The second congress of the RSDLP - the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. 2nd Congress of the RSDLP 2nd Congress of the RSDLP was held in cities

Speeches and performances, an addition to § 12 of the draft party charter and a draft resolution on the publication of an organ for sectarians were published in 1904 in the book: “The Second Regular Congress of the RSDLP. Full text of the protocols." Geneva, ed. Central Committee

Printed according to the text of the book; Some of the documents are based on manuscripts.

SPEECHES DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE LIST OF ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE CONGRESS 86

According to the plan, the issue of the program is placed in second place. The national issue is included in the program and is resolved during its discussion. The question of regional and national organizations in general is an organizational question. The question of attitude towards nationalities, in particular, is a tactical question and represents the application of our general principles to practical activity.

The first item on the list applies specifically to the organization of the Bund. The sixth concerns the organization of the party. After the establishment of a general law, a special question is raised in relation to local, district, national and other organizations: what kind of organizations and under what conditions are involved in the party?

262 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES WHEN DISCUSSING THE ORDER OF THE DAY OF THE CONGRESS 87

I want to make one point. They say it's wrong to bet on first The question of the Bund has a place, since reports should come first, the program should come second, and the Bund should come third. Considerations for this order do not stand up to criticism. They boil down to the fact that the party as a whole has not yet come to an agreement about the program: it may happen that it is on the issue of the program that we disagree. These words surprise me. True, we now do not have an adopted program, but the assumption of a break on the issue of the program is to the last degree speculative. In the party, since the question is about its literature, which recently reflected the opinions of the party most fully, no such trends were noticed. There are both formal and moral reasons for putting the issue of the Bund first. Formally, we stand on the basis of the Manifesto of 1898, and the Bund has expressed a desire to radically change the organization of our party. Morally, many other organizations expressed disagreement with the Bund on this issue; Thus, sharp differences arose, even causing controversy. Therefore, it is impossible to begin the harmonious work of the congress without eliminating these differences. As for the reports of delegates, it is possible that they will not be read in pleno* at all. Therefore, I support the order of questions approved by the Organizing Committee.

* - at the plenum, in full force. Ed.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 263

After the congress has decided the question of the first point in our order of the day, the only disputed question regarding the order of further points is the question of the third point. This paragraph reads: “Creation of the Central Organ of the Party or approval of such.” Some comrades found that this point should be moved somewhere further, because, firstly, it is impossible to talk about the Central Organ until questions about the organization of the party in general and its center in particular, etc., are resolved, and, secondly, , many committees have already spoken on the substance of this issue. I find the last argument incorrect, since statements by committees for the congress are not binding and do not formally have a casting vote at the congress. Another objection is incorrect, because before deciding the question of organizational details, the party charter, etc., it is necessary to finally decide the question of the direction of Russian Social Democracy. It is on this issue that we have been divided for so long, and to eliminate everything dividing our disagreement on this issue cannot be achieved by one statement of the program: this can be achieved only having decided immediately after the question of the program the question of which Central Organ of the Party we should create anew or which one should we approve of the old one with certain changes.

That is why I support the order of the day that was approved by the Organizing Committee.

Verified with manuscript

264 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES ON THE ISSUE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 88

I cannot agree with Comrade. Egorov. It was he who violated the charter of the congress, it was he who denied the clause on imperative mandates 89. I have no doubt about the existence of the Organizing Committee, just as I have no doubt about the existence of the Iskra organization. It also has its own organization and its own charter. But, as soon as the charter of the congress was reported, it was announced on her part to her delegates that they had complete freedom of action at the congress. What is the position in which we, the members of the commission for checking the composition of the congress, are, who yesterday listened to two members of the Organizing Committee, comrades Stein and Pavlovich, and now we are listening to a completely new proposal. There are experienced comrades here who have participated in international congresses more than once. These comrades could tell you all about what a storm of indignation has always been caused by such a phenomenon when people in commissions say one thing, and at the congress another.

The organizing committee may meet, but not as a collegium influencing the affairs of the congress. The practical activities of the Organizing Committee do not cease; only its influence on the congress, in addition to the commission, ceases.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 265

SPEECHES ON THE ISSUE OF THE PARTICIPATION OF POLISH SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AT THE CONGRESS 90

The commission in its report finds the presence of Polish comrades at the congress desirable, and only with the right of an advisory vote. In my opinion, this is absolutely correct, and it seems to me quite reasonable to begin the commission’s resolution with this statement. The presence of Latvians and Lithuanians would also be very desirable, but, unfortunately, this is not feasible. The Polish comrades could always have stated their conditions for unification, but they did not do this. The organizing committee therefore did the right thing by being restrained towards them. The letter from the Polish Social Democracy read here again does not clarify the issue. Because of this, I propose to invite Polish comrades as guests.

I don't see any compelling argument against the invitation. The organizing committee took the first step towards bringing Polish comrades closer to the Russians. By inviting them to the congress, we will take the second step along the same path. I don't see any complications from this.

266 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH ON THE ISSUE OF THE PLACE OF THE BUND IN THE RSDLP

I will touch first of all on Hoffmann’s speech and his expression “compact majority” 91. Comrade Hoffmann uses these words reproachfully. In my opinion, we should not be ashamed, but rather proud of the fact that there is a compact majority at the congress. And we will be even more proud if our entire party becomes one compact and compact 90% majority. (Applause.) The majority did the right thing by putting the question of the position of the Bund in the party in the first place: the Bundists immediately proved this correctness by introducing their so-called charter, but in fact proposing federation 92. Since there are members in the party who propose federation and members who reject it, then it was impossible to do otherwise than to put the question of the Bund in the first place. You won't be nice by force, and you can't talk about internal affairs party without deciding firmly and steadfastly whether we want to go together or not.

The essence of the controversial issue was sometimes not quite correctly stated in the debate. The point comes down to the fact that, in the opinion of many party members, federation is harmful, federation contradicts the principles of Social Democracy, as applied to the given Russian reality. Federation harmful, because she legitimizes singularity and alienation, elevates them to a principle, to a law. There really is complete alienation between us.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 267

destitution, and we must not legitimize it, not cover it up with a fig leaf, but fight it, we must resolutely recognize and declare the need to firmly and steadily move towards closest unity. That is why we, in principle, from the very beginning (according to the well-known Latin expression), reject federation, reject all sorts of obligatory partitions between us. There will always be different groupings in the party, groupings of comrades who are not entirely of the same mind on issues and programs, and tactics, and organization, but let there be one division into groups, i.e. let all thinking equally unite into one group, and not so that groups are first formed in one piece parties, separately from groups in another part of the party, and then united not groups of different views and shades of views, but parts of the party combining different groups. I repeat: none mandatory We do not recognize partitions and therefore reject the federation in principle.

I turn to the question of autonomy. Comrade Lieber said that federation is centralism, and autonomy is decentralism. Is it really Comrade Lieber considers the members of the congress to be six-year-old children who can be regaled with such sophistry? Isn’t it clear that centralism requires absence any partitions between the center and the most remote, most provincial parts of the party? Our center will have the unconditional right to reach directly every individual party member. The Bundists would only laugh if someone offered them inside The Bund has such “centralism” that the Central Committee of the Bund cannot communicate with all Kovno groups and comrades otherwise than through the Kovno Committee. Speaking of committees. Comrade Lieber exclaimed with pathos: “Why talk about the autonomy of the Bund, as an organization subordinate to one center? After all, you won’t give autonomy to some Tula committee?” You are mistaken, comrade. Lieber: we will certainly and certainly give autonomy to “some” Tula

268 V. I. LENIN

committee, autonomy in the sense of freedom from petty interference from the center, while, of course, the obligation to obey the center remains. I took the words “petty interference” from the Bundist leaflet “Autonomy or Federation?” - The Bund put forward this freedom from “petty interference” as a point conditions, How requirement to the party. The presentation of such ridiculous demands in itself shows how confusing the controversial issue appears to the Bund. Does the Bund really think that the party will allow the existence of a center that "petty" would interfere in matters whatever organizations or party groups? Doesn’t this really come down to precisely that “organized mistrust” that was already discussed at the congress? Such mistrust is evident in all the proposals and in all the reasoning of the Bundists. In fact, isn’t it, for example, the struggle for full equality and even for confession the right of nations to self-determination does not constitute responsibilities our entire party? Consequently, if any part of our party failed to fulfill this duty, it would certainly be subject to condemnation by virtue of our principles, it would certainly have to cause amendment from the party's central institutions. And if this duty were not fulfilled consciously and intentionally, despite the full opportunity to fulfill it, then failure to fulfill it would be treason.

Next, Comrade Lieber asked us pathetically: how to prove, that autonomy is able to provide the Jewish workers' movement with the independence it absolutely needs? Weird question! How to prove whether one of the proposed paths is correct? The only remedy is to follow this path and experience it in practice. To the question from Comrade Libera I answer: come with us, and we undertake to prove to you in practice that all legal requirements for independence are fully satisfied.

When there is debate about the place of the Bund, I always remember the English coal miners. They are excellent

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 269

organized, better than other workers. And they want for that fail the general demand for an 8-hour working day made by all proletarians 93 . Coal miners understand the unity of the proletariat as narrowly as our Bundists. Let the sad example of the coal miners serve as a warning to the comrades of the Bund!

Verified with manuscript

270 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH ON THE PARTY PROGRAM 94

First of all, I must note the extremely characteristic confusion of Comrade. Liber of the leader of the nobility with a layer of workers and exploited 95. This confusion is significant for the entire debate. Everywhere they confuse individual episodes of our polemics with the establishment of fundamental principles. It cannot be denied how Comrade does this. Liber that a transition is possible and layer(of one or another) working and exploited population on the side of the proletariat. Remember that in 1852, Marx, referring to the uprisings of the French peasants, wrote (in the 18th Brumaire) that the peasantry is either a representative of the past or a representative of the future; one can appeal to the peasant, bearing in mind not only his prejudice, but also his reason 96. Remember further that Marx later recognized as completely correct the assertion of the Communards that the cause of the Commune is also the cause of the peasantry 97 . I repeat, there is no doubt that under certain conditions the transition of one or another layer of workers to the side of the proletariat is by no means impossible. It's all about defining these conditions precisely. And in the words “transition to the point of view of the proletariat” the condition in question is expressed with complete precision. It is these words that distinguish us, Social Democrats, in the most decisive way from all supposedly socialist movements in general and from the so-called socialist revolutionaries in particular.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 271

I turn to that controversial passage from my brochure “What is to be done?”, which has caused so much interpretation here 98. It seems that after all these interpretations the question has become so clear that I have little to add. It is obvious that here the fundamental position of a major theoretical issue (the development of ideology) was mixed with one episode of the struggle against “economism”. And besides, this episode was conveyed completely incorrectly.

To prove this last point, I can refer first of all to comrades Akimov and Martynov who spoke here. They clearly showed what exactly the episode was about fight against "economism" is being discussed here. They came up with views that have already been called (and rightly called) opportunism. They went so far as to “refute” the theory of impoverishment, and to challenge the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even to “Erfullungstheorie” 99, as Comrade Putin put it. Akimov. Really, I don't know what that means. Didn't Comrade want to? Akimov speak about “Aushohlungstheorie”, about the “theory of emptying” capitalism 100, i.e. about one of the most popular, current ideas of Bernsteinian theory. Comrade Akimov, in defending the old bases of “economism,” even came up with such an incredibly original argument that in our program the word proletariat does not appear even once in the nominative case. At most, exclaimed Comrade. Akimov that the proletariat is in the genitive case. So, it turns out that the nominative case is the most honorable, and the genitive is in second place in honor. All that remains is to convey this idea - perhaps through a special commission - Comrade. Ryazanov, so that he would supplement his first scientific work on letters with a second scientific treatise on cases... 101

As for direct references to my brochure “What is to be done?”, it is very easy for me to prove that they are out of touch. They say: Lenin does not mention any opposing tendencies, but absolutely asserts that the labor movement always "goes" to subordination to bourgeois ideology. Indeed?

272 V. I. LENIN

Didn’t I say that the labor movement is attracted to bourgeoisism? with the benevolent assistance of the Schulze-Delitzschs and the like?* And who is meant by “similar” here? None other than the “economists”, none other than the people who said, for example, then that bourgeois democracy in Russia is a phantom. Now it’s easy to talk so cheaply about bourgeois radicalism and liberalism, when you can see examples of them all before you. But was it like that before?

Lenin does not take into account at all that the workers also participate in the development of ideology. - Indeed? But hasn’t it been said to me many, many times that the greatest shortcoming of our movement is the lack of fully conscious workers, worker-leaders, worker-revolutionaries? Doesn't it say there that developing such revolutionary workers should be our next task? Doesn't it indicate the importance of developing the professional movement and creating special professional literature? Isn't there a desperate struggle going on there against any attempts to lower the level of the advanced workers to the level of the masses or to the level of the middle peasants?

I'll finish. We all know now that the “economists” bent the stick in one direction. To straighten the stick, it was necessary to bend the stick in the other direction, and I did this. I am confident that Russian Social Democracy will always energetically straighten the stick that is bent by all sorts of opportunism, and that our stick will therefore always be the straightest and most suitable for action.

Verified with manuscript

* See Works, 5th ed., volume 6, p. 40. Ed.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 273

REPORT ON THE PARTY CHARTER

Lenin (speaker) gives an explanation of his proposed draft charter. The main idea of the charter is the separation functions. Therefore, for example, the division into two centers is not the result of the division of these centers by place (Russia and abroad), but a logical consequence of the division by function. The Central Committee has the function of practical leadership, the Central Organ has the function of ideological leadership. To unite the activities of these two centers, to avoid disunity between them and, partly, to resolve conflicts, a Council is needed, which should not at all have the character of a purely arbitration institution. The paragraphs of the charter relating to relations between the Central Committee and the locals and defining the sphere of competence of the Central Committee cannot and should not list all the points in which the Central Committee is competent. Such a listing is impossible and inconvenient, because it is unthinkable to foresee all possible cases and, in addition, the unlisted items would not be subject to the competence of the Central Committee. It is necessary to give the Central Committee the opportunity to determine the sphere of its competence, because in any local matter general party interests may be affected, and it is necessary to give the Central Committee the opportunity to intervene in local affairs, contrary, perhaps, to local interests, but for the purposes of the general party.

274 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH AT THE DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL PART OF THE PARTY PROGRAM

This insertion introduces a deterioration of 102. It creates the impression that consciousness is spontaneously growing. In international social democracy there is no conscious activity of workers outside the influence of social democracy.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 275

SPEECHES DURING THE DISCUSSION OF GENERAL POLITICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARTY PROGRAM

Lenin finds Strakhov’s amendment unsuccessful, since the commission’s wording emphasizes precisely will of the people 103 .

Lenin is against the word “regional”, because it is very unclear and can be interpreted in the sense that social democracy requires the division of the entire state into small regions 104.

Lenin finds the addition of the word “foreigner” unnecessary, since it goes without saying that the Social Democratic Party will defend the extension of this paragraph to foreigners 105.

276 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL POLITICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARTY PROGRAM

The word “police” does not give anything new and creates confusion. The words “universal armament of the people” are clear and completely Russian. I find the amendment by Comrade. Libera superfluous 106.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 277

SUGGESTIONS FOR POINTS OF GENERAL POLITICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARTY PROGRAM? 107

1) At the end of paragraph 6, leave “and language.”

2) Insert a new item:

“The right of the population to receive education in their native language, the right of every citizen to speak in their native language in meetings, public and government institutions.”

3) Cross out the phrase about language in paragraph 11.

278 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES DURING THE DISCUSSION OF PART OF THE PARTY PROGRAM CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Lenin has nothing against the 42-hour rest, and Liberu notes that the program talks about supervision of all production. Specifying the size will only limit the meaning. When our program becomes a bill, then we will add details 108.

I speak out against Comrade’s amendment. Lyadova 109. His first two amendments are unnecessary, since in our program we require labor protection for everyone sectors of the economy, therefore, including agriculture. As for the third, it relates entirely to the agrarian part, and we will return to it when discussing our draft agrarian program.

The first page of the manuscript of V. I. Lenin’s speech at the Second Congress of the RSDLP when discussing the agrarian program on July 31 (August 13), 1903.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 279

SPEECH AT DISCUSSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM

Let me first of all point out one particular thing that came up in the debate. Comrade Egorov expressed regret that there was no report that could significantly facilitate and direct all our debates. I was proposed to be the speaker, and regarding the lack of a report I have to defend myself, as it were. And I will say in my defense that I have a report: this is my answer to Comrade. Iksu*, which answers exactly the most common objections and misunderstandings caused by our agrarian program, and which was distributed to all delegates of the congress. A report does not cease to be a report just because it is printed and distributed to delegates rather than read before them.

I will move on to the content of the speeches of the speakers who, unfortunately, did not take into account this particular report of mine. Comrade Martynov, for example, did not take into account even the earlier literature about our agrarian program, when he again and again spoke about correcting historical injustice 110, about the vain return of 40 years ago, about the destruction of not modern feudalism, but the feudalism that existed in the 60s. x years, etc. We have to repeat ourselves when answering these arguments. If we leaned only on the principle of “correcting historical injustice” - we would be guided by one democratic

*See this volume, pp. 217-232. Ed.

280 V. I. LENIN

phrase. But we refer to existing around us are the remnants of serfdom, on modern reality, on what is now constraining and delaying the liberation struggle of the proletariat. We are accused of returning to hoary antiquity. This accusation only shows ignorance of the most generally known facts about the activities of Social Democrats in all countries. Everywhere and everywhere they set and carry out the task: to complete what the bourgeoisie did not complete. This is exactly what we do. And in order to do this, it is necessary to return to the past, and the Social Democrats of every country do this, always returning to to his 1789, to to his 1848. Russian Social Democrats are exactly the same can't help but come back and to to his 1861, and to return the more energetically and the more often, the smaller the share of democratic transformations carried out by our peasant, so to speak, “reform”.

As for Comrade Gorin, then he also makes the usual mistake of forgetting about the really existing serf bondage. Comrade Gorin says that “the hope for cuts forcibly keeps the small peasant in an anti-proletarian ideology.” But in fact, it’s not “hope” for segments, but current the sections forcibly retain feudal bondage, and there is no other way out of this bondage, from this feudal lease, except for the transformation of supposed tenants into free owners.

Finally, Comrade Egorov asked the authors of the program about its significance. Is the program, he asked, a derivation from our basic concepts of the economic evolution of Russia, a scientific anticipation of the possible and inevitable result of political transformations. (In this case, Comrade Egorov could agree with us.) Or our program is practically a propaganda slogan, and then we will not break the record before the socialist-revolutionaries, then this program should be recognized as incorrect. I must say that I do not understand this distinction made by Comrade. Egorov. If our program

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 281

did not satisfy the first condition, then it would be incorrect, and we could not accept it. If the program is correct, then it cannot fail to provide a practically useful slogan for agitation. The contradiction between the two dilemmas of Comrade. Egorov is only apparent: it cannot exist in reality, because the correct theoretical solution provides lasting success in campaigning. And we strive precisely for lasting success and are not at all embarrassed by temporary failures.

Comrade Lieber also repeated objections that had long been refuted, marveling at the “minority” of our program and demanding “radical reforms” in the agricultural sector as well. Comrade Lieber forgot about the difference between the democratic and socialist parts of the program: he took the absence of anything socialist in the democratic program as “miserable.” He did not notice that the socialist part of our agrarian program is located in another place, namely in the labor department, which also relates to agriculture. Only socialist-revolutionaries, with their unprincipled character, can and do constantly confuse democratic and socialist demands, and the party of the proletariat is obliged to strictly separate and distinguish them.

Verified with manuscript

282 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES AND SPEECHES DURING DISCUSSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM

Before moving on to the details, I want to object to some general points, and first of all, Comrade. Martynov. Comrade Martynov says that we must fight not with the feudalism that was, but with what now exists. This is fair, but I will remind you of my answer to X. He referred to the Saratov province, I took the data from the same Saratov province, and it turned out: the size of the segments there is equal to 600,000 dessiatinas, that is, 2/5 of all the land that was in the possession of the peasants under serfdom, and the rent is equal to 900,000 dessiatinas; therefore, 2/3 of all rental land is segments. This means that we are restoring land use by 2/3. This means that we are not fighting a ghost, but real evil. We would have come to the same point in Ireland, where a modern peasant reform was needed, turning farmers into small owners. The analogy between Ireland and Russia has already been pointed out in the economic literature of the populists. Comrade Gorin says that the measure I propose is not the best, that it would be better to transfer it to the state of free tenants. But he is mistaken in thinking that converting semi-vacant tenants to vacant tenants is better. We are not inventing a transition, but we are proposing one where legal land use is made consistent with the actual one, and by this we are destroying modern enslaving relations. Martynov says that it is not our demands that are miserable, but the principle from which they flow is miserable. But it looks like

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 283

to the arguments that the socialist revolutionaries bring against us. In the countryside we are pursuing two qualitatively different goals: firstly, we want to create freedom of bourgeois relations, and secondly, to lead the struggle of the proletariat. Our task, contrary to the prejudices of socialist-revolutionaries, is to show the peasants where the revolutionary proletarian task of the peasant proletariat begins. Therefore, Comrade’s objections are unfounded. Kostrova. We are told that the peasantry will not be satisfied with our program, that it will go further; but we are not afraid of this, for this we have our socialist program, and therefore we are not afraid of the redistribution of land, which so frightens comrades Makhov and Kostrov.

I'm finishing. Comrade Egorov called our hope in the peasants a chimera. No! We don’t get carried away, we are quite skeptics, that’s why we say to the peasant proletarian: “You are now fighting together with the peasant bourgeoisie, but you must always be ready to fight against this very bourgeoisie, and you will wage this fight together with the urban industrial proletarians.”

In 1852, Marx said that peasants have not only prejudice, but also reason. And by now pointing out to the poor peasants the reason for their poverty, we can count on success. We believe that in view of the fact that Social Democracy has now come out to fight for the interests of the peasants, in the future we will take into account the fact that the peasant masses will get used to looking at Social Democracy as the defender of their interests,

Lenin makes an amendment: instead "will strive" put: "requires above all" 111. In the abstracts during the debate it was pointed out that the draft deliberately said: “will strive” in order to emphasize that we intend to do this not now, but in the future. To avoid giving rise to such misunderstandings,

284 V. I. LENIN

I am making this amendment. With the words “first of all” I want to say that, in addition to the agrarian program, we more we have requirements.

I am against Comrade's proposal. Lyadova 112. We are not writing a draft law, but only indicating general features. Among our city dwellers there are also those who belong to the tax-paying classes; in addition, there are townspeople and others, and in order to fit all this into our program, we would have to speak in the language of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

Martynov's question seems unnecessary to me 113. Instead of presenting general principles, we are forced to go into specifics. If we had done this, we would never have finished the congress. The principle is well defined: every peasant has the right to dispose of his land, no matter community or privately owned. This is only a demand for the right of the peasant to dispose of his land. We insist that there be no special laws for peasants; We want more than just the right to leave the community. We cannot now decide all the particulars that will be needed to carry this out. I am against the addition of Comrade. Lange; we cannot demand the repeal of all usage laws. This is too much.

Martynov is obviously in a misunderstanding. We are seeking the same application of general legislation - that which is now accepted in all bourgeois states, namely, based on the foundations of Roman law, recognizing both common and personal property. We would like to consider communal land ownership as common property.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 285

We have a question about editing the additions to paragraph four in relation to the Caucasus. It is advisable to make these additions after point a). There are two draft resolutions. If we accept the amendment by Comrade. Karsky, then the point will lose too much of its specificity. In the Urals, for example, there are tons of remains; there is a real nest of serfdom there. Regarding the Latvians, we can say that they fit the formula “and in other areas of the state.” I support comrade's proposal. Kostrov, namely: it is necessary to insert a requirement for the transfer of lands to. property of khizans, temporarily liable, etc. 114.

Comrade Lieber is in vain surprised. He demands from us one general measure, but such a measure does not exist. You have to put forward one thing once, another time something else. We don't have templates. Lieber points out that our demand for the abolition of serfdom coincides with the demands of the liberals. But liberals are not talking about how this demand will be implemented. We say that it should be carried out not by the bureaucracy, but by the oppressed classes, and this is already the path of revolution. This is our fundamental difference from liberals, who, with their arguments about transformations and reforms, “dirty” the people’s consciousness. If we began to specify all the demands for the abolition of serfdom, we would end up with entire volumes. That is why we point out only the most important forms and types of enslavement. And our committees in various localities, in the development general program, will set and develop their partial requirements. Trotsky's instruction that we cannot touch upon local demands is incorrect in the sense that the question of khizans and temporarily obligated people is not only a local question. In addition, it is known about it in the agricultural literature.

286 V. I. LENIN

Comrade Lieber proposes to abolish the section clause on the sole grounds that he does not like the peasant committees. This is weird. Since we have agreed on the main issue that the cuts enslave the peasants, then the establishment of committees is a particular detail, because of which it is illogical to reject the entire point. The question of how we will influence the peasant committees is also strange. I hope that the Social Democrats will then be able to organize congresses with less difficulty and at them they will agree on how to act in each given case.

Paragraph 5 is in connection with paragraph 16 of the work program: this presupposes courts consisting equally of workers and entrepreneurs; we must demand special representation from farm laborers and from the poorest peasantry 115 .

It seems to me unnecessary, since the competence of the courts would be disproportionately expanded 116. We are pursuing the goal of lowering rents, and the establishment of taxes would give landowners the opportunity to prove their case by citing certain facts. The reduction in rental prices excludes any thought about increasing them. Kautsky, speaking about Ireland, points out that the introduction of fishing vessels there produced some results.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 287

SPEECHES AND

Lenin briefly defends his formulation, emphasizing in particular that it provides an incentive: “get organized!” 117. One should not think that party organizations should consist only of professional revolutionaries. We need a wide variety of organizations of all types, ranks and shades, ranging from extremely narrow and conspiratorial to very broad, free, lose Organisationen. A necessary feature of a party organization is its approval by the Central Committee.

First of all, I would like to make two special remarks. Firstly, regarding Axelrod’s kind (I say this without irony) offer to “bargain”. I would willingly follow this call, for I do not at all consider our disagreement so significant that the life or death of the party depended on it. We are far from dying from a bad clause in the charter! But since it has already come to choosing from two formulations, then I cannot in any way give up my firm conviction that Martov’s formulation is deterioration original project, the deterioration that Maybe bring the party, under certain conditions, a lot of harm. The second remark concerns Comrade. Brooker. It is quite natural that, wanting to spend everywhere

288 V. I. LENIN

electoral principle, Comrade Brooker accepted my formulation, which alone defines with any precision the concept member parties. I don’t understand why Comrade’s pleasure. Martov regarding Comrade’s agreement with me. Brooker. Is it really Comrade Martov is really for management admits for himself the opposite of what Brooker says, without examining his motives and arguments?

Moving on to the essence of the matter, I will say that Comrade. Trotsky completely failed to understand the main idea of comrade. Plekhanov and therefore bypassed the whole essence of the issue in his reasoning. He spoke about intellectuals and workers, about the class point of view and about the mass movement, but did not notice one basic question: does my formulation narrow or expand the concept of a party member? If he had asked himself this question, he would have easily seen that my formulation narrows this concept, while Martov’s expands it, differing (in Martov’s own correct expression) by “elasticity.” And it is precisely “elasticity” in a period of party life such as the one we are experiencing that undoubtedly opens the door to all elements of confusion, vacillation and opportunism. To refute this simple and obvious conclusion, it is necessary to prove that there are no such elements, and Comrade. Trotsky did not even think of doing this. And this cannot be proven, because everyone knows that there are many such elements, that they exist in the working class too. Protecting the firmness of the line and the purity of the principles of the party is now becoming all the more urgent because the party, restored to its unity, will accept into its ranks many unstable elements, the number of which will increase as the party grows. Comrade Trotsky greatly misunderstood the main idea of my book “What is to be done?” when he said that the party is not a conspiratorial organization (this objection was made to me and many others). He forgot that in my book I envision a whole range of different types of organizations, ranging from the most secret and narrowest to the relatively broad and “loose” *. He

* See Works, 5th ed., volume 6, p. 119. Ed.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 289

I forgot that the party should only be a vanguard, the leader of the vast mass of the working class, which all (or almost all) works “under the control and guidance” of party organizations, but which is not all and should not be all included in the party. Look, in fact, what conclusions Comrade receives. Trotsky, due to his main mistake. He told us here that if rows and rows of workers were arrested and all workers declared that they did not belong to the party, then our party would be strange! Isn't it the other way around? Isn’t it strange the reasoning of Comrade. Trotsky? He considers it sad that any experienced revolutionary could only be happy. If the hundreds and thousands of workers arrested for strikes and demonstrations turned out to be not members of party organizations, this would only prove that our organizations are good, that we are fulfilling our task - to conspire a more or less narrow circle of leaders and attract the widest possible masses to the movement. The root of the mistake of those who stand for Martov’s formulation is that they not only ignore one of the fundamental evils of our party life, but even sanctify this evil. This evil lies in the fact that in an atmosphere of almost universal political discontent, under conditions of complete secrecy of work, under conditions of concentrating most of the activity in close secret circles and even private meetings, it is extremely difficult, almost impossible for us to distinguish those who chatter from those who work. And there is hardly another country in which the confusion of these two categories would be so common, introducing such a darkness of confusion and harm, as in Russia. Not only among the intelligentsia, but also among the working class, we suffer severely from this evil, and the formulation of Comrade. Martova legitimizes this evil. This formulation inevitably tends each and every one make party members; Comrade Martov himself had to admit this with a caveat - “if you want, yes,” he said. This is exactly what we don’t want! That is why we rebel so resolutely against

290 V. I. LENIN

Martov's formulations. It is better that ten workers do not call themselves party members (actual workers do not chase ranks!) than that one chattering one has the right and opportunity to be a party member. This is the principle that seems irrefutable to me and which makes me fight against Martov. They objected to me that we do not give any rights to party members, therefore there can be no abuses. Such an objection is completely unfounded: if we do not indicate exactly what special rights a party member receives, then note that we do not provide any instructions on limiting the rights of party members. This is the first thing. And secondly, and this is the main thing, regardless of even the rights, we must not forget that every party member is responsible for the party and the party is responsible for every member. Under our conditions of political activity, in the embryonic state of real political organization, it would be downright dangerous and harmful to give non-members of the organization the right of membership and to assign responsibility to the party for people who are not included in the organization (and are not included, perhaps intentionally) . Comrade Martov was horrified by the fact that at the trial, a non-member of the party organization would not have the right, despite his energetic work, to call himself a party member. It doesn't scare me. On the contrary, it would be a serious harm if a person who calls himself a party member without belonging to any of the party organizations were to present himself in an undesirable way at the trial. It is impossible to refute that such a person worked under the control and direction of the organization; it is impossible precisely because of the vagueness of the term. In fact - there can be no doubt - the words "under the control and direction" will lead to the fact that there will be no control or leadership. The Central Committee will never be able to extend real control to everyone who works but is not part of the organization. Our task is to give actual control in the hands of the Central Committee. Our task is to protect the firmness, consistency, and purity of our party. We must become

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 291

strive to raise the rank and importance of a party member higher, higher and higher - and therefore I am against Martov’s formulation,

Verified with manuscript

Lenin insists on including words about material support, since everyone recognizes that the party must exist at the expense of its members. It is impossible to refer to moral considerations in the matter of creating a political party.

292 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE PARTY CHARTER

Lenin finds the first formulation inconvenient due to the fact that it gives the Council an arbitrary character 118. The Council should not only be an arbitration institution, but also coordinate the activities of the Central Committee and the Central Authority. In addition, he speaks out for the appointment of a fifth member by the congress. It is possible that four members of the Council will not be able to select a fifth; we will then be left without the necessary institution.

Lenin's arguments comrade. Zasulich finds 119 unsuccessful. The case presented by her is already a struggle; and in this case, no statutes will help here. By giving the choice of the fifth to the four members of the Council, we are introducing a fight into the charter. Considers it necessary to note that the Council has not only the character of a conciliatory institution: for example, two members of the Council, according to the charter, have the right to convene it.

Lenin for preserving this place; No one can be prohibited from coming to the center with a statement. This necessary condition centralization 120.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 293

There are two questions here. The first is about a qualified majority, and I am against the proposal to lower it from 4/5 to 2/3. It is imprudent to introduce a motivated protest, and I am against it 122. The second question is immeasurably more important - about the right of mutual control of the Central Committee and the Central Organ over co-optation. Mutual agreement between two centers is a necessary condition for harmony. Here the question is about the separation of two centers. Those who do not want a split must ensure that there is harmony. It is known from the life of the party that there were people who caused a split. This question is fundamental, an important question, the entire future fate of the party may depend on it.

If the charter was lame on one leg, then Comrade. Egorov makes him lame on both 123. The Council co-opts only in exceptional cases. For both sides, for both centers, complete trust is necessary precisely because this is a complex mechanism; Without complete mutual trust, successful joint work is impossible. And the whole question of proper joint functioning is closely connected with the right of co-optation. The question of technical difficulties has been overestimated in vain by Comrade. Deychem.

294 V. I. LENIN

ADDENDUM TO § 12 OF THE DRAFT PARTY CHARTER

Co-optation of members of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ is permissible only with the consent of all members of the Party Council.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 295

SPEECHES DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE PARTY CHARTER

I will answer both objections briefly 124. Comrade Martov says that I propose the unanimity of both boards for the co-optation of members; this is not true. The Congress decided not to give the right of veto to each of the members of two, perhaps quite extensive boards, but this does not mean that we cannot give this power to an institution that coordinates all the activities of the joint work of the two centers. The joint work of the two centers requires complete unanimity and even personal unity, and this is only possible with unanimous co-optation. After all, if two members find that co-optation is necessary, then they can convene a Council.

Martov's amendment contradicts the already adopted clause on unanimous co-optation in the Central Committee and the Central Organ 125.

Interpretation of Comrade Martov is incorrect, because the withdrawal contradicts unanimity 126. I appeal to the congress and ask them to decide whether the amendment should be amended by Comrade. Martov put to a vote.

Essentially, I would not argue with comrades Glebov and Deitch, but I considered it necessary to say about the League in the charter, because, firstly, everyone knew

296 V. I. LENIN

about the existence of the League, secondly, to note the League’s representation in the party according to the old charters, thirdly, because all other organizations are in the position of committees, and the League is being introduced to highlight its special position 127.

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 297

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE STATEMENT OF MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV 128

Recognizing the statement of comrades Martynov and Akimov as contrary to our concept of the members of the congress and even of the party members, the congress invites comrades Akimov and Martynov either to withdraw their statement or to definitely declare their resignation from the party. As for the protocols, the congress in any case allows them to be present at a special meeting when the protocols are approved.

First published in 1927 in Lenin's collection VI

Reprinted from the manuscript

298 V. I. LENIN

SPEECHES DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THE STATEMENT OF MARTYNOV AND AKIMOV

The Bureau discussed the application of comrades Martynov and Akimov, submitted by them at the morning meeting. I will not touch on the motivation, although it is incorrect and extremely strange. No one anywhere declared the closure of the Union, and comrades Martynov and Akimov drew an incorrect indirect conclusion from the decision of the congress on the League. But even the closure of the Union cannot deprive delegates of the right to participate in the work of the congress. In the same way, the congress cannot allow refusal to participate in the vote. A member of the congress cannot only approve the protocols and not participate in the rest of its work. The Bureau has not yet proposed any resolution and is raising this issue for discussion at the congress. The statement of Martynov and Akimov is completely abnormal and contradicts the title of a member of the congress.

What an absurd and abnormal situation has created here. On the one hand, they tell us that they obey the decisions of the congress, and on the other, they want to leave because of the decision regarding the charter. Having come here as a delegate of an organization recognized by the Organizing Committee, each of us became a member of the congress. No dissolution of the organization destroys this title. What should we, the bureau, do during voting?

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 299

It is impossible not to count those who have left at all, because the congress has already approved its composition. There is one logical conclusion here - to completely leave the ranks of the party. The protocols can be approved by specially inviting comrades from the Union for this purpose, although the congress has the right to approve its protocols without them.

300 V. I. LENIN

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BUND FROM THE RSDLP 129

Exit Bund

The congress considers the refusal of the Bund delegates to obey the decision of the majority of the congress as the Bund's withdrawal from the RSDLP 130.

The Congress deeply regrets this step, which, in its opinion, is a major political mistake by the real leaders of the “Jewish workers’ union”, a mistake that must inevitably have a harmful effect on the interests of the Jewish proletariat and the labor movement. The arguments with which the Bund delegates justify their step, the congress recognizes in practical terms as completely unfounded fears and suspicions of insincerity and inconsistency of the Social Democratic convictions of Russian Social Democrats, and in theoretically the result of the sad penetration of nationalism into the social democratic movement of the Bund.

The congress expresses the wish and firm conviction of the need for complete and closest unity of the Jewish and Russian labor movement in Russia, unity not only of principle, but also of organization, and decides to take all measures to ensure that the Jewish proletariat is thoroughly acquainted with both the present resolution of the congress and in general with the attitude of Russian Social Democracy towards any national movement.

Reprinted from the manuscript

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 301

ADDITION TO MARTOV'S RESOLUTION ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BUND FROM THE RSDLP

The Congress decides to take all measures to restore the unity of the Jewish and non-Jewish labor movement and to explain to the broadest possible masses of Jewish workers how the national question is raised by Russian Social Democracy.

Published for the first time, based on manuscript

302 V. I. LENIN

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON SPECIFIC GROUPS

Individual groups

The Congress expresses its regret over the separate existence of such groups of Social Democrats as “Struggle”, “Life” and “Will” 131 . Their isolation cannot but cause unacceptable disorganization in the party, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, sad deviations from social democratic views and social democratic tactics towards so-called social revolutionism (in “Volya” and partly in “Borba” in its agrarian program) or towards Christian socialism and anarchism (in Life). The Congress expresses the desire that both these groups, and all groups of people in general who consider themselves to be social democrats, join the ranks of a united and organized Russian social democracy. The Congress instructs the Central Committee to collect the necessary information and make a final decision on the place of these and other individual groups within the Party or on the attitude of our Party towards them.

First published in 1930 in Lenin's collection XV

Reprinted from the manuscript

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 303

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON WORK IN THE ARMY

The congress draws the attention of all party organizations to the importance of Social Democratic propaganda and agitation among the troops and recommends directing all efforts to quickly consolidate and formalize all existing connections among officers and lower ranks. The Congress recognizes the desirability of the formation of special groups of employees in the army of Social Democrats so that these groups occupy a certain position in local committees (as branches of the committee organization) or in the central organization (as institutions created directly by the Central Committee and directly subordinate to it).

First published in 1930 in Lenin's collection XV

Reprinted from the manuscript

304 V. I. LENIN

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON WORK AMONG THE PEASANTRY

Peasantry

The Congress draws special attention of all party members to the importance of developing and strengthening work among the peasantry. It is necessary to appear before the peasantry (and especially before the rural proletariat) with the entire Social Democratic program in its entirety, explaining the significance of the agrarian program as the first and immediate demands on the basis of the existing system. It is necessary to strive to ensure that conscientious peasants and intelligent workers in the countryside form tightly knit groups of Social Democrats who are constantly in contact with party committees. It is necessary to counteract among the peasantry themselves the propaganda of the socialist revolutionaries, which sows unprincipledness and reactionary populist prejudices.

First published in 1930 in Lenin's collection XV

Reprinted from the manuscript

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 305

SPEECH AT THE EDITORIAL ELECTION OF "ISKRA" 132

Comrades! Martov’s speech was so strange that I see myself forced to resolutely rebel against his posing the question. I remind you first of all that Martov’s protest against the very elections of the editorial board, the refusal of him and his comrades to participate in the editorial board that is about to be elected are in blatant contradiction with what we all said (including Martov) when the party body recognized “ Spark". They objected to us then that such recognition makes no sense, because it is impossible to approve one title without the approval of the editors, and Comrade himself. Martov explained to the objectors that it is not true, that a certain political direction is being affirmed, that the composition of the editorial board not a foregone conclusion nothing that the elections of editors are still ahead, according to paragraph 24 of our Tagesordnung 133. Therefore, Comrade Martov had no now absolutely no right talk about limiting the recognition of Iskra. Therefore, Martov’s words that his entry into the troika without his old editorial comrades would put a stain on his entire political reputation indicate only amazing confusion of political concepts. To take this point of view means to deny the right of the congress to new elections, to any change in the composition of officials, to reorganize the boards authorized by it. What confusion this formulation of the question introduces can be seen even from the example of the Organizational

306 V. I. LENIN

committee. We expressed to him the full confidence and gratitude of the congress, but at the same time we ridiculed the very idea that the congress does not have the right to sort out the internal relations of the OK, we at the same time removed any assumption that the old composition of the OK would embarrass us into “ non-comradely" sorting of this composition and in the formation from any elements new Central Committee. I repeat once again: in the views of Comrade. Martov on the admissibility of elections parts The former collegium reveals the greatest confusion of political concepts.

I will now turn to the question of the “two triplets” 134. Comrade Martov said that this entire project of two troikas is the work of one person, one member of the editorial board (namely my project), and that no one else is responsible for it. I I categorically protest against this statement and declare that it directly incorrect. I will remind comrade. Martov that a few weeks before the congress I directly told him and another member of the editorial board that I would demand at the congress free choice editors. I abandoned this plan only because comrade himself Martov offered me a more convenient choice plan instead two triples. I then formulated this plan on paper and sent it first of all Comrade himself Martov, who returned it to me with corrections - here I have it, this very copy, where Martov’s corrections are written in red ink 135. A number of comrades then saw this project dozens of times, all members of the editorial board saw it, and no one ever did not protest against it formally. I say “formally”, because Comrade. Axelrod once, if I’m not mistaken, made a private remark about his lack of sympathy for this project. But it goes without saying that the editors’ protest did not require a private remark. It was not for nothing that the editors made a formal decision even before the congress to invite a certain seventh person so that, if necessary, to make any collective statement at the congress, an unshakable decision could be taken, which was so often not achieved in our board of six. AND all members of the editorial board know that the replenishment of the six is the seventh

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 307

a permanent member of the editorial board has been the subject of our constant concern for a very, very long time. Thus, I repeat, the solution in the form of choosing two triplets was a completely natural solution, which I introduced into my project with knowledge and consent Comrade Martova. And comrade Martov together with comrade. Trotsky and others many, many times after that defended this system of choosing two troikas at a number of private meetings of “sparkists”. While correcting Martov’s statement about the private nature of the plan of two troikas, I do not think, however, to affect the same Martov’s statements about the “political significance” of the step that we took without approving the old edition. On the contrary, I completely and unconditionally agree with Comrade. Martov is that this step has great political significance - just not the one that Martov attributes to it. He said that this was an act of struggle for influence on the Central Committee in Russia. I will go further than Martov. Fight Until now, all the activities of Iskra, as a private group, have been for influence, but now we are talking about something more, about organizational consolidation influence, and not just about fighting for it. To what extent do we disagree here? politically from comrade Martov, it is clear from the fact that he gives me to blame this is a desire to influence the Central Committee, and I set myself to his credit that I have strived and strive to consolidate this influence organizationally. It turns out that we even speak different languages! What would be the point of all our work, all our efforts, if their crowning point was the same old struggle for influence, and not the complete acquisition and strengthening of influence. Yes, comrade. Martov is absolutely right: the step taken is undoubtedly major political step indicating the choice of one of the now emerging directions in the future work of our party. And I am not the least bit frightened by the terrible words about a “state of siege in the party,” about “exceptional laws against individuals and groups,” etc. In relation to unstable and shaky elements, we not only can, we are obliged to create a “state of siege.” , and our entire party charter, our entire one approved from now on by the congress

308 V. I. LENIN

centralism is nothing more than a “state of siege” for so many sources political vagueness. It is precisely against vagueness that special, even exceptional, laws are needed, and the step taken by the congress correctly outlined the political direction, creating a solid basis for such laws and such measures

Reprinted from the manuscript

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 309

SPEECH AT THE ELECTION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY

We were reproached that there was a compact majority. The latter does not represent anything bad. Once a compact majority 136 had formed here, it had already been weighed whether the elected Central Committee would turn out to be capable. You can't talk about randomness. There is a full guarantee. The elections cannot be postponed. There is very little time left. Comrade's proposal Martova to delay the elections is unreasonable. I support comrade's proposal. Rusova 137.

310 V. I. LENIN

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE PUBLICATION OF AN ORGAN FOR SECTANTS 138

Taking into account that the sectarian movement in Russia is, in many of its manifestations, one of the democratic trends in Russia, the Second Congress draws the attention of all party members to work among sectarianism in order to attract it to social democracy. As an experiment, the congress authorizes Comrade. V. Bonch-Bruevich to publish, under the control of the editorial board of the Central Organ, a popular newspaper "Among the sectarians" and instructs the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central Organ to take the necessary measures for the implementation of this publication and its success and to determine all the conditions for its proper functioning.

Reprinted from the manuscript

II CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP 311

SPEECH DURING THE DISCUSSION OF POTRESOV'S (STAROVER) RESOLUTION ON THE ATTITUDE TO LIBERALS 139

Starover's resolution will be misunderstood: the student movement and Liberation are two different things. Treating them the same will be harmful. The name Struve is too well known, and the workers know him. Comrade The Old Believer thinks that a certain directive must be given; I think we need a certain principled and tactical attitude.

312 V. I. LENIN

SPEECH ON THE ISSUE OF ATTITUDE TOWARDS STUDENTS

The formula “false friends” is not used only by reactionaries, but we see that such false friends exist among liberals and socialist-revolutionaries. It is these false friends who approach young people with assurances that they do not need to understand different trends. We're betting main goal development of an integral revolutionary worldview, and further practical problem is that young people, when organizing, turn to our committees.

Plan:

1 Opening of the congress and agenda
2 RSDLP and Bund
3 Party program and “economists”
4 Disagreements among the “Iskraists” and discussion of the charter of the RSDLP

Introduction

Second Congress of the RSDLP, took place July 17 (30) - August 10 (23), 1903. Until July 24 (August 6) he worked in Brussels, but the Belgian police forced the delegates to leave the country; The congress moved its meetings to London. There were 37 meetings in total (13 in Brussels and 24 in London). The convening of the congress was the result of the enormous work to unite Russian revolutionary Social Democracy carried out by the editorial board and organization of Iskra. 26 organizations were represented at the congress: the Liberation of Labor group, the Russian organization Iskra, the St. Petersburg Committee, the St. Petersburg Labor Organization, the Moscow Committee, the Kharkov Committee, the Kiev Committee, the Odessa Committee, the Nikolaev Committee, the Crimean Union, the Don Committee, the Union of Mining Workers , Ekaterinoslav Committee, Saratov Committee, Tiflis Committee, Baku Committee, Batumi Committee, Ufa Committee, Northern Workers' Union, Siberian Union, Tula Committee, Foreign Committee of the Bund, Central Committee of the Bund, "Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy", "Foreign Union of Russians Social Democrats", group "Southern Worker". A total of 43 delegates participated with 51 casting votes (as many committees could not send the required number deputies, some deputies had two mandates) and 14 delegates with an advisory vote, representing several thousand party members.

1. Opening of the congress and agenda

The congress opened with an opening speech by G.V. Plekhanov.

Order of the day:

Constitution of the Congress. Bureau elections. Establishment of the rules of the congress and the order of the day. Report of the Organizing Committee (OC) - speaker V.N. Rozanov (Popov); report of the commission on checking mandates and determining the composition of the congress - B.A. Ginzburg (Koltsov).
The place of the Bund in the RSDLP is the rapporteur Lieber (M.I. Goldman), co-rapporteur L. Martov (Yu.O. Tsederbaum).
Party program.
The central body of the party.
Delegate reports.
Organization of the party (discussion of the organizational charter of the party) - speaker V.I. Lenin.
District and national organizations - rapporteur of the statutory commission V.A. Noskov (Glebov).
Separate groups of the party - opening speech by V.I. Lenin.
National question.
Economic struggle and professional movement.
Celebrating May 1st.
International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam 1904.
Demonstrations and uprisings.
Terror.
Internal issues of party work:
1. propaganda production
2. campaigning,
3. production of party literature,
4. organizing work among the peasantry,
5. organizing work in the army,
6. organizing work among students,
7. organizing work among sectarians.
The attitude of the RSDLP to the Socialist Revolutionaries.
The attitude of the RSDLP to Russian liberal movements.
Elections of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the central body (CO) of the party.
Elections of the Party Council.
The procedure for announcing the decisions and minutes of the congress, as well as the procedure for elected officials and institutions taking on their duties. The issue of the party charter was discussed under item 6 of the order of the day.

IN AND. Lenin was elected to the congress bureau, chaired a number of meetings, spoke on almost all issues, and was a member of the program, organizational and credentials commissions.

2. RSDLP and Bund

Disagreements at the congress began with the problem of the Bund. The Bundists demanded autonomy within the party with the right to develop their own policies on Jewish problems, as well as recognition of the Bund as the only representative of the party among working Jews. Lenin, on behalf of the Iskrists, organized speeches by Martov and Trotsky, who themselves were of Jewish origin, but were supporters of the voluntary assimilation of Jews. The congress adopted resolutions by Martov and Trotsky against the autonomy of the Bund.

3. Party program and “economists”

The most important matter of the congress was the adoption of the party program; Its discussion took 9 meetings. In the summer of 1901, the editors of Iskra and Zarya began preparing a draft party program. The congress was presented with a draft that took into account most of the amendments and additions made by Lenin to two drafts of Plekhanov’s program. Lenin insisted that the editorial draft clearly formulate the basic tenets of Marxism on the dictatorship of the proletariat (on this issue Plekhanov showed hesitation), on the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle, and emphasize the proletarian character of the party and its leading role in the liberation movement in Russia. Lenin wrote the agrarian part of the program. During the discussion of the draft program at the congress, a sharp struggle broke out. The “economists” Akimov (V.P. Makhnovets), Picker (A.S. Martynov) and the Bundist Lieber opposed the inclusion of the point on the dictatorship of the proletariat in the program, citing the fact that this point was absent in the programs of Western European social democratic parties. L. D. Trotsky stated that the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only when the proletariat becomes the majority of the “nation” and when the party and the working class are “closest to identification,” that is, merged. Characterizing the views of his opponents as social reformist, Lenin said that “they came... to the point of challenging the dictatorship of the proletariat...” (ibid., vol. 7, p. 271). Lenin sharply opposed the attempt of the “economists” Martynov and Akimov to push through a number of “amendments” (Akimov alone proposed 21) to the program in the spirit of the “theory of spontaneity” and denial of the importance of introducing socialist consciousness into the labor movement and the leading role of the revolutionary party in it.

Fundamental disagreements also emerged during the discussion of the agrarian part of the program, in particular on the problem of the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Lenin insisted on recognizing the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat, substantiated the revolutionary demand for the return of “cut-offs” as the destruction of one of the remnants of serfdom and the need to differentiate the demands of the agrarian program during the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions, which was a revision of Marxism. The struggle within the party also flared up on the national issue - the right of nations to self-determination. Polish Social Democrats and Bundists opposed him. Polish Social Democrats believed that this point would benefit Polish nationalists. The Bundists took the anti-Marxist position of cultural-national autonomy. The struggle within the party on programmatic issues ended in victory for the Iskra-ists.

The congress approved the Iskra program, consisting of two parts - a maximum program and a minimum program. The maximum program spoke about the ultimate goal of the party - the organization of a socialist society and the condition for the implementation of this goal - the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum program covered the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, the establishment of complete equality of rights for all nations, the assertion of their right to self-determination, the destruction of the remnants of serfdom in the countryside, the return to the peasants of the lands taken from them by the landowners (“ segments"). Subsequently, the demand for the return of the “cuts” was replaced by the Bolsheviks (at the 3rd Congress of the RSDLP, 1905) with a provision for the confiscation of all landowners’ land.

4. Disagreements among the “Iskraists” and discussion of the charter of the RSDLP

After this, it became clear that there would be a split between the Iskra-ists, the Economists and the Bundists. But a split also arose among the “Iskraists” themselves, which would become the main event of the congress.

This split began to manifest itself even before the congress on an issue that, it would seem, did not affect any principles. There were six people on the Iskra editorial board - Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, Potresov, Axelrod and Zasulich. This number was even, and often during the work the editorial board came to a stalemate when it was divided into threes with opposing opinions. To make the work of the editorial office effective, Lenin proposed introducing a seventh - Trotsky, but Plekhanov was categorically against it, and then Lenin decided to reduce the number of editors - to exclude Potresov, Axelrod and Zasulich due to the fact that he considered them bad journalists (Lenin gave an example that for 45 issues of Iskra, Martov wrote 39 articles, Lenin himself - 32, Plekhanov - 24, while Zasulich - 6, Axelrod - 4, Potresov - 8). With this proposal, Lenin aroused the accusation that he was seeking to dominate the party.

When discussing the draft party charter, especially the first paragraph on party membership, the struggle at the congress became especially intense. Lenin proposed the following formulation: “Anyone who recognizes its program and supports the party both with material means and with personal participation in one of the party organizations is considered a party member.” Martov and his supporters believed that a party member may not be a member of the party organization, not work in it, that is, not subject to party discipline. According to Martov’s formulation, a party member could be considered “anyone who accepts its program, supports the party with material means and provides it with regular personal assistance under the leadership of one of its organizations.” The discrepancy was subtle. Lenin wanted to create a united, militant, clearly organized, disciplined proletarian party. The Martovites stood for freer association. But at first this did not seem particularly important, and Martov was even ready to withdraw his formulation in favor of Lenin’s. But due to personal conflicts over the editorial board of Iskra, the struggle intensified. When the congress moved to vote on the charter, there could no longer be any question of compromise. As a result of voting (Bundists, “economists,” centrists, “soft” Iskraists), the congress, by a majority of 28 votes against 22 with 1 abstention, adopted the first paragraph of the charter in Martov’s formulation (at the Third Congress of the RSDLP (1905) the Leninist formulation of the first paragraph of the charter was adopted, which began to be repeated in all subsequent charters of the RCP(b)-VKP(b)-CPSU)

All other paragraphs of the charter were adopted by the congress in Lenin's formulation. This was of particular importance in the struggle for the organizational plan on the basis of which the Marxist party in Russia arose and subsequently strengthened. The Congress created party centers: the Central Organ, the Central Committee and the Party Council. It was decided to eliminate the abnormal situation abroad, where there were two social democratic organizations: the Iskra-based “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy” and the “economist” “Foreign Union of Russian Social Democrats”. The 2nd Congress recognized the League as the only foreign organization of the RSDLP. As a sign of protest, 2 representatives of the “Union” left the congress. 5 Bundists also left after the congress refused to accept the Bund into the RSDLP on the basis of a federation and rejected the Bund’s ultimatum to recognize it as the sole representative of Jewish workers in Russia. The departure of 7 delegates from the congress changed the balance of power at the congress in favor of Lenin's followers.

During the elections of the central institutions of the party, Lenin and his supporters won a decisive victory. Lenin, Martov, and Plekhanov were elected to the editorial board of Iskra. But Martov refused to work in the editorial office. G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Lengnik (both in absentia) and V. A. Noskov, a congress delegate with an advisory vote, were elected to the party’s Central Committee. All three are Lenin supporters. The fifth member of the Party Council, Plekhanov, was also elected (the Party Council consisted of 5 members: 2 from the editorial board of the Central Organ, 2 from the Central Committee, the fifth member was elected by the congress). From that time on, Lenin’s supporters, who received a majority in the elections of the central institutions of the party, began to be called Bolsheviks, and Lenin’s opponents, who received a minority, were called Mensheviks (somewhat curious is the fact that in the future the most authoritative Menshevik - Plekhanov - formally turned out to be a Bolshevik in this vote) . Lenin wrote drafts of most of the resolutions adopted by the congress: on the place of the Bund in the RSDLP, on the economic struggle, on the celebration of May 1, on the international congress, on demonstrations, on terror, on propaganda, on the attitude towards student youth, on party literature, on the distribution of forces . The congress also made decisions on a number of tactical issues: on the attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie, on the attitude towards the Socialist Revolutionaries, on the professional struggle, on demonstrations, etc.

SECOND CONGRESS OF THE RSDLP

took place illegally abroad on July 17 (30) - August 10 (23). 1903. Until July 24 (Aug. 6), the congress worked in Brussels, but at the request of the Belgians. police left Belgium and moved its meetings to London. A total of 37 meetings of the congress took place (13 in Brussels and 24 in London). The convening of the congress was the result of enormous work to unite the Russian Federation. revolutionary social democracy carried out by the editorial board and organization of Iskra, headed by V. I. Lenin. All organizational threads were concentrated in Lenin's hands. preparations for the congress: creation of organizational committee on convening the congress, determining the norms of representation, organizations and groups that had the right to participate in the work of the congress, the time and place of convening, etc.

26 organizations were represented at the congress: the group “Emancipation of Labor”, Russian. Iskra organization, foreign committee of the Bund, Central Committee of the Bund, Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy, Union of Russian Social Democracy Abroad, Southern Workers group, St. Petersburg. k-t, Petersburg. workers' organization, Moscow. k-t, Kharkovsky k-t, Kyiv k-t, Odessa k-t, Nikolaevsky Institute, Crimean Union, Donskoy union, Union of mining workers, Ekaterinoslavsky union, Saratov union, Tiflis union, Baku union, Batumi union, Ufa union, Northern workers' union, Siberian union, Tula Faculty

A total of 43 delegates participated, with 51 casting votes, and 14 delegates from the conference. voice.

The delegates were distributed at the congress according to the following groups. image: “Iskrists of the majority” (“hard” - Leninists) - 20 delegates - 24 votes: V. I. Lenin - 2 votes, N. E. Bauman (Sorokin), L. S. Vilensky (Lensky), V. F. Gorin (Galkin), S. I. Gusev (Lebedev), R. S. Zemlyachka (Osipov), A. G. Zurabov (Bekov) - 2 votes, L. M. Knipovich (Dedov), B. M. Knunyants (Rusov) - 2 votes, P. A. Krasikov (Pavlovich), M. N. Lyadov (Lidin), L. D. Makhlin (Orlov), G. M. Mishenev (Muravyov, Petukhov), I. K. Nikitin (Stepanov), S. I. Stepanov (Brown), A. M. Stopani (Dmitriev, Lange), D. A. Topuridze (Karsky) - 2 votes, D. I. Ulyanov (Hertz), A. V. Shotman (Gorsky) and G.V. Plekhanov, who supported the Bolsheviks at the Second Congress, but then went over to the Mensheviks. Opportunists: a) “Iskra-ists of the minority” (“soft” - Martovites) - 7 delegates - 9 votes: L. Martov (Tsederbaum Yu. O.) - 2 votes, M. S. Makadzyub (Antonov, Panin) - 2 votes, L. D. Trotsky (Bronstein), V. E. Mandelberg (Byulov, Posadovsky), L. G. Deitch, V. N. Krokhmal (Fomin), M. S. Zborovsky (Kostich); b) “Southern Worker” - 4 delegates: V. N. Rozanov (Popov), E. Ya. Levin (Egorov), E. S. Levina (Ivanov), L. V. Nikolaev (Medvedev, Mikh. Iv.) ; c) “swamp” - 4 delegates - 6 votes, supporting the Iskra minority group: D. P. Kalafati (Makhov) - 2 votes, L. S. Tseitlin (Belov), A. S. Lokerman (Tsarev) and I. N. Moshinsky (Lviv) - 2 votes; d) supporters of the “Workers’ Cause” - 3 delegates: A. S. Martynov (Pikker), V. P. Akimov (Makhnovets), L. P. Makhnovets (Bruker); e) “Bun d” - 5 delegates: I. L. Aizenstadt (Yudin), V. Kossovsky (Levinson M. Ya.), M. I. Liber (Goldman, Lipov), K. Portnoy (Abramson, Bergman), V. D. Medem (Grinberg, Goldblat).

Ch. The task of the congress, which took place in the bitter struggle of the revolutionaries. Marxists with opportunists, consisted “of creating a real party on those fundamental and organizational principles that were put forward and developed by Iskra” (V.I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 7, p. 193).

The congress opened with an opening speech by G. V. Plekhanov. Order of the day: 1) Constitution of the Congress. Bureau elections. Establishment of the rules of the congress and the order of the day. Report Organization. committee (OK) (speaker V.N. Rozanov (Popov)); report of the commission on checking the mandates and determining the composition of the congress (reporter B. A. Ginzburg (Koltsov)). 2) Place of the Bund in Ross. social democratic workers' party (speaker M. I. Liber (Goldman), co-rapporteur L. Martov (Yu. O. Tsederbaum)). 3) Party program. 4) Center. party organ. 5) Delegate reports. 6) Organization of the party (discussion of the organizational charter of the party) (speaker V.I. Lenin). 7) Regional and national. org-tion (rapporteur of the statutory commission V. A. Noskov (Glebov)). 8) Dept. party groups (introduction by V.I. Lenin). 9) National question. 10) Economical wrestling and professional movement. 11) Celebrating May 1st. 12) Int. socialist congress in Amsterdam 1904. 13) Demonstrations and uprisings. 14) Terror. 15) Int. desk questions work: a) setting up propaganda, b) setting up agitation, c) setting up desks. literature, d) organization of work among the peasantry, e) organization of work in the army, f) organization of work among students, g) organization of work among sectarians. 16) The attitude of the RSDLP to the Socialist Revolutionaries. 17) The attitude of the RSDLP to the Russian Federation. liberal movements. 18) Elections of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the Center. body (CO) of the party. 19) Elections of the Party Council. 20) The procedure for announcing the decisions and protocols of the congress, as well as the procedure for elected officials and institutions taking on their duties. The issue of the Party Charter was discussed under item 6 of the order of the day - “Organization of the Party.”

(When discussing points 3, 4 and 8 of the order of the day of the congress, there were no special rapporteurs; points 9-17 were not discussed at the meetings of the congress; resolutions were adopted by the congress on most of these issues).

The real leader of the congress was V.I. Lenin. V.I. Lenin spoke on almost all issues of the agenda, was elected to the bureau of the congress, chaired a number of meetings, was a member of the program, organizational. and credentials commissions.

The most important task of the congress was the discussion and adoption of the party program. On Lenin's initiative, in the summer of 1901 the editors of Iskra and Zarya began preparing a draft party program. A draft was presented to the congress, which took into account b. including amendments and additions made by Lenin to two drafts of Plekhanov’s program. Lenin insisted that the editor. The project, unlike Plekhanov's, clearly formulated the basic principles. the provisions of Marxism about the dictatorship of the proletariat (this was not in the second draft of Plekhanov’s program), about the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary. fight, emphasized span. the character of the party and its leadership role are shaded specifically. Features of the labor movement in Russia. Lenin wrote agr. part of the program. During the discussion of the draft program at the congress, a sharp struggle broke out. Akimov (Makhnovets), Martynov (Pikker) and the Bundist Lieber (Goldman) opposed the inclusion of the Point on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the program, citing the fact that in the Western European programs. Social-Democrats parties there is no clause on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky also essentially took a social-reformist position on the issue of the dictatorship of the proletariat, declaring that the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only when the proletariat becomes the majority of the “nation” and when the party and the working class are “closest to identification,” i.e. will merge. This position of Trotsky later served as the basis for the Trotskyist-Menshevik theory about the impossibility of the victory of socialism in Russia.

Lenin sharply opposed the attempt of the “economists” (see “Economism”) Martynov and Akimov to push through a series of “amendments” to the program in the spirit of the “theory of spontaneity” and denying the importance of introducing socialist ideas. consciousness in the labor movement and the leadership role of the revolutionaries. parties in it. The Congress rejected all their “amendments.”

Fundamental disagreements between the Iskra-ists and the anti-Iskra-ists (“Economists”, Bundists and wavering elements) emerged during the discussion of agrarianism. parts of the program. With statements about the non-revolutionary nature of the peasantry, the opportunists covered up their reluctance and even fear of raising the cross. the masses for revolution. They essentially took up arms against the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Lenin defended the agrarian people from attacks by opportunists. part of the program, showed the importance of the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat, substantiated the revolution. the demand for the return of the “cuts” as the destruction of one of the remnants of serfdom and the need to differentiate the demands of agrarianism. programs during the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. Fierce. The struggle against the opportunists at the congress also flared up on the issue of fundamentals. program requirement according to national issue - the right of nations to self-determination. This point of the program was opposed by the Polish. Social Democrats and Bundists. Polish Social Democrats mistakenly believed that the program item on the right of nations to self-determination would benefit the Polish people. nationalists; so they proposed to remove it. The Bundists took the anti-Marxist position of “cultural-national autonomy.”

The struggle with the opportunists on programmatic issues ended in victory for the Iskra-ists. The congress approved the Iskra program, consisting of two parts - a maximum program and a minimum program. The maximum program spoke about the ultimate goal of the party - the construction of a socialist society. society and the condition for achieving this goal - socialist. revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum program covered the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, the establishment of democracy. republics, the establishment of an 8-hour working day, full equality of all nations, the assertion of their right to self-determination, the destruction of the remnants of serfdom in the countryside, the return to the peasants of the lands taken from them by the landowners ("cuts"). Subsequently, the demand for the return of the “cuts” was replaced by the Bolsheviks (at the Third Congress of the RSDLP, 1905) with the demand for the confiscation of all landowners’ land.

The program adopted at the congress was the Marxist program of the revolutionaries. span. party, radically different from the social-democratic programs. Western-European parties countries For the first time in the history of the international. the labor movement after the death of K. Marx and F. Engels was adopted by the revolution. a program that recognized the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat and put forward the task of fighting for it.

The program laid the scientific foundation. the foundation of revolutionary strategy and tactics. parties of the proletariat. Guided by this program, the Bolshevik Party - Communist. party - successfully fought for the victory of the bourgeois-democratic. and socialist revolutions in Russia. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution meant that the first program of the party was fulfilled. At the Eighth Congress of the RCP(b) (1919) a new, second party program was adopted.

When discussing the draft Party Charter written by Lenin, especially the first paragraph on party membership, the struggle at the congress became especially intense. The disagreements on the first paragraph of the Charter formally boiled down to the question of whether a member should. party to take personal part in the work of one of the parties. org-tions. Lenin believed that for each member. Parties must be included in one of the parties. organization and work in it, and proposed the following wording of the first paragraph: “Anyone who recognizes its program and supports the party both with material means and with personal participation in one of the party organizations is considered a party member.” Martov and his supporters believed that a party member need not be a member of the party. organization, does not work in it, therefore, he may not obey the party. discipline. According to Martov’s formulation, a party member was to be considered “anyone who accepts its program, supports the party with material means and provides it with regular personal assistance under the leadership of one of its organizations.”

The fundamental meaning of the struggle for the first paragraph of the Party Charter reflected different views on the question of what the party should be. Lenin and his supporters argued that the party must be an advanced, conscious, organized detachment of the working class, armed with advanced theory, knowledge of the laws of development of society and class. struggle, revolutionary experience. movements. The Leninists wanted to create a united, militant, clearly organized, disciplined revolution. span. party. The Martovites stood for a vague, heterogeneous, unformed, opportunistic, petty-bourgeois. party.

As a result of the unification of all opportunistic elements (Bundists, “economists,” “centrists,” “soft” Iskraists) the congress, by a majority of 28 votes to 22 with 1 abstention, adopted the first paragraph of the Charter in the March formulation. Only at the Third Congress of the RSDLP (1905) was the mistake of the Second Congress of the RSDLP corrected and the Leninist formulation of the first paragraph of the Charter adopted.

All other paragraphs of the Charter were adopted by the Second Congress in Lenin's formulation. This was of great importance in the struggle for the Iskra organization. plan, on the basis of which the revolutionary, Marxist party in Russia arose and strengthened. The congress adopted a number of decisions that strengthened the party. centers that increased their leadership role. It was decided to eliminate the abnormal situation abroad, where there were two Social-Democrats. organizations - the Iskra “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy” and the “Economist” “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad”. The Second Congress recognized the “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy” as the only foreign organization of the RSDLP. As a sign of protest, two “economists” - representatives of the foreign “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad” left the congress. Five Bundists also left the congress after the congress refused to accept the Bund into the RSDLP on the basis of a federation and rejected the Bund’s ultimatum to recognize its unities. representative of the European workers in Russia (thereby the congress rebuffed the legalization of circles in organizational matters and nationalism in ideological matters). The departure of 7 anti-Iskraists from the Congress changed the balance of forces at the Congress in favor of the “hard” Iskra-ists.

During elections, the center. party institutions, Lenin and his supporters won a decisive victory. Lenin, Martov, and Plekhanov were elected to the editorial board of Iskra at the suggestion of the “hard-core” Iskraites. But Martov refused to work in the editorial office. Lenin's supporters G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Lengnik (both in absentia) and V. A. Noskov (congress delegate with an advisory vote) were elected to the party's Central Committee. The fifth member of the Party Council, Plekhanov, was also elected (the Party Council consisted of 5 members: 2 from the editorial board of the Central Organ, 2 from the Central Committee, the fifth member was elected by the congress).

Since that time, Lenin's supporters received a majority in the elections to the center. party institutions began to be called “Bolsheviks,” and Lenin’s opponents, who received a minority, were called “Mensheviks.”

Lenin wrote the drafts of most of the resolutions adopted by the congress: on the place of the Bund in the RSDLP, on the economic struggle, on May 1, on international. Congress, about demonstrations, about terror, about propaganda, about the attitude towards students, about the party. liter, about the distribution of forces.

The congress also made decisions on a number of tactics. questions: about the attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie, about the attitude towards the Socialist Revolutionaries, about the professional struggle, about demonstrations, etc. In the resolution “On the attitude towards student youth”, the congress welcomed the revival of the revolutionaries. activities of student youth, recommended that all groups and circles of students prioritize the development of a Marxist worldview among their members and carry out work in close connection with their desks. organizations; The congress invited all party organizations to provide all possible assistance to the cause of organizing revolutionaries. student youth. The II Congress has a world history. meaning. It was a turning point in international labor movement. Basic The result of the congress was the creation of a revolutionary, Marxist party of a new type, the Bolshevik Party. “Bolshevism,” Lenin pointed out, “exists as a current of political thought and as Political Party, since 1903" (Oc., volume 31, p. 8).

Lit.: Lenin V.I., II Congress of the RSDLP. July 17(30) - August 10(23) 1903, Works, 4th ed., vol. 6; his, Story about the Second Congress of the RSDLP, ibid., vol. 7; his, One step forward, two steps back, in the same place, p. 185-392; him, What are we trying to achieve?, ibid.; his, One step forward, two steps back. N. Lenin's answer to Rosa Luxemburg, ibid., p. 439-50; CPSU in revolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, part 1, 7th ed., (M.), 1954; Second Congress of the RSDLP, July - Aug. 1903 Protocols, M., 1959; History of the CPSU, M., 1962; Krupskaya N.K., Memoirs of Lenin, M., 1957; hers, Second Party Congress, “Bolshevik”, 1933, No. 13; Pospelov P. N., Fifty years of the Communist Party Soviet Union, "VI", 1953, No. 11; Yaroslavsky E., To the 35th anniversary of the Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903-1938), (M.), 1938; The split at the Second Congress of the RSDLP and the Second International. Sat. Doc-tov, M., 1933; Memoirs of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, M., 1959; Volin M., Second Congress of the RSDLP, (M.), 1948; Baglikov B. T., Second Congress of the RSDLP, M., 1956.

S. S. Shaumyan. Moscow.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet encyclopedia . Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .

Second Congress of the RSDLP, took place July 17 (30) - August 10 (23), 1903. Until July 24 (August 6) he worked in Brussels, but the Belgian police forced the delegates to leave the country; The congress moved its meetings to London. There were 37 meetings in total (13 in Brussels and 24 in London). The convening of the congress was the result of enormous work to unite Russian revolutionary Social Democracy, carried out by the editorial board and organization of Iskra, headed by V. I. Lenin. 26 organizations were represented at the congress: the Liberation of Labor group, the Russian organization Iskra, the St. Petersburg Committee, the St. Petersburg Labor Organization, the Moscow Committee, the Kharkov Committee, the Kiev Committee, the Odessa Committee, the Nikolaev Committee, the Crimean Union, the Don Committee, the Union of Mining Workers , Ekaterinoslav Committee, Saratov Committee, Tiflis Committee, Baku Committee, Batumi Committee, Ufa Committee, Northern Workers' Union, Siberian Union, Tula Committee, Foreign Committee of the Bund, Central Committee of the Bund, "Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy", "Foreign Union of Russians Social Democrats", group "Southern Worker". In total, 43 delegates with 51 casting votes and 14 delegates with an advisory vote participated, representing several thousand party members. The main task of the congress, which took place in the bitter struggle of revolutionary Marxists with opportunists, was “to create a real party on those fundamental and organizational principles that were put forward and developed by Iskra” (V.I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., 5 ed., vol. 8, p. 193).

The congress opened with an opening speech by G. V. Plekhanov. Order of the day: 1) Constitution of the Congress. Bureau elections. Establishment of the rules of the congress and the order of the day. Report of the Organizing Committee (OC) - rapporteur V. N. Rozanov (Popov); report of the commission for checking the mandates and determining the composition of the congress - B. A. Ginzburg (Koltsov). 2) The place of the Bund in the RSDLP - rapporteur Lieber (M. I. Goldman), co-rapporteur L. Martov (Yu. O. Tsederbaum). 3) Party program. 4) The central body of the party. 5) Delegate reports. 6) Organization of the party (discussion of the organizational charter of the party) - speaker V.I. Lenin. 7) District and national organizations - rapporteur of the statutory commission V. A. Noskov (Glebov). 8) Separate groups of the party - opening speech of V.I. Lenin. 9) The national question. 10) Economic struggle and professional movement. 11) Celebrating May 1st. 12) International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam 1904. 13) Demonstrations and uprisings. 14) Terror. 15) Internal issues of party work: a) organization of propaganda, b) organization of agitation, c) organization of party literature, d) organization of work among the peasantry, e) organization of work in the army, f) organization of work among students, g) organization of work among sectarians . 16) The attitude of the RSDLP to the Socialist Revolutionaries. 17) The attitude of the RSDLP to Russian liberal movements. 18) Elections of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the central body (CO) of the party. 19) Elections of the Party Council. 20) The procedure for announcing the decisions and protocols of the congress, as well as the procedure for elected officials and institutions taking on their duties. The issue of the party charter was discussed under item 6 of the order of the day.

V.I. Lenin was elected to the bureau of the congress, chaired a number of meetings, spoke on almost all issues, and was a member of the program, organizational and credentials commissions.

The most important matter of the congress was the adoption of the party program; Its discussion took 9 meetings. In the summer of 1901, the editors of Iskra and Zarya began preparing a draft party program. The congress was presented with a draft that took into account most of the amendments and additions made by Lenin to two drafts of Plekhanov’s program. Lenin insisted that the editorial draft should clearly formulate the main tenets of Marxism about dictatorship of the proletariat (Plekhanov showed hesitation on this issue), about the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle, the proletarian character of the party and its leading role in the liberation movement in Russia are emphasized. Lenin wrote the agrarian part of the program. During the discussion of the draft program at the congress, a sharp struggle broke out. Akimov (V.P. Makhnovets), Picker (A.S. Martynov) and the Bundist Lieber opposed the inclusion of a point on the dictatorship of the proletariat in the program, citing the fact that this point was absent in the programs of Western European social democratic parties. L. D. Trotsky stated that the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only when the proletariat becomes the majority of the “nation” and when the party and the working class are “closest to identification,” that is, merged. Characterizing the views of the opportunists as social reformist, Lenin said that “they came... to the point of challenging the dictatorship of the proletariat...” (ibid., vol. 7, p. 271). Lenin sharply opposed the attempt of the “economists” (see. "Economism" ) Martynov and Akimov pushed through a number of “amendments” (only Akimov proposed 21) to the program in the spirit of the “theory of spontaneity” and denial of the importance of introducing socialist consciousness into the labor movement and the leading role of the revolutionary party in it.

Fundamental disagreements also emerged during the discussion of the agrarian part of the program. The opportunists, not believing in the revolutionary nature of the peasantry, essentially opposed the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Lenin showed the importance of the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat, substantiated the revolutionary demand for the return of “cut-offs” as the destruction of one of the remnants of serfdom and the need to differentiate the demands of the agrarian program during the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. The struggle against the opportunists also flared up on the national question - the right of nations to self-determination. Polish Social Democrats and Bundists opposed him. Polish Social Democrats mistakenly believed that this point would benefit Polish nationalists. The Bundists took anti-Marxist positions cultural-national autonomy . The struggle with the opportunists on programmatic issues ended in victory for the Iskra-ists.

The congress adopted a Marxist program, fundamentally different from the programs of the social democratic parties of Western European countries. It recognized the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat and put forward the task of fighting for it. The program laid the scientific foundation for the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary party of the proletariat. The RSDLP, thanks to the program adopted by the congress, was the only political party in Russia whose activities were entirely in line with the interests of the country and the revolutionary people. Guided by this program, the Bolshevik Party - the Communist Party - successfully fought for the victory of the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions in Russia.

When discussing the draft party charter written by Lenin, especially the first paragraph on party membership, the struggle at the congress became especially intense. Lenin proposed the following formulation: “Anyone who recognizes its program and supports the party both with material means and with personal participation in one of the party organizations is considered a party member.” Martov and his supporters believed that a party member may not be a member of the party organization, not work in it, that is, not subject to party discipline. According to Martov’s formulation, a party member could be considered “anyone who accepts its program, supports the party with material means and provides it with regular personal assistance under the leadership of one of its organizations.” The fundamental meaning of the struggle reflected different views on the question of what the party should be. The Leninists wanted to create a united, militant, clearly organized, disciplined proletarian party. The Martovites stood for a vague, heterogeneous, unformed, essentially petty-bourgeois party. As a result of the unification of all opportunist elements (Bundists, “economists,” centrists, “soft” Iskraists), the congress adopted the first paragraph of the charter in Martov’s formulation by a majority of 28 votes to 22 with 1 abstention. Only at the 3rd Congress of the RSDLP (1905) was the mistake corrected and the Leninist formulation of the first paragraph of the charter adopted.

All other paragraphs of the charter were adopted by the 2nd Congress in Lenin's formulation. This was of great importance in the struggle for the Iskra organizational plan, on the basis of which the revolutionary Marxist party in Russia arose and strengthened. The Congress created party centers: the Central Organ, the Central Committee and the Party Council. It was decided to eliminate the abnormal situation abroad, where there were two social democratic organizations: the Iskra-based “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy” and the “economist” “Foreign Union of Russian Social Democrats”. The 2nd Congress recognized the League as the only foreign organization of the RSDLP. As a sign of protest, 2 representatives of the “Union” left the congress. 5 Bundists also left after the congress refused to accept the Bund into the RSDLP on the basis of a federation and rejected the Bund's ultimatum to recognize its unity as a representative of Jewish workers in Russia. The departure of 7 anti-Iskraists from the congress changed the balance of forces at the congress in favor of the consistent Iskra-ists.

During the elections of the central institutions of the party, Lenin and his supporters won a decisive victory. Lenin, Martov, and Plekhanov were elected to the editorial board of Iskra. But Martov refused to work in the editorial office. G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Lengnik (both in absentia) and V. A. Noskov, a congress delegate with an advisory vote, were elected to the party’s Central Committee. All three are Lenin supporters. The fifth member of the Party Council, Plekhanov, was also elected (the Party Council consisted of 5 members: 2 from the editorial board of the Central Organ, 2 from the Central Committee, the fifth member was elected by the congress). From that time on, Lenin's supporters, who received a majority in the elections of the party's central institutions, began to be called Bolsheviks, and Lenin's opponents, who received a minority, were called Mensheviks. Lenin wrote drafts of most of the resolutions adopted by the congress: on the place of the Bund in the RSDLP, on the economic struggle, on the celebration of May 1, on the international congress, on demonstrations, on terror, on propaganda, on the attitude towards student youth, on party literature, on the distribution of forces . The congress also made decisions on a number of tactical issues: on the attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie, on the attitude towards the Socialist Revolutionaries, on the professional struggle, on demonstrations, etc.

The 2nd Congress has world-historical significance. It marked a turning point in the Russian and international labor movement. The main result of the congress: the creation in Russia of a revolutionary Marxist party - the Bolshevik Party. “Bolshevism,” Lenin pointed out, “has existed as a current of political thought and as a political party since 1903” (ibid., vol. 41, p. 6). Cm. Communist Party of the Soviet Union .

Lit.: Lenin V.I., II Congress of the RSDLP. July 17 (30) - August 10 (23), 1903, Full. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 7; his, Story about the Second Congress of the RSDLP, ibid., vol. 8; his, One step forward, two steps back, in the same place; CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, 7th ed., part 1, [M.] 1954; Second Congress of the RSDLP, July - August 1903. Protocols, M., 1959; History of the CPSU, vol. 1, M., 1964; Krupskaya N.K., Memoirs of Lenin, M., 1957.

S. S. Shaumyan.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia M.: "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1969-1978

Central Committee of the Bund, “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy”, “Foreign Union of Russian Social Democrats”, group “Southern Worker”. In total, 43 delegates with 51 casting votes participated (since many committees could not send the required number of deputies, some deputies had two mandates) and 14 delegates with an advisory vote, representing several thousand party members.

At the congress, the RSDLP split into two factions: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, which persisted until the complete division in 1917.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Countdown. “First Congress. Spies against the RSDLP” (2/2)

✪ Countdown. “First Congress. Spies against the RSDLP” (1/2)

✪ Russian empire. Nicholas II. Part 1

Subtitles

Opening of the Congress

The congress opened with an opening speech by Georgiy Plekhanov.

Agenda:

Constitution of the Congress. Bureau elections. Establishment of the rules of the congress and the order of the day. Report of the Organizing Committee (OC) - rapporteur V. N. Rozanov (Popov); report of the commission for checking the mandates and determining the composition of the congress - B. A. Ginzburg (Koltsov).
The place of the Bund in the RSDLP is the rapporteur Lieber (M. I. Goldman), co-rapporteur L. Martov (Yu. O. Tsederbaum).
Party program.
The central body of the party.
Delegate reports.
Organization of the party (discussion of the organizational charter of the party) - speaker V. I. Lenin.
District and national organizations - rapporteur of the statutory commission V. A. Noskov (Glebov).
Separate groups of the party - opening speech by V. I. Lenin.
National question.
Economic struggle and professional movement.
Celebrating May 1st.
International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam 1904 .
Demonstrations and uprisings.
Terror.
Internal issues of party work:
1. production of propaganda,
2. campaigning,
3. production of party literature,
4. organizing work among the peasantry,
5. organizing work in the army,
6. organizing work among students,
7. organizing work among sectarians.
The attitude of the RSDLP to the Socialist Revolutionaries.
The attitude of the RSDLP to Russian liberal movements.
Elections of the Central Committee and the editorial board of the central body (CO) of the party.
Elections of the Party Council.
The procedure for announcing the decisions and minutes of the congress, as well as the procedure for elected officials and institutions taking on their duties. The issue of the party charter was discussed under item 6 of the order of the day.

RSDLP and Bund

Disagreements at the congress began with the problem of the Bund. The Bundists demanded autonomy within the party with the right to develop their own policies on Jewish problems, as well as recognition of the Bund as the only representative of the party among working Jews. Lenin, on behalf of the “Iskrists,” organized speeches by the Jews Yu. Martov (Tsederbaum) and L. Trotsky (Bronstein), who were supporters of assimilation. As a result, the congress adopted a resolution against the autonomy of the Bund (see also "The National Question").

Program

The editorial staff of Iskra and Zarya began preparing the draft program in 1901. The Congress was presented with a draft that took into account most of the amendments and additions made by Lenin to Plekhanov’s two draft programs. Discussion of the program took nine sessions of the congress: issues of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian character of the party and its role in the liberation movement in Russia, as well as the agrarian program and the national question were discussed.

Role and character of the party

Lenin insisted that the editorial draft clearly formulate the basic tenets of Marxism on the dictatorship of the proletariat (on this issue Plekhanov showed hesitation), on the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle, and emphasize the proletarian character of the party and its leading role in the liberation movement in Russia. The “economists” Akimov (Vladimir Makhnovets), Pikker (Alexander Martynov) and the Bundist M. I. Lieber opposed the inclusion of a point on the dictatorship of the proletariat in the program, citing the fact that this point was absent in the programs of Western European social democratic parties. L. Trotsky stated that the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only when the proletariat becomes the majority of the “nation” and when the party and the working class are “closest to identification,” that is, merged. Characterizing the views of his opponents as social reformist, Lenin said that “they came... to the point of challenging the dictatorship of the proletariat...” (ibid., vol. 7, p. 271). Lenin sharply opposed the attempt of the “economists” Martynov and Akimov to amend the program.

Agrarian program

Fundamental disagreements also emerged during the discussion of the agrarian part of the program, in particular on the problem of the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Lenin insisted on recognizing the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat, substantiated the revolutionary demand for the return of “cut-offs” as the destruction of one of the remnants of serfdom and the need to differentiate the demands of the agrarian program during the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. This approach represented the creative development of Marxism in the historically specific conditions of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century (where the rapid development of capitalism was combined with the dominance Agriculture in the economy, deeply rooted remnants of feudalism in the countryside and the predominance of the peasant population).

National question

The debate arose over the question of the right of nations to self-determination. Polish Social Democrats and Bundists opposed him. The Poles believed that this point would benefit Polish nationalists. The Bundists advocated the cultural and national autonomy of the Jews. Consensus on this issue could not be reached, and the Bund faction left the congress.

Result

After changing the number of delegates, the congress approved the “Iskra” program, consisting of two parts - the “maximum program” and the “minimum program”. The maximum program spoke about the ultimate goal of the party - the organization of a socialist society and the condition for the implementation of this goal - the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The minimum program covered the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, the establishment of complete equality of rights for all nations, the assertion of their right to self-determination, the destruction of the remnants of serfdom in the countryside, the return to the peasants of the lands taken from them by the landowners (“ segments").

After this, it became clear that there would be a split between the Iskra-ists, the Economists and the Bundists. But a split also occurred among the “Iskra-ists” themselves.

Composition of the editorial board

The split began to appear even before the congress. There were six people on the Iskra editorial board - Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, Potresov, Axelrod and Zasulich. This number was even and often the editorial board came to a stalemate in its work, since Lenin’s supporters and his opponents had an equal number of votes. To make the work of the editorial office effective, in his view, Lenin proposed introducing a seventh - Trotsky, but Plekhanov was categorically against it, and then Lenin proposed reducing the number of editors - excluding Potresov, Axelrod and Zasulich due to the fact that he considered them bad journalists (Lenin cited An example is that for 45 issues of Iskra, Martov wrote 39 articles, Lenin himself - 32, Plekhanov - 24, while Zasulich - 6, Axelrod - 4, Potresov - 8). With this proposal, Lenin aroused the accusation that he was seeking to dominate the party.

Charter

When discussing the draft charter, a discussion developed between Martov and Lenin on the issue of party membership (§ 1). According to Martov and his supporters, the following could be considered a party member:

...anyone who accepts its program, supports the party with material resources and provides it with regular personal assistance under the leadership of one of its organizations

Lenin insisted on "personal participation in one of the party organizations."

Controls

The Congress created party centers: the Central Organ, the Central Committee and the Party Council.
It was decided to eliminate the abnormal situation abroad, where there were two social democratic organizations: the “Foreign League of Russian Revolutionary Social Democracy” and the “Foreign Union of Russian Social Democrats.” The Congress recognized the League as the only foreign organization of the RSDLP.
As a sign of protest, 2 representatives of the “Union” left the congress. 5 Bundists also left after the congress refused to accept the Bund into the RSDLP on the basis of a federation and rejected the Bund’s ultimatum to recognize it as the sole representative of Jewish workers in Russia.

The departure of 7 delegates from the congress changed the balance of power in favor of Lenin's supporters. As a result, they received the majority of seats in the elections to the central bodies.

Lenin, Martov and Plekhanov were elected to the editorial board of Iskra. But Martov refused to work in the editorial office.

Changes in party leadership after the congress

On September 29 (October 12), 1903, F. V. Gusarov, R. S. Zemlyachka, L. B. Krasin and M. M. Essen were co-opted into the Central Committee.
On November 8 (21), 1903, V. I. Lenin and L. E. Galperin were also co-opted.

On June 19 (July 2), 1904, F. V. Lengnik was arrested, and in July G. M. Krzhizhanovsky and F. V. Gusarov left the Central Committee and R. S. Zemlyachka was removed. M. M. Essen was also arrested
Instead, in July 1904, I. F. Dubrovinsky, L. Ya. Karpov and A. I. Lyubimov were co-opted.

In November 1904, E. M. Alexandrova-Zhak, V. N. Krokhmal and V. N. Rozanov were co-opted.

On February 7 (20), 1905, V. I. Lenin was removed from the Central Committee, and on February 9 (22), V. A. Noskov, L. E. Galperin, I. F. Dubrovinsky, L. Y. Karpov, E. M. Aleksandrova-Zhak, V. N. Krokhmal and V. N. Rozanov.

Thus, by March 1905, only L. B. Krasin and A. I. Lyubimov remained in the Central Committee.

Resolutions

The change in the composition of the congress allowed Lenin to pass most of the resolutions of the congress in his own edition: on the place of the Bund in the RSDLP, on the economic struggle, on the celebration of May 1, on the international congress, on demonstrations, on terror, on propaganda, on the attitude towards student youth, on party literature , about the distribution of forces. The congress also made decisions on a number of tactical issues: on the attitude towards the liberal bourgeoisie, on the attitude towards the Socialist Revolutionaries, on the professional struggle, on demonstrations, etc.

Split

At the de facto founding congress of the RSDLP, the party split into two factions: Lenin’s followers and everyone else. Lenin's supporters began to call themselves Bolsheviks, and their opponents Mensheviks. These names were entrenched in Soviet party historiography for a long time.

Meaning

The congress had historical significance as a de facto founding congress, uniting disparate groups of Russian Social Democrats into a political party.
The congress organizationally consolidated Lenin's political role as the leader of the radical wing of the RSDLP, which he called the “Bolsheviks.” Lenin later wrote:

Bolshevism has existed as a current of political thought and as a political party since 1903.

Soviet historiography attached great importance to the congress:

For the first time in the history of the international labor movement after the death of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Congress adopted a revolutionary program in which the main task was put forward - the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Notes

Literature

Krupskaya N.K. Memories of Lenin. M., 1957.
Lenin V.I., II Congress of the RSDLP. July 17 (30) - August 10 (23), 1903 // Lenin V. I. Complete collected works. T. 7. 5th ed.
Lenin V.I. Story about the Second Congress of the RSDLP // Lenin V.I.
Lenin V. I. One step forward, two steps back // Lenin V. I. Complete works. T. 8. 5th ed.
CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, 7th ed., part 1, M., 1954;
History of the CPSU, vol. 1, M., 1964;
Second Congress of the RSDLP. Protocols // Protocols and verbatim reports of congresses and conferences of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. / . M.: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1959. - 850 p.
Service R. Lenin. Biography = Service R. Lenin: a biography / Transl. from English G. I. Levitan. - M.: Potpourri, 2002. - 624 p. - (Subject). - ISBN 985-438-591-4.(militera.lib.ru/bio/service_r01/index.html)
Second Congress of the RSDLP / Shaumyan S. S. // Veshin - Gazli. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1971. - (Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / chief ed. A. M. Prokhorov; 1969-1978, vol. 5).
Yaroslavsky E. M. - To the 35th anniversary of the Second Congress of the RSDLP. M., 1938

In cinema

Links

Reports of the Social-Democratic Committees to the Second Congress of the RSDLP


Ideas
Biography
Organizations
Events
Bibliography