V. I.

Lenin

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

April 10 (23)-April 25 (May 8), 1906

7

Dissenting Opinion on the Composition of the
Parliamentary Group of the R.S.D.L.P.

I

Regarding the rejection of Stodolin’s [1] amendment as a departure
even from the principles of parliamentarism, I declare that I am submitting a
dissenting opinion on this question.

II

In accordance with the declaration I have already submitted, I enclose
herewith my dissenting opinion on the question of Stodolin’s amendment.

In his amendment, Comrade Stodolin proposed that the official parliamentary
group of the R.S.D.L.P. should consist exclusively of Party members who not
only work in one of the Party organisations, and not only submit to the Party as
a whole, and to their Party organisations in particular, but who, in addition,
have been put up as candidates by the latter (i.e., the respective Party
organisations).

Consequently Comrade Stodolin wanted our first Social-Democratic steps on the
path of parliamentarism to be taken exclusively on the direct instructions of
the respective organisations, and in their name. It is not enough that members
of the parliamentary group should belong to one of the Party organisations. In
view of the conditions prevailing in Russia, this does not preclude the most
undesirable incidents, for our Party organisations cannot exercise open and public control over their members. It is highly important therefore that our
first steps on the path of parliamentarism should be accompanied by every
precaution devised by the experience of the socialist parties in
Europe. The West-European parties, and particularly their Left wings,
even insist on parliamentary candidates being nominated by the local party
organisations by agreement with the Central Committees. The revolutionary
Social-Democrats in Europe have very serious grounds for demanding this
triple control over their members of parliament: first, the general
control that the party exercises over all its members; secondly, the special
control of the local organisations who nominate the parliamentary
candidates in their own name; and thirdly, the special control of the
Central Committee, which, standing above local influences and local
conditions, must see to it that only such parliamentary candidates are
nominated as satisfy general party and general political requirements.

By rejecting Comrade Stodolin’s amendment, by rejecting the demand that the
parliamentary group should consist exclusively of those whom the Party
organisations had directly nominated as parliamentary candidates, by rejecting
this demand, the Congress has revealed far less prudence in parliamentary
tactics than the West-European revolutionary Social-Democrats. And yet there can
hardly be any doubt that, in view of the especially difficult conditions
prevailing in Russia for the public activities of the Social-Democrats, we
unquestionably require far greater prudence than that prompted by the experience
of the revolutionary Social-Democrats of Western Europe.

---
Notes:
[1]
Stodolin —the Bolshevik N. N. Nakoryakov.