V. I.

Lenin

Freedom to Criticise and Unity of Action [1]

The editors have received the following communication, signed by the Central
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.

“ In view of the fact that several Party organisations have raised the
question of the limits within which the decisions of Party congresses may be criticised , the Central Committee, bearing in mind that the interests of
the Russian proletariat have always demanded the greatest possible unity in the
tactics of the R.S.D.L.P., and that this unity in the political activities of the various sections of our Party is now more necessary than
ever, is of the opinion:

(1) that in the Party press and at Party meetings, everybody must be allowed
full freedom to express his personal opinions and to advocate his
individual views; (2) that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from
conducting agitation that runs counter to congress decisions; (3) that no Party member should at such meetings call for action that runs counter to congress decisions , or propose resolutions that
are out of harmony with congress decisions.” (All italics ours.)

In examining the substance of this resolution, we see a number of queer
points. The resolution says that “at Party meetings” “full
freedom” is to be allowed for the expression of personal opinions and for
criticism (§ 1), but at “public meetings” (§ 2) “no
Party member should call for action that runs counter to congress
decisions”. But see what comes of this: at Party meetings, members of the
Party have the right to call for action that runs counter to congress
decisions; but at public meetings they are not “allowed”
full freedom to “express personal opinions”!!

Those who drafted the resolution have a totally wrong conception of the
relationship between freedom to criticise within the Party and the
Party’s unity of action . Criticism within the limits of the
principles of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind the
reader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings.

Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparable
from agitation) cannot be prohibited. The Party’s political action must be
united. No “calls” that violate the unity of definite actions can be
tolerated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Party
press.

Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccurately
and too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.

Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part in
the Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. During
the elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Party
anywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people to
abstain from voting ; nor can “criticism” of the decision to
take part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in fact
jeopardise success in the election campaign. Before elections have
been announced, however, Party members everywhere have a perfect right
to criticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, the
application of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputes
and misunderstandings; but only on the basis of this principle
can all disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably for
the Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates an
impossible situation.

The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong and runs counter to the Party Rules . The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy for
local Party organisations implies universal and full freedom to criticise , so long as this does not disturb the unity of a definite action ; it rules out all criticism which disrupts or makes
difficult the unity of an action decided on by the Party.

We think that the Central Committee has made a big mistake by publishing a
resolution on this important question without first having it discussed in the
Party press and by Party organisations; such a discussion would have helped it
to avoid the mistakes we have indicated.

We call upon all Party organisations to discuss this resolution of the Central
Committee now, and to express a definite opinion on it.

---
Notes:
[1]
On May 11(24), 1906, 300 R.S.D.L.P. members of the
Moskovsky district in St. Petersburg held a meeting to discuss the results of
the Unity Congress. The reports were made by Lenin (no record of his report has
been preserved) and the Menshevik Dan. Towards the close of the meeting a
controversy broke out between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks over whether it was
permissible to criticise decisions of the Unity Congress in the press and at
public meetings. The Mensheviks, who were doing their utmost to limit the
ideological struggle over the Congress decisions, considered
criticism permissible only at Party meetings, and proposed a
resolution to that effect. Lenin moved an amendment saying that all the Congress decisions should
be discussed not only at Party meetings, but also in the Social-Democratic
press and at public meetings. The resolution, including Lenin’s
amendment, was carried against 39 votes ( Volna , No. 15, May 12,
1906). In reply to Lenin’s amendment the Central Committee, most of whose
members were Mensheviks, adopted the resolution which Lenin criticises in
his article.