November 3–7 (16–20), 1906

The "Special Opinion" was published on November 23, 1906 in the newspaper Proletary, No. 8

The report and speeches are printed for the first time, based on the minutes; the "Special Opinion" – from the newspaper text

1. Report on the Election Campaign to the Second State Duma. November 4 (17)

Resolution of the St. Petersburg and Moscow Committees, the PSD and the Latvians

1. Only through the fault of the treacherous bourgeoisie were we compelled to take up the struggle on the ground of the Duma.

2. The election campaign must be based on contrasting revolutionary and "peaceful" struggle, and on showing how dangerous the hegemony of the Cadets is in the liberation movement. Hence the question: is a bloc with the Cadets (agreement at the first stage) permissible?

3. At the first stage, Social-Democracy should act independently as a general rule; by way of exception, agreements at the first stage with parties that recognise the Constituent Assembly, armed uprising, etc.; at the second stage, agreements of a technical nature, only for the proportional distribution of mandates. There is nothing more dangerous than telling the masses: vote with us for the compromisers. Krushevan is not dangerous because he sits in the Duma, but because he constitutes a tiny part of the Black-Hundred organisation that supports the government. By making concessions for a few small gains you are supporting the hegemony of the Cadets and undermining our entire principled position (the Caucasus, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Poland do not want agreements). If the Black Hundreds get through, the Duma will be only sharper. Why do you believe that the Social-Democrats are to blame for the Black Hundreds getting through, and not the Cadets – in the event of a split of votes?

2. Concluding Remarks on the Report on the Election Campaign to the Second State Duma. November 4 (17)

Agreement at the elections means a bloc (do ut des, you are telling the masses). We say: with the revolutionary bourgeoisie we sometimes go, with the opportunist and treacherous bourgeoisie – never. The election campaign will run between two extremes: 400 Cadets + 100 Social-Democrats (by agreement) and 200 Black Hundreds + 250 Cadets + 20 or 50 Social-Democrats (without agreements). To put forward both a supplicant and a fighter is to undermine one's own position. With agreements the Black Hundreds will be defeated, but the Social-Democrats too will be defeated (morally).

3. Speech During the Discussion of the Menshevik Election Platform. November 6 (19)

I merely said that the platform contains a contrast between revolutionary methods and peaceful ones, and that is all; the rest is unsatisfactory. It does not indicate how the Social-Democrats differ from other groups of the "toiling people" (Socialist-Revolutionaries), as was done in the declaration of the Duma Social-Democratic faction. There is no contrast between scientific socialism and vulgar socialism.

It does not say that we must distinguish the position of the proletariat from that of the small proprietor. The platform does not defend a bloc, but it is a bloc, because a petty bourgeois could also subscribe to it. We cannot in a platform remain silent about the other parties, yet here there is nothing about them, only a vague reference to "more resolute" ones, etc.

4. Speeches on the Question of Convening a "Workers' Congress". November 7 (20)

1

Lenin insists that the question of the "workers' congress" is a sore point and should be discussed!

2

Lenin points to the publication of letters by Plekhanov, Martov and others in the bourgeois press, to the fact that, for example, Kostrov did not submit to the Duma faction the proposal to demand a Cadet ministry (which had come from the CC) and thereby violated Party discipline, and he did the right thing. By agitating for a "workers' congress" they throw obstacles under the wheels of Party activity. We have an organ of the CC, but we have no Central Organ, why? We have the money, the organ of the CC comes out regularly, but we have no organisation, and therefore no CO.

5. Special Opinion Submitted to the All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP on Behalf of the Delegates of the Social-Democrats of Poland, the Latvian Region, St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Central Industrial Region, and the Volga Region

The delegates of the Bund moved at the conference a resolution almost entirely repeating the resolution of the Seventh Congress of the Bund, which gives a historical assessment of the boycott of the Duma. The undersigned delegates of the conference abstained from voting on this resolution for the following reasons. It is wrong and impossible to separate the question of why we are going into the Duma from the question of how we are going there. To recognise the correctness of the boycott means that the basic character of our entire tactics remains exactly the same in the present participation in the elections as it was during the boycott of the First Duma. To recognise that the Cadet majority of the First Duma hindered the activity of the revolutionary elements, and at the same time to approve, at the first stage of the elections, agreements between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats, means to undercut one's own general premises by one's practical policy. To recognise and support the hegemony of the Cadets in agitation before the masses by putting forward common lists, and then to condemn this hegemony in a special supplementary resolution – this means compromising in the strongest manner the entire tactics and all the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy. On these grounds we place before the whole RSDLP the following special opinion.

"The tactic of boycotting the State Duma, which helped the popular masses to correctly appraise the powerlessness and the dependent role of that institution, was fully justified by the farce of the legislative activity of the State Duma and by its dissolution.

But the counter-revolutionary conduct of the bourgeoisie and the compromising tactic of Russian liberalism prevented the immediate success of the boycott and compelled the proletariat to take up the struggle against the landowner and bourgeois counter-revolution also on the ground of the Duma campaign.

This struggle outside the Duma and in the Duma itself Social-Democracy must wage in the interests of developing the class consciousness of the proletariat, of further exposing to the whole people the constitutional illusions, and of developing the revolution.

In view of this state of affairs and with the aim indicated, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party must take the most energetic part in the present Duma campaign.

The fundamental tasks of the Social-Democratic election and Duma campaign are, firstly, to explain to the people the complete unsuitability of the Duma as a means to realise the demands of the proletariat and the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie, in particular the peasantry. Secondly, to explain to the people the impossibility of achieving political freedom by parliamentary means as long as real power remains in the hands of the tsarist government, and to explain the necessity of an armed uprising, a provisional revolutionary government, and a Constituent Assembly on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage. Thirdly, to criticise the First Duma and to explain the bankruptcy of Russian liberalism, and especially to explain how dangerous and fatal for the cause of the revolution would be the leading and guiding role in the liberation movement of the liberal-monarchist Cadet Party.

As the class party of the proletariat, Social-Democracy must remain unconditionally independent throughout the entire election and Duma campaign, without merging here in any case either its slogans or its tactics with any other oppositional or revolutionary party.

Therefore at the first stage of the election campaign, i.e., before the masses, it must as a general rule act unconditionally independently and put forward only Party candidacies.

Exceptions to this rule are permissible only in cases of extreme necessity, and only with parties that fully accept the fundamental slogans of our immediate political struggle, i.e., that recognise the necessity of an armed uprising and are fighting for a democratic republic. Moreover, such agreements may extend only to the putting forward of a common list of candidates, without in any way restricting the independence of the political agitation of Social-Democracy.

In the workers' curia the Social-Democratic Party acts unconditionally independently, entering into no agreements with any other party.

At the higher stages of the elections, i.e., in the assemblies of electors in the towns, and of delegates and electors in the villages, private agreements are permissible exclusively for the proportional distribution of seats according to the number of votes of the parties concluding the agreement. In doing so, Social-Democracy distinguishes, in relation to democratic consistency and resoluteness, the following basic types of bourgeois parties:

a) the SRs, PPS and similar republican parties;
b) the Popular Socialists and Trudoviks of a similar type;
c) the Cadets."