V. I.

Lenin

Resolutions of the Politbureau of the C.C., R.C.P.(B.) Concerning Breach of Party Discipline by Members of the A.C.C.T.U. Party Group [1]

The Politbureau, composed of Bukharin, Krestinsky and
Lenin, discussed on 17.III.1920 the statement of the A.C.C.T.U. Party group
signed by Tomsky and Lutovinov and, found in their presence

1) that Comrade
Krestinsky, in private conversations with Comrades Ishchenko, Glebov,
Tomsky and Lutovinov, did not voice his misgivings about the awkwardness of
the existing relations (namely, the sponsoring by members of the Party at
non-Party congresses-and not at their communist groups-of resolutions that
differ from the resolution of the C.C. of the Party) in respect of the
decision passed by the C.C.

2) that Comrade Krestinsky had suggested that
this question should not be dealt with by the Party group before its
forthcoming discussion the next day at the Politbureau in the presence of
members of the Party group’s bureau;

3) that during these conversations’
Comrade Krestinsky had been rather hasty; on the other hand, that under the
circumstances the discussion of this question at the Party group was highly
out of place and bound to aggravate the conflict needlessly, or rather turn
the difference of opinion between the C.C. and the Party group into a real
conflict; that the statement mentioned above is, in the eyes of every Party
man, not only hastiness, but squabbling of a decidedly unsavoury nature; therefore the Politbureau resolves that the members of the A.C.C.T.U. Party
group bureau be asked to have the Party group cancel its resolution and consider the incident closed.

The Politbureau, composed of comrades Bukharin, Lenin and Krestinsky,
discussed on 17.111.1920 the abnormal situation arising from the fact that Party members sponsor resolutions at
non-Party congresses which run counter to the decisions of the Party’s
C.C.

The Politbureau resolves that from the point of view of Party
discipline this is decidedly wrong and impermissible.

Considering the quite exceptional circumstances, however (namely, the
very early date of the forthcoming Party congress, the publication of
Comrade Tomsky’s theses, and the comparatively minor importance of the
still moot question of collective management with or without one-man
management in separate cases) it is recognised as a politically lesser evil
that members of the A.C.C.T.U. Party group be permitted, pending the
decision of the Party congress, to sponsor the resolution of that group at
current congresses of the various trade unions.

---
Notes:
[1]
At a joint meeting of the Party groups of the All-Russia Central
Council of Trade Unions and the Moscow C.T.U. on March 15, 1920,
N. N. Krestinsky, Secretary of the C.C., R.C.P.(B.), declared that since
the stand taken by the A.C.C.T.U.’s Party Group and its responsible leaders
on the question of collective and one-man management differed sharply from
that of the Party’s Central Committee, he proposed in the name of the
Party’s C.C. that none of the group’s members should deliver reports at
trade union congresses in favour of collective management.

Members of the group’s bureau, at a closed meeting, emphatically protested against such interpretations and methods of
enforcing Party discipline and applied to the C.C. of the R.C,P. (B.)
asking to be allowed to move resolutions at trade union congresses on
behalf of the A.C.C.T.U.’s Party Group. Their statement was discussed at a
meeting of the C.C.’s Politbureau, which adopted Lenin’s draft resolutions.