1. The London Congress, summing up the activities of the Populist parties—and, incidentally, the Socialist-Revolutionary party{39}—during the revolutionary epoch, precisely pointed out that these parties constantly wavered between submission to the hegemony of the liberals and decisive struggle against landlord land-ownership and the serf state, as well as the pseudo (apparent) socialist character of their preaching, which obscured the contradiction between the proletarian and the petty proprietor.

2. The reactionary epoch further intensified these features, creating in the Socialist-Revolutionary party, on the one hand, a renunciation of consistently democratic politics and transforming even certain elements of the party into critics of the revolution, following in the footsteps of the liberals, and on the other hand, transforming it into a purely intelligentsia group, divorced from the life of the masses.

3. The Socialist-Revolutionary party continues officially to defend terrorism, whose history in Russia completely vindicated the Social-Democratic critique of this method of struggle and ended in total collapse. Alongside this, the boycott of elections and the complete inability of this intelligentsia organization to exercise systematic influence on the course of the country's social development made it so that the new upsurge of the revolutionary movement everywhere proceeded without any influence from this party.

4. The petty-bourgeois socialism of Populism reduces itself merely to harmful preaching before the working class of ideas that obscure the ever-growing abyss between the interests of labour and capital and attempt to present in a softened form the acuteness of class struggle, and leads to philistine utopias in the sphere of cooperation.

5. Waverings in the defense of democratic slogans, the circle-based character of the party, and its petty-bourgeois prejudices in the strongest degree hinder Populism from developing republican-democratic propaganda among the broad circles of the peasantry. Thus the very interests of this propaganda demand first and foremost from the Social-Democrats decisive criticism of Populism.

The Conference, in no way excluding those joint actions with the Populist parties which are specifically provided for by the London Congress, therefore holds that the task of the Social-Democrats should be:

a) to expose the waverings and renunciation of consistent democratism manifested in the Populist parties;

b) to struggle against the petty-bourgeois socialism of Populism, which obscures the abyss between capital and labour;

c) to support the republican-democratic currents in the peasant masses, constantly pointing out that only the socialist proletariat, consistent in its democratism, can be the reliable leader of the masses of poor peasants in their struggle against the monarchy and landlord land-ownership;

d) to direct intensified attention to the propaganda of Social-Democratic ideas among those, though not numerous, groups of workers who have not yet freed themselves from the backward theories of Populism.