V. I.

Lenin

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

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

1

Speech on the Validity of the Congress

April 13 (26)

Iwish to reply to the remarks made here concerning the validity of the
convocation of this Congress. The Central Committee considered the Congress to
be unauthorised. The C.C. has characterised its own message to the Party Council
as “repentant”. But was there anything for the C.C. to repent? The
Congress is perfectly valid. It could, admittedly, be held invalid according to
the letter of the Rules, but it would be grotesque formalism on our
part to give the Rules such an interpretation. According to the spirit of the
Rules, the validity of the Congress is beyond question. The Party Council exists
for the Party, and not the Party for the Council. At the Second Congress, in
connection with the Organising Committee incident, it was pointed out, by none
other than Comrade Plekhanov, that discipline with regard to a lower body yields
precedence to discipline with regard to a higher body. The C.C. declared its
readiness to submit to the Party Council, if the latter would submit to the
Party, viz., to the Congress. This was a perfectly legitimate demand, yet the
Party Council rejected it. But the C.C., we are told, began to doubt the loyalty
of the Party Council and expressed its lack of confidence in it. However, as we
know, in all constitutionally governed countries the citizens have a right to
express their lack of confidence in any public servant or institution. This is
their inalienable right. Finally, even if the C.C. acted unwarrantedly, did that
give the Party Council the right also to act unwarrantedly? What guarantee is
there that the clause in the Rules which puts the Party Council under obligation
to call a congress upon its endorsement by half the qualified votes will actually be enforced? The Rules of the
German Social-Democratic Party contain a clause authorising the Control
Commission to convene a congress, if the

Vorstand [1] refuses to do so. We have no such provision, and it rests entirely with the Party to
ensure that the Congress is convened. From the spirit of the Rules, and even
from their letter, if taken as a whole, it is clear that the Party Council
is the agent of the Party committees. The agent of the committees refuses to
do the bidding of its principals. If the agent does not carry out the will
of the Party, the only thing left for the Party is to execute its will
itself. The Party committees not only had the right to call the Congress
themselves, but were in duty bound to do so. I maintain that the Congress
was convened in a perfectly legitimate way. Who is the judge in
this dispute between the Party Council and the committees? Why,
these very committees, the Party. The will of the Party was expressed long ago. All the
delay and procrastination on the part of the centres abroad could not alter
it. The commit tees were obligated to convene the Congress themselves, and
the Congress has been convened lawfully.

Now,to meet Comrade Tigrov’s point. Comrade Tigrov says we ought not to judge
the Party Council. But the whole report of the Organising Committee is a
judgement of the Party Council. I think Comrade Tigrov errs in holding that we
must not judge the accused in absentia. In politics one is constantly
compelled to judge in absentia. Do we not constantly judge the
Socialists-Revolutionaries, the Bundists, and others in our writings, at our
meetings, and everywhere? What else can we do but judge in absentia , if
the Party Council refuses to appear at the Congress? In that case we could never
judge anyone. Even the official court judges in absentia if the accused
refuses to appear before it.

---
Notes:
[1]
The executive body.— Ed .