Appendix 2.
DRAFT OF A JOINT STATEMENT.1
(Outline)
[January–February 1911]
1.
Brief Summary of the Past Year Since the Last Plenum: a) The Plenum Granted Maximum, Even Excessive, Concessions to the Ultimatumists and the Voicingists—All in Order to Extract from Them a Commitment to Combat Revocationism and Liquidationism.
b) Both the Ultimatumists and the Voicingists Betrayed the Plenum’s Trust—Over the Course of an Entire Year, the former did nothing but Shield and Encourage Revocationism, while the latter pursued Liquidationism.
c)
Only the Bolsheviks, who had conditionally disbanded their Factional Center, Fulfilled Honestly the Promises They Had Made to the Plenum.

d) Both the Forwardists and the Liquidators Established and Consolidated Their Own Organizationally Separate, Completely Independent Factions—Factions That Operated with Their Own Distinct Factional Funds, Organs, and So On. Among the Forwardists, the Primary Factional Tool Was the So-Called “School,”2 While Among the Liquidators It Was “Golos” Abroad, the Potresov Group, the 16–8 Group, and Mikhail, Roman, and Yuri4 in Russia.
II. General Conclusions
a) Those Who Now Propose “Reconciliation” with the Forwardists and the Voicingists Are, Objectively Speaking, Playing into the Hands of Revocationism and Liquidationism.
b) As the Year’s Experience Has Shown, “Reconciliation” of the Trotskyist Type Has Proven Bankrupt; “The Unification of All With All” Has Proved Impossible. Yet There Was Something Serious and Durable in the Plenum’s Resolutions: 1) The Recognition of Liquidationism and Revocationism as Products of Bourgeois Influence on the Proletariat; and 2) The Raising of the Question of Overcoming Old Divisions by Grounding Ourselves in Fact-Based Ideological Convergence—A Convergence That Had Already Begun Among the Two Main Factions.
c) The Year [Has] Demonstrated That the Only Truly Realistic Form of “Convergence” Is the Convergence Between the Bolsheviks and the Menshevik Party Members (the Plekhanovites). They Led the Central Committee; Through a Year of Experience, They Showed What Their Line Truly Was—They Enjoyed Approval in Russia, Where This Very Same Convergence Was Also Progressing Extremely Successfully.
d) Accordingly, the Collegium Must Be Reformed. The Situation Within the Central Committee Under Martov and Dan5 Should Be Clearly Defined. A Radical Reform Is Necessary if Party Institutions Are to Be Guided Solely by Decisive Opponents of Liquidationism and Revocationism.
e) Attempts to Convene the Central Committee in Russia Over the Past Year Were Thwarted by the Liquidators. Now, the Only Way to Lead the Party Out of Its Present, Difficult Situation Is to Convene a Plenum.
f) In the Current Circumstances, the Only Feasible Path to Convene a Plenum Is Through the Submission of a Formal Application.0
g) Regarding Igor’s and the Voicingists’ Attempts to Disrupt the Plenum—These Should Be Characterized as Yet Another Liquidationist Plot.
h) A Call to All Party Elements to Strive for the Convocation of a Plenum That Will Draw Practical Lessons From the Year’s Experience.
The General Situation in Russia, the Upturn, and So On.
The Polemic with Martov.
1 “Draft of a Joint Statement”—That Is, a Joint Statement by the Bolsheviks and the Menshevik Party Members Against the Liquidators.
2 We Are Referring to the Second Forwardist School in Bologna, Which Functioned From November 1910 to March 1911 (see Collected Works, Vol. XIV, p. 556, Note 209).
8 The “16” Group Consisted of Sixteen Menshevik Liquidators Who Published an “Open Letter” in Nos. 19–20 of “Golos Sotsial-Demokrata” as a Response to G.V. Plekhanov’s Address in
9 “The Social-Democrat’s Diary” (For Further Details, See Collected Works, Vol. XIV, p. 541, Note 147).

Mikhail—Isuv I.A.; Roman—Ermolaev K.M.; Yuri—Bronstein P.A. (See Collected Works, Vol. XIV, pp. 581–582; 578 and 566–567).

V.I. LENIN—TO THE RUSSIAN COLLEGIUM OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE


Martov and Dan Joined the Editorial Board of “Social-Democrat” After the January Plenum of the Central Committee of the RSDLP; From the Bolsheviks, Lenin and Zinoviev Were Included; From the Polish Delegates, Barsky Was Added (For Detailed Information on Work in the Central Committee Editorial Board, See Collected Works, Vol. XIV, pp. 494–495, Note 15).
In the Text of the Bolsheviks’ Application to the Central Bureau of the Communist International, Submitted on December 5, 1910, Signed by Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev—and Including a Protest Against the Convening of a Plenum by Gorev (Igor)—These Documents Are Cited in a Letter from II. Semashko (II. Alexandrov) to the Central Bureau of the Communist International (See Collected Works, Vol. XV, “Documents and Materials,” pp. 581–584).
14Sh
V.I. LENIN—TO THE RUSSIAN COLLEGIUM
OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE/1
To the Russian Collegium of the Central Committee.
[Second Half of February 1911, Paris.]2
In View of the Possibility—and Indeed the Likelihood—Of Convening the Central Committee in Russia, We Consider It Our Duty to Set Forth Our Views on Certain Important Questions That Bear Upon Our Position as Responsible Figures Before the Party.
1. At the Plenum in January 1910,
We, as the Responsible Representatives of the Bolshevik Current, Entered Into an Agreement With the Central Committee, as Printed in
11 The Central Committee.3 Our Application, Submitted by Three Officials Authorized by the Meshkovskoye Group,
Was, in Formal Terms, a Termination of That Agreement—An Action Motivated by the Failure of the Voicingists and the Forwardists to Fulfill the Precisely Stipulated Conditions of the Agreement.
It Goes Without Saying That, Given the Actual Absence of the Central Committee and the Emergence of a Split Abroad, We Would Gladly Withdraw This Application—or Agree to a Revision of the Agreement—if the Central Committee Could Gather and Restore the Party Work and Party Line That Had Been Violated by the Specified Factions.
2. This Party Line Was Clearly Defined by the Plenum—and It Is in Vain That the Voicingists, Trotsky, and Others Seek to Confuse It. This Line Consists in the Recognition of Bourgeois Theory as a Pernicious Influence on the Proletariat, as Well as in the Recognition of Liquidationism and Revocationism. Both of These Currents, Following the Plenum and in Contravention of Its Resolutions, Developed and Solidified Into Anti-Party Factions—The Potresovists and the Voicingists.*
The Letter Was Written by Lenin in His Own Name, as Well as on Behalf of G. Zinoviev and L. Kamenev. The End of the Letter Was Attributed to G. Zinoviev. Ed.

On One Side, the Forwardists; On the Other, the Mensheviks. Of the Mensheviks, Only Those So-Called “Party Members,” or Plekhanovites—That Is, Those Who Had Taken a Firm Stand and Were Leading the Struggle Against the Potresovists and the Voicingists—Had Stepped Onto the Party Road Indicated by the Plenum.
3. Therefore, As Representatives of the Bolshevik Current, We Resolutely Protest the Voicingists’ Attacks on Innocentius for the Fact That, in the Summer of 1910, He Had Refused to Recognize as Candidates for Co-optation Those Mensheviks Who Had Remained Voicingists or Who Had Not Fully Demonstrated Their Party Affiliation Through Their Actions. By Acting Thus, Innocentius—The Chief Representative of a Different Shade Within Bolshevism—Had Acted Absolutely Correctly [And We Have Written Evidence That, Precisely as a Representative of a Distinct Shade, in the Presence of Witnesses from the P.S.D., He Had Defined the Principles of Party Affiliation That Unite All Bolsheviks in the Manner Described].
4. The Voicingists’ Attempt, From Abroad, on Behalf of a Schismatic Faction Operating Overseas, to Propose “Their Own” Candidates for Co-optation Into the Central Committee Is a Flagrant Act of Mockery.
If, at the Plenum, There Had Been Individuals Who Still Kept Some Hope in the Mensheviks’ Promise to Fight Liquidationism, Then, A Year Later, It Had Become Perfectly Clear That the Voicingists Could Not Be Trusted on This Issue.
We Resolutely Protest the Practice of Putting the Candidates of the Foreign Liquidator Faction to a Vote and Demand That the Russian Plekhanovites Be Consulted—Those Who Undoubtedly Can Offer Candidates From Among the Menshevik Party Members.
5. The Schismatic Steps Taken by the Voicingists, the Forwardists, and Trotsky Have Now Been Recognized Not Only by the Bolsheviks and the Polish Delegates (in the Central Committee), But Also by the Plekhanovites (See the Resolution Adopted by the Parisian Plekhanovites). We Note That the First Decisive Step Toward Splitting the Party—The Announcement of the Convening of a Conference and of a “Fund” for It, Outside the Central Committee—Was Taken by Trotsky on November 27, 1910;4 Our Application (December 5, 1910) Was a Forced Response to That Announcement. The Forwardist School Had Become One of the Centers of This Split: Trotsky Had Participated in It Despite the Direct Resolution of the Party’s School Commission.
The Voicingists Had Publicly Accused Us of “Disorganizing” This School.
Considering It Our Duty to Disorganize the Anti-Party Foreign Factions, We Demand That an Investigative Commission Be Appointed to Examine the “Funds” of This School—and to Investigate the Role Played in Its Promotion by Trotsky and the Voicingists. While Crying Out About Expropriatory Measures That We Had Ultimately Liquidated at the Plenum, the Voicingists Not Only Engaged in Blackmail