1. On the Draft Resolution “On the Russian Organizational Commission for Convening the Conference”{164}

This is independent of any expressions of gratitude.

This pertains to the Mandate Commission.

Instead of “gratitude,” I suggest replacing it with a solemn acknowledgment of the immense significance of the work accomplished—and an elucidation of the profound difficulties inherent in the prevailing conditions.

Written in January, no later than January 5 (18), 1912.

First published in 1941 in the journal “Proletarian Revolution,” No. 1.

Printed from the manuscript.

2. Summary of the Speech on the Constitution of the Conference

1. The disintegration and absence of the Central Committee.

4. All have been invited; only those who chose not to lend their support to the Party are absent.

5. All organizations currently active within Russia are represented.

– – The constitution of the Conference as the supreme organ of the Party, charged with establishing legitimate central institutions and assisting in the restoration of Party organizations and Party work across the board.

1) National organizations were invited three to four times.

– – It was established that the full responsibility for the separation from the Russian organizations rests squarely with the national organizations;

2) A partial endorsement of the direct liquidator (Bundist) aspirations; feeble vacillation on this question—whether or not the Party should exist at all;

3) It would be the greatest anomaly if the Russian organizations—upon which the entire burden of work in the movement’s most vital centers rests—were to reject this task and the restoration of the Party.

___________

4

(1) For three years there had been no such initiative; (2) For two and a half years, the necessity had been recognized and preparations had been made; (3) Without exception, all organizations were notified and invited, and given every opportunity to participate; (4) Around the ROK, twenty Russian organizations had coalesced.

Written in January, no later than January 5 (18), 1912.

First published on January 18, 1937, in the newspaper “Pravda,” No. 18.

Printed from the manuscript.

3. Draft Amendments to the Party’s Organizational Statute[52]

Organizational Statute

§ 1 – remains unchanged.

§ 2 – add a provision allowing for co-option, as a temporary measure (in accordance with the resolution of the XII Congress, 1908).

§ 3 – remains unchanged.

§ 4 – remains unchanged.

§ 5 – remains unchanged.

§ 6 – remains unchanged.

§ 7 – remains unchanged.

§ 8 – abolish entirely. Instead, grant authority to the Central Committee plus additional seats.

§ 9 – instead of requiring 1,000 voters, reduce the threshold to 30 or 50, and temporarily abolish proportional representation.

Written in January, no later than January 11 (24), 1912.

First published in 1941 in the journal “Proletarian Revolution,” No. 1.

Printed from the manuscript.

4. On the Draft Resolution “On the Nature and Organizational Forms of Party Work”[54]

Begin by inserting (a) an affirmation of the resolution of the XII Congress, 1908—or a confirmation of its validity based on three years of practical experience; (β) acknowledge that the work of local Social-Democratic forces is gradually shaping a type of Party that approximates the German model of 1878–1890{165}. We must continue along this path [this replaces § 1].

In Thesis 5, eliminate the formulation “expansion” and replace it with “consolidation.”

§ 7 – express this more cautiously, in line with the approach taken at the XII Congress, 1908.

§ 9 – present it in such a way that, both in terms of political agitation, and for guiding the revolutionary struggle, and for binding together all illegal organizations and clandestine cells across various societies, the regular dissemination of a correctly and frequently published illegal Social-Democratic newspaper becomes especially crucial.

Written on January 11 (24), 1912.

First published in 1941 in the journal “Proletarian Revolution,” No. 1.

Printed from the manuscript.

5. Materials for the Resolution on the “Petition Campaign”[55]

Resolution on the Petition Campaign

Topics:

1) The invention of literary figures, divorced from the masses, [not] originating from the masses themselves;

2) Dead-letter signing—without clear [slogans], without agitation among the [masses], without genuine [interest] on the part of the masses;

3) The text and character of the petition are unsatisfactory;

4) The selective extraction of partial demands, while circumstances demand that we place the most basic, universal conditions of freedom [for] all the people at the forefront;

5) Failure: 1,300 signatures. Kyiv, Yekaterinoslav, the Caucasus, and other regions did not lend their support;

6) The interest shown in proletarian rallies revealed that it is not there—among the liquidators—that we should seek the “paths” to the masses.

Conclusion:

Acknowledge the failure as definitive.

Petitions addressing specific conditions of the [era] represent one of the least [suitable] means of agitation.

Call for agitation in favor of freedom [through coalitions], linked to broad [political] demands and to revolutionary agitation among the masses.

Draft Resolution

Acknowledge:

1) That the so‑called “petition campaign,” which has now begun, was initiated by a group of Petersburg literary figures aligned with the liquidator tendency—not as the product of [mass] struggle, nor as a result of active initiatives undertaken by workers’ organizations or by advanced workers;

2) That, both by virtue of the nature of the petition itself and by reason of the broader political context, the aforementioned campaign inevitably devolved into a purely formal, lifeless exercise of signing a document that failed to engage the masses [in any meaningful way], lacking the broad participation of workers themselves—whether in print or in public meetings—in the discussion of the petition;

3) That the petition in question, once circulated, and the accompanying commentary offered by the liquidators, sought to extract the demand for political freedom on behalf of a single, most [advanced] and most revolutionary class, placing this demand in [no relation to the broader] elementary conditions of political freedom [for all the people], thereby distorting the very tasks of the proletariat’s struggle—for [the sake of] all the people—against tsarism and condemning the “campaign” to [failure];

4) That the fate of this [petition campaign] clearly confirmed the erroneous nature and complete detachment from the [working masses] of the entire undertaking: the petition garnered only 1,300 signatures, [and] in every party organization—be it in the Caucasus, in Yekaterinoslav and Kyiv, or even among those sympathetic to the liquidators… the petition campaign, which was manifestly not supported by the [masses], [received absolutely] no backing whatsoever—just as our Duma Social-Democratic faction likewise failed to lend its support to this [campaign].

Written in January, no later than 17 (30) January 1912.

First published in 1941 in the journal “Proletarian Revolution,” No. 1.

Printed from the manuscript.