* LETTER FROM P. N. LEPESHINSKY TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION
concerning the …
CONFERENCE OF THE GENEVA GROUP REGARDING THE FOREIGN
ORGANIZATION OF THE RSDLP WITH THE EXPEDITION AND THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.
To Comrade Olin, who signed on as secretary of the Geneva Group of the [3rd] [Agitational] Organization of the R.S.D.L.P.
The resolution of the Foreign Representative of the Central Committee, which must be read in full at the group’s next meeting

(i.e., on August 29th—today, provided this resolution is delivered to the group in time for the meeting).
[August 29, 1905, Geneva.
Today, August 29, 1905, at 8 p.m., copies of the letter from the Geneva Group to the Expedition Committee and of the latter’s initial reply were delivered to the Foreign Representative of the Central Committee.
With regard to these documents, the Foreign Representative of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. explains to the Geneva Group that it has demonstrated a lack of understanding of party discipline and has violated the Party Statutes.
The expedition agents are agents of the Central Committee. Any dissatisfaction with Central Committee agents must first and foremost be addressed by the Central Committee itself. According to the Statutes, all intra-party conflicts are to be adjudicated by the Central Committee—and all the more so conflicts between members of different Party organizations and Central Committee agents.
Therefore, inviting Central Committee agents to attend a group meeting was, from the group’s standpoint, a step that was, from a formal perspective, entirely improper and, in particular, highly tactless.
If, however, this invitation was not intended as a purely formal gesture, then it should never have been issued in writing or in an official capacity.
“Personal conduct” (of “officials”) is either truly personal only when it occurs outside of official duties, independent of one’s position—and in that case, any attempt by the group to address such conduct is nothing more than petty squabbling. Or else, personal conduct is directly related to one’s official duties—and in that case, any Party member who is dissatisfied with such conduct and insists on formally and officially addressing their grievances must first and foremost turn formally to the Central Committee. The Geneva Group of the R.S.D.L.P., by allowing “questions of dissatisfaction with Central Committee agents” to arise before the group in a manner that was formally subject to adjudication—before even formally reporting these matters to the Central Committee—has once again demonstrated a failure to grasp the principles of Party discipline and the Party Statutes.
The distinction I have just outlined between open, public criticism—directed openly and explicitly toward the central organs or the Party Congress—and the kind of underground, private, and circle-based criticism that is obligatory for every Party member is, apparently, not fully understood within the group.
For this reason, the Foreign Representative of the Central Committee deems it his duty to caution all the young comrades in the group. In the foreign, “colonial” milieu, there will always be individuals prone to the disease of petty quarrels, gossip, and backbiting; there will always be those who seek to…