Even at the Second Congress of the Party, this was revealed both in individual arguments and in the entire composition of the minority from the opponents of the old *Iskra* and the least stable in principle shades.

After the Second Congress, this turn of the Mensheviks towards Economistic opportunism became so clear that they themselves acknowledged the chasm between the old and the new *Iskra*. And indeed, on a whole series of questions, the new *Iskra* put forward absolutely incorrect slogans and theories that obscured the class consciousness of the proletariat. This includes the theory of organization-as-process, which reduces Marxism to justifying disorganization and intellectual anarchism. This includes the return to incorrect views on the relationship between the party and the class, which belittle the tasks of the party as the vanguard, leader, and organizer of the latter. Equally incorrect and reactionary were the disagreements put forward by the new *Iskra* with the old *Iskra* on the question of relations with the liberals and on the plans for the zemstvo campaign—on the preparation for an uprising and the notorious utopianism of thoughts on its appointment and conduct—on the tasks of arming the masses, technical and organizational leadership of them during the revolution—on the impossibility and undesirability of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie in the era of the overthrow of the autocracy, etc. All these views drag the party back not only in theoretical but also directly in practical terms, being especially harmful and destructive for the party of the revolutionary proletariat in the revolutionary moment Russia is experiencing. The Congress therefore instructs all party members to explain the incorrectness of such views in their propaganda and agitation.

4. Resolution on the relationship between workers and intellectuals in the Social Democratic Party.

The Congress resolutely condemns the policy of sowing distrust and hostility between workers and intellectuals in the Social Democratic organizations, which is being conducted by the new-Iskrists. The Congress reminds conscious workers how they experienced similar methods of struggle from the Economistic wing of the party several years ago and rejected these methods. The empty phrases about the self-activity of the workers and about the elective principle, thrown out by the new-Iskrists, are not accompanied by any real improvement in the work in our organizations and demagogically promise the impossible. Under free political conditions, our party can and [should] be built entirely on the principle of the elective principle. Under the autocracy, this is unrealizable for the entire mass of the thousands of workers belonging to the party.

The Congress once again repeats and reminds the task of conscious supporters of the Social Democratic Workers' Party: to strengthen by all means the connection of this party with the mass of the working class, constantly raising broader layers of proletarians and semi-proletarians to full Social Democratic consciousness, developing their revolutionary and Social Democratic self-activity, taking care to select from the working mass itself as many workers as possible capable of fully leading the movement and all the organizations of the party.

The Congress repeats on behalf of the party the advice of revolutionary Social Democrats: to create as many workers' organizations as possible that are part of our party; to strive to ensure that workers' organizations that do not want or are unable to join the party at least adhere to the party; to ensure that as many conscious Social Democratic workers as possible [participate] join as members in the party committees [in order that].

*) The word "sowing" is written above the word "settlement".
Ed.

DRAFT OF FOUR RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONGRESS

The new-Iskrists' thoughts are not accompanied by any real improvement in the work in our organizations and demagogically promise the impossible. Under free political conditions, our party can and [should] be built entirely on the principle of the elective principle. Under the autocracy, this is unrealizable for the entire mass of the thousands of workers belonging to the party.

The Congress once again repeats and reminds the task of conscious supporters of the Social Democratic Workers' Party: to strengthen by all means the connection of this party with the mass of the working class, constantly raising broader layers of proletarians and semi-proletarians to full Social Democratic consciousness, developing their revolutionary and Social Democratic self-activity, taking care to select from the working mass itself as many workers as possible capable of fully leading the movement and all the organizations of the party.

The Congress repeats on behalf of the party the advice of revolutionary Social Democrats: to create as many workers' organizations as possible that are part of our party; to strive to ensure that workers' organizations that do not want or are unable to join the party at least adhere to the party; to ensure that as many conscious Social Democratic workers as possible [participate] join as members in the party committees [in order that].

*) Point 1 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on the Disorganizing Behavior of the Mensheviks or New-Iskrists" (see pp. 200-201). Instead of the resolutions provided for in points 1, 2 and 3 of Lenin's general plan, the Congress adopted one general resolution on the splintered part of the party.
2) Point 2 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on Plekhanov's Behavior in the Party Crisis" (see p. 201). The Congress did not adopt a special resolution on Plekhanov.
3) This refers to Plekhanov's article "What Not to Do" in No. 52 of *Iskra*.
4) The characterization of the Mensheviks as "revisionists and individualist-anarchists" is taken from Plekhanov's "What Not to Do."
5) Point 5 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on the Disorganizing Behavior of the Mensheviks or New-Iskrists."
6) See p. 87: "Opportunism = a small betrayal, betrayal = a big opportunism" (Parvus).
7) The words of Comrade Trotsky from his pamphlet: "Our Political Tasks," published in Geneva by the editorial board of *Iskra* in 1904, shortly after the split. (Pp. 25-26.)
8) This part of the document represents a list of the main issues of tactics that divided the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at that moment.
9) Point 4 was developed by Lenin in the draft of a special "Resolution on Relations between Workers and Intellectuals in the Social Democratic Party" (see pp. 202-203). The corresponding resolution was adopted by the congress.
10) The number 7 means the interweaving of themes 5 and 7, i.e. the question of the uprising with the question of a military agreement for the uprising. In the general plan, points 6 and 8 are missing, for which, according to Lenin's note in his "list of resolutions" (p. 194), special secret resolutions were to be made.
11) On the cancellation of Starover's resolution, see Protocols, p. 526.
12) Point 10 serves as a plan for the "Resolution on the Zemstvo Plan of the New *Iskra*." The Congress did not issue a separate resolution on the *Iskra* zemstvo campaign plan.
13) A word is missing. Perhaps "talks," "proposals," etc.
14) This refers to the first letter of *Iskra* on the zemstvo campaign plan. (Collected Works, Vol. YH, pp. 410-416.)
15) Point 11 was developed in the resolution of the Congress on the attitude to the peasant movement. (Protocols, pp. 522-523.)
16) Point 12 served as the plan for the "Resolution on the Attitude to the Peasant Movement" (see this Collection, pp. 267-268).
17) Point 13 served as the plan for the "Resolution on Work in the Army." A separate resolution on work in the army was not issued at the congress.
18) *Jc nachdem*—depending on the circumstances.
19) Point 14 served as the plan for the "Resolution on Propaganda and Agitation." (Protocols, p. 527.)

CHANGE TO THE CLAUSE
OF THE CHARTER ON CENTERS.
[February 1905] *)

A significant part of the comrades working in Russia, including the bureau of the committees of the bolshevik majority, speaks out in favor of one center in Russia2).

What does such a reform actually mean?
Comrades working in Russia should prevail in one center—this undoubtedly follows from the indicated trend.
The implementation of it depends entirely on the will of the congress, which elects the composition of the center.
Consequently, there is nothing to argue about and nothing to talk about here.

But further, what will be the relationship of the Central Organ to the Central Committee? The Central Organ, we are told, is a commission appointed by the Central Committee. One (or two) members of the editorial [board] of the Central Organ may (these same comrades say) be included, as a part and as a smaller part, in the Central Committee. The question then arises, how will this foreign part of the Central Committee participate in the affairs of the Central Committee? To participate "by correspondence" in the affairs of the Central Committee is a clear utopia; this can only be spoken of in mockery. Abroad, only with great difficulty, at the cost of a sea of troubles, labor, quarrels, and unpleasantness, is it possible to achieve a poor Postfactum'a information. Speaking about "participation in decision-making" from abroad is possible only "for the sake of importance" or for hypocrisy.

So, one of two things: either the foreign members (respective) 3) ) foreign member) of the Central Committee stipulates in the party charter (for other "agreements" are invalid) periodic meetings of the entire Central Committee abroad.

If so, then this supreme center in fact fully coincides with the present Party Soviet, i.e., becomes an institution that meets 3–4–5 times a year and only gives a general direction to all work. Or; the Central Committee meets in Russia and there decides all matters, without a foreign member; then the latter only nominally exists, and is knowingly a fictitious member of the Central Committee. In reality, he cannot participate in the resolution of general affairs. Under such conditions, one could rightly doubt that people would be found for this "post" (or this sinecure?) of "foreign members" of the Central Committee!
Another (and the last possible) assumption. The entire composition of the Central Committee, as one center, are comrades working in Russia. Only such a center will be a truly united Russian center.
It appoints its agency abroad.
Practically, however, this agency will exist as an independent center: indeed, imagine the editorial board of the Central Organ. It is clear that a whole collegium is needed here, which is formed, takes shape, and becomes coordinated only through a long and arduous path (Russia, in order to form a new Central Organ after the 11th Congress, spent a year and a half of effort, and this with the enormous interest of all of Russia in the severe all-party crisis!). In practice, this collegium runs the weekly organ completely independently. The Russian Central Committee responds to its conduct of affairs at best with a "consultation" once every six months (or once every 1 1/2 years) – how does such a "consultation" differ from a "Soviet"? – or with a "letter" from an individual member of the Central Committee.
In practice, this foreign collegium conducts agitation and trains workers abroad (reports and meetings) before hundreds of party members. The Central Committee is physically unable in practice to direct this work, in practice to lead this work of the foreign collegium. The Central Committee is physically unable to participate in this work except through rare consultations with the persons conducting it. And again: how will these consultations differ from a Soviet?

Conclusion: in practice, in reality, the "one" center will either be a fiction, or it will be reduced, inevitably and inescapably, to the present system of what is derisively called "three-centeredness." In practice, in reality, the difference in geographical, political conditions, conditions of the nature of work inevitably and inescapably elicits

AMENDMENT TO THE CLAUSE OF THE STATUTE ON CENTERS

and will elicit (until the fall of the autocracy) two centers in our party, united only from time to time by "consultations," which in practice always and will play the role of a supreme or higher "Soviet" of the Party.
It is quite understandable that the reaction against abroad evoked a general cry from the Russians: down with abroad! down with two centers! This reaction is legitimate and commendable, for it signifies a tremendous growth in party forces and party self-consciousness after the Second Congress. This reaction expresses a step forward for our party, there is no arguing about that. But one should not allow oneself to be deceived by words or elevate to a "system" the mood of the moment, the transient "anger" against the "foreigners." No party system can be built on anger.
There is nothing easier than to enact a simple and concise rule: there is one center, but by this enactment we do not come any closer to resolving the very complex issue of how to really (and not on paper) combine the various functions of work in Russia and abroad. *)

*) The document is dated February, as on February 10, 1905, Lenin received a letter from M. Z. Litvinov ("Prolet. Revol." 39 (4). 1925, p. 14), reporting that the Bureau of Committees of the Majority had spoken out in favor of a single center.
2) "The center must be one and moreover Russian." (From the "Notification of the Convocation of the Third Party Congress" signed by B. K. B.). (Works, vol. VII, p. 430).
3) Respective—respectively.

6.
OSS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE *).
April 18 (5), 1905

1) The Organizational Committee, having considered the data at its disposal on the number of party organizations that have categorically expressed themselves in favor of a congress, states that resolutions in favor of a congress have been passed by 26 (twenty-six) committees (St. Petersburg, Moscow, North, Nizhny, Tver, Tula, Riga, Voronezh, Saratov, Odessa, Caucasian Union - 8 votes, - Nikolaev, Ural, Oryol-Bryansk, Kursk, Smolensk, Kremenchug, Polessky, North-Western, Kharkov, Kiev *), Samara, Siberia). [Note]. There is no written resolution from Kremenchug.
The Central Committee passed a resolution on the immediate convocation of the III Party Congress on March 4 old style and resolved to send its delegate to the congress and two representatives to the Party Soviet from the Central Committee (appointed April 4/17).

Thus, 55 votes (51 without Kiev) out of 77 spoke out in favor of the immediate convocation of the congress. The remaining 21 votes belong to: 8 committees (Astrakhan, Kazan, Kuban, Don, Mining Plant, Ekaterinoslav, Crimean, Union and League), 3 - to the Party Soviet and 2 - to the editorial board of "Iskra."

Note. Member of the Organizational Committee Comrade Lenin remains of a special opinion, rejecting the right to a deciding vote for the committees of: Kazan, Kuban, Kremenchug.

*) Regarding the Kiev Committee, there are two contradictory resolutions: one, sent to the Organizational Committee, - for the congress, another, published in No. 95 of Iskra - against the congress. The congress itself will have to sort out this contradiction 2).

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE

2) The Organizational Committee states that at the present time delegates have been elected and are abroad from the committees of: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Northern, Nizhny Novgorod, Tula, Riga, Voronezh, Saratov, Odessa, Caucasus (4)3), Nikolaev, Ural, Oryol-Bryansk, Kursk, North-Western, Kharkov, Kiev, Samara, Siberia4), Smolensk4), from the Central Committee (1 delegate 2 representatives of the Central Committee in the Soviet), Tver5), having a total of 52 votes. In addition, delegates have arrived from organizations with a consultative vote: St. Petersburg group, Kharkov group, Tver periphery, Arkhangelsk "committee" (regarding the invitation of the Arkhangelsk delegate to the congress, the Organizational Committee leaves the question open until the meeting at the venue of the congress). The following measures have been taken to invite delegates from the Baku group and the Tiflis committee, with the right of consultative vote: The Organizational Committee sent all documents and written invitations on March 13 old style, the Central Committee instructed the local agent to invite the named organizations. The Nizhny Novgorod and Riga committees have been notified about the invitation to the congress of the Sormovo and Riga groups on the grounds set forth in the declaration of the Central Committee of March 4. The Nizhny Novgorod committee did not respond, the Riga committee passed a resolution that the Riga group does not meet the conditions necessary for participation in the congress with the right of consultative vote, according to the declaration of the Central Committee of March 4. The Organizational Committee, in view of the fact that the grounds for depriving the Riga group of the right of consultative vote have not been sufficiently clarified and in view of the impossibility, due to lack of time, to verify these grounds, again resolves to propose to the Riga group to send a delegate to the congress, which it immediately informs the Riga group (the execution has been taken over by the Central Committee]. Member of the Organizational Committee Comrade Felix - M. M. Litvinov] remained of a special opinion on this issue, finding that the conclusion of the Riga Committee is sufficiently motivated and correct in essence.

The notification of the Moscow group of printing workers was entrusted to Comrade Yuri [L. B. Kamenev (?) Ed.] and a report on the execution of this assignment will be presented by him at the venue of the congress.

Lenin Collection, V

No answer has been received from the Odessa group, as for the invitation to the Ekaterinoslav group, this question is Organizational! The [Organizational] Committee] leaves it open until the meeting on the spot °).
The [Organizational] Committee] resolves to send an invitation to the congress with the right to consultative vote to the Ukrainian socialist-democratic] union (the Central Committee] has undertaken the execution]). The Committee] of foreign] organizations] is invited with the right to consultative] vote.
3)
Based on the above-mentioned factual data and guided by the provision of the party charter that the congress is considered valid if it is attended by organizations that together have the right to more than V2 of the decisive votes, as well as the agreement between the Central Committee] and the Bureau of Committees] of the Majority]7) The Organizational] Committee] resolves that the congress should be opened immediately. But, based on the statement of the Central Committee] that the Party Council, in issuing its resolution regarding the congress, published in No. 95 of "Iskra", was not sufficiently informed of all the factual conditions of the convocation of the III party congress and the state of party affairs in Russia, due to the Council not receiving the corresponding written and oral communications, the Organizational] Committee] resolves to postpone the opening of the congress by 7 days 8), during which the Central Committee] informs the Party Council regarding the factual data on the convocation of the congress.
[4. After the specified period, the Organizational] Committee] holds its last meeting at the congress venue and, having received a message from the Central] Committee] on the final actions of the Council regarding the congress, for publication to the information of the entire party and its delegates at the congress, opens the congress on April 25th (new style) 1905.]
4. On April 25th, new style, the Organizational] Committee] holds its last meeting at the congress venue and opens the congress9).
5. All delegates located abroad are notified of the opening day of the congress.

For the Central Committee Nikitich. [L. B. Krasin.]
For the Bureau of the Majority Committees Zemlyachka *).
*) The signatures on the manuscript of Nikitich and Zemlyachka are genuine.
Ed.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE

*) The Organizational Committee was formed on March 25 (12), 1905. According to the agreement between the Central Committee and the Bureau of Committees of the Majority, the Organizational Committee included the entire composition of the Bureau of the Committee of the Majority and the Central Committee (for more details about the Organizational Committee, see Protocols of the 3rd Congress, pp. 22-26). The given protocol of the O.C. was written by N.K. Krupskaya. The meeting took place in Geneva.
2) The letter of the Central Committee of the RSDLP to the chairman of the Party Council G.V. Plekhanov of April 23 (10), 1905, says: "... The Kiev Committee, although it adopted a resolution against the congress on March 25, immediately thereafter elected a delegate to the congress and sent him abroad."
Collected Works, vol. VII, p. 230 and Protocols of the Congress, p. 35.^
3) The number 4 means - 4 delegates from the committees of Baku, Batum, Tiflis, Imeretian-Mingrelian.
4) Delegates
from the Siberian and Smolensk committees to the congress
did not appear, violating the trust of the committees that elected them.
(Protocols of the III Congress, p. 113.)
5) The Tver Committee forwarded its mandate to the congress to Parvus (abroad), who did not appear at the congress. (Ibid., pp. 58 and 67.)
°) In early February 1905, in Yekaterinoslav, parallel to the Menshevik committee, an organization of Bolsheviks began to function. By the congress, at the suggestion of the credentials committee, this organization was recognized as a group parallel to the committee, and its delegate (Zharkov - Leshchinsky) was granted a consultative vote.
7) This refers to § 1 of the "agreement between the Central Committee and the Bureau
of committees of the majority" of March 25 (12), 1905, according to which the O.C. immediately
organizes the congress, regardless of the resolution of the Party Council on the
issue of convening the congress. (§ 1 of the "agreement" was published in *N1 15 of "Vpered"
of April 20 (7), 1905 in Lenin's article: "The Exposed Council" Collected
Works, vol. VII, pp. 225-228).
s) The congress actually opened on April 25 (new style) 1905.
°) The last meeting of the O.C. took place not on the 25th, but on the 24th of April
1905 (Protocols of the Congress, p. 41.)

AT THE CONGRESS