, as
publicist, I should have given my attention to the literary formulation of the
question. Comrade Zimin has very properly stressed the importance of the aim
which our struggle pursues, and I subscribe to all he has said. You cannot fight
if you do not expect to capture the point you are fighting for....

Comrade Zimin’s amendment to Point 2: “that the establishment, etc. ... a
provisional government, which alone”, etc., is quite to the purpose, and I
readily accept it.

This is likewise true of the amendment to Point 3; it is very appropriate to
show here that under the present social and economic conditions the bourgeoisie
will of necessity grow stronger.

In point (a) of the resolution, the wording “the proletariat will
demand” is better than my formulation, since it shifts the emphasis to the
proletariat. In point (b) the reference to the dependence on the relation of
forces is also quite appropriate. This formulation, in my opinion, renders
Comrade Andreyev’s amendment unnecessary. [1]

Incidentally, I should like to know the opinion of the comrades from Russia as to whether the
expression “immediate demands” is clear enough or whether we should
not add “the minimum programme” in parenthesis. In point (c) I use
the word “are”, while Comrade Zimin proposes “should be”; evidently a stylistic correction is needed here. Where Party control
is dealt with, I think my old formulation “the safeguarding of the independence of the Social-Democratic Party” is better than
“preserving”, which Comrade Zimin proposes. Our task is not only to
“preserve” the independence of the Social-Democratic Party, but
constantly to “safeguard” it. Comrade Sosnovsky’s amendment to this
point only mars the formulation by making it vaguer. Comrade Andreyev’s
proposals for changes are covered in part in the points of my resolution and of
Comrade Zimin’s. Incidentally, it is hardly appropriate to put
“provisional government” in the plural in the formulation, as
Comrade Andreyev proposes. Of course, we may have many provisional governments;
but we should not make a point of it, for we do not in any sense strive for
such partitioning. We shall always stand for a single provisional government of
all-Russia and strive to create “a single centre, and a Russian one at
that”. ( Laughter .)

---
Notes:
[1]
Andreyev—N. A. Alexeyev, attended the Third Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. with consultative voice.