V. I. Lenin

Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Members{2}

MAY 28–JUNE 4 (JUNE 10–17), 1911

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 41, pages 233-241.1.
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov
Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) © 2004 Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.  




Following the C.C. Plenary Meeting in January 1910{4} the Bolsheviks bent every effort to restore the composition of the C.C. and help it to resume its activity. C.C. members Makar and Innokenty contacted local Party organisations and Party members working in the open labour movement, together with them nominated candidates for co-optation to the C.C., etc. But the efforts of the C.C. Bolsheviks ended in the arrest of both. They got no help at all from the Golos people in their work in Russia. The representatives of the Mensheviks, elected at the London Congress, Mikhail, Yuri and Roman, who have now gone over to the independent legalists, have not only refused to work in the C.C., but have announced that they consider its very existence harmful to the labour movement.

In 1910, following a break of several months, Comrade Makar, who escaped from exile, and Comrade Vyazemsky once again set up a bureau for convening the C.C.[1] The Bundist Yudin, a member of the Bureau, took part in their work. Over a period of six months, they once again established contacts with local organisations, nominated candidates for the C.C., dispatched agents, and joined the Duma group in organising the election campaign for the by-elections in Moscow.

Of the representatives of the Mensheviks, they succeeded in contacting only Comrade Kostrov, who once or twice came merely to exercise his right to vote in the event it came to a convocation of the C.C.

After working for six months, the C.C. Bolsheviks were arrested together with several candidates for co-optation to the C.C., the comrade secretary and a number of other   persons variously connected with the Bureau’s activity. In a letter sent from prison after their arrest, the comrades C.C. members stated that the gendarmes had kept them under constant surveillance for a number of months and had been informed of their every step, and that there was no doubt at all about the provocation over the preparations for convening the C.C. in Russia; Following the arrest of two members of the Bureau (Makar and Vyazemsky), the C.C. members still at large—Yudin and Kostrov—displayed no activity at all over a period of two and a half months, even failing to send any letters either to the C.C. Bureau Abroad or to the C.C.

As a result of the 18–month effort to restore the C.C. in Russia, the four Bolshevik members (Meshkovsky, Innokenty, Makar and Vyazemsky) are either in exile or in prison. The gendarme inquiries and a whole number of arrests have made it quite clear that the authorities are most thoroughly informed about all the London candidates{5} and C.C. members and that their every step is being watched. In view of all these circumstances to make a fresh attempt to convene the C.C. in Russia would be to court certain failure without any hope of success.

The only possible way out of this situation would be to call a Plenary Meeting abroad. Nine persons with the right to take part in the Plenary Meeting are abroad.{6} This will constitute more than one-half of its full membership (15 persons). They juridically can and essentially must declare themselves to be the Plenary Meeting.

The proposal to postpone the constitution of the Plenary Meeting until the convocation of the other members would mean many more months of delay.

With the exception of Mikhail, Yuri and Roman, who have openly announced their break with the C.C. and their sympathies for liquidating the Party, the Mensheviks could “bring together” Kostrov and Pyotr. The Bolsheviks could bring together Meshkovsky, Innokenty, Rozhkov and Sammer. It is hard to say how many months this would take.

In the light of the experience it has had, the real meaning for the Party of this protracted “work of bringing together” formal candidates is nil. It is even worse than nil, for the   game of allocating places in central bodies hides from local organisations and groups the sad reality in respect of which vigorous action must be taken. After eighteen months of unsuccessful attempts to restore the activity of the C.C., to feed the Party with more endless delays would be an affront to the Party. We do not intend to have a hand in any such affront.

At present the real position of the Party is such that almost everywhere in the localities there are small Party workers’ groups and cells that meet irregularly. They enjoy great prestige among the workers everywhere. Every where they are combating liquidator-legalists in the unions, clubs, etc. They are not yet connected with each other. Their supplies of literature are extremely rare. In these groups of workers, there is a rallying together of Bolsheviks, pro-Party Mensheviks and some of the Vperyod supporters{7} who have not been drawn into the separate Vperyod faction set up abroad.

The Vperyod group used all the period since the Plenary Meeting to help from abroad in strengthening and separating its faction in organisational terms. Its representatives have withdrawn from the Diskussionny Listok Editorial Board{8} and the School Commission under the C.C.{9} The Vperyod group has failed to carry out the decisions of the last Plenary Meeting, and has, in fact, done everything to hamper the Social-Democratic general Party work. Preparations for the forthcoming elections have long since been started in the legal and illegal Party literature. Mean while, the Vperyod group, far from assisting the Party in this extremely important political action, has even failed to state unequivocally whether in general it favours participation in the elections to the Fourth Duma{10} or opposes participation in them. Even in their latest statements in the press, the Vperyod group leaders abroad continue to flirt with the otzovists.

A far more serious anti-Party and anti-Social-Democratic force is the faction of the independent legalists (Nasha Zarya,{11} Dyelo Zhizni,{12} and the Golos people who, like Dan, Martov & Co., cover them up). It has been proved beyond doubt that they recognise no Central Committee and publicly ridicule Central Committee decisions. They cannot and   will not carry out the last Plenary Meeting’s decisions (“Not to minimise the role of an illegal party”, etc.). They cannot help taking the opposite line of action.

No Social-Democrat can doubt that the “independent legalists” can be expected to conduct an election campaign for the Fourth Duma on their own, apart from and against the Party.

The task of the Social-Democratic Party members is clear: the Party workers’ circles in Russia should be openly and resolutely urged to start preparations for the elections immediately. Only committed Party men, only comrades realising the danger of the liquidationist trend should be nominated as Social-Democratic candidates. Direct action against independent legalists must not be postponed for a single day; the workers must be warned right away of the danger posed to the Social-Democratic Party by the independent legalists at the elections.

Such is the task of the day for our Party. Any deviation from such an approach to the question, which has been posed by life itself (and by the independent legalists), all delays, or attempts by the legalists to repeat the game of “promises” and “assurances” are fraught with great danger to the Party.

Our practical conclusion: the meeting of the nine must absolutely and immediately issue a manifesto to the Patty in which the failure to convene the Central Committee in Russia is truthfully and fully described, and which calls upon local Party circles to display initiative and establish local and regional committees, to set up and support a Central Organising Commission, to set up and support Social-Democratic press organs (where, as in Zvezda,{13} which is being published with the participation and support of the Social-Democratic Duma group, there should be no place for the liquidators), urging them to conduct a deter mined and implacable struggle against the independent legalists and to make for closer ties in their work between representatives of the true Party elements, without regard for trend. In the event that not only five of the nine members of the C.C., but a solid majority of the nine agree to regard themselves as a Plenum of the C.C., this meeting of the C.C. must immediately co-opt new members, set up an Organising   Commission for calling a conference and start practical preparations for election to the Fourth Duma. Representatives of pro-Party Mensheviks should be seated on the Organising Commission and the C.C. right away. The C.C. meeting must at once start a resolute struggle against the independent legalist group. It stands to reason that this struggle is incompatible with the participation of independent legalists in central Party bodies, which they have sabotaged, obstructed, weakened and kept in a morbid state for eighteen months.

Written between May 19 and 28 (June 1 and 5), 1911 Printed from a copy written in F. Dzerzhinsky’s hand
First published in 1961 in Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works



MAY 28 (JUNE 10)


Considering that the Party has been suffering from the postponement of the Plenum for 18 months, the non-Russian organisations should have long since elected their representatives. The Latvian comrade’s approach was different from that of the Bundist. He said that although he had not been elected, in view of the conditions of the Plenary Meeting’s convocation he deemed it his duty to take part in it, and to submit a subsequent report to the C.C. of the Latvian Territory, with the proviso that the decisions would enter into force in the Latvian Territory only upon their approval by the C.C. of the Latvian Territory.


In fact, comrades here are being fooled.{15} We know that Makar and Lindov did something, contacted organisations, appointed agents and contacted the candidate. They were arrested. Since then we have had no news from any of those   who remained. They have even failed to inform either the C.O. or the C.C. Bureau Abroad. No work has been done. It is no longer possible to deceive the Party with a Russia Bureau{16} or a Russia C.C. Convening the C.C. in Russia is a phrase that helps Stolypin.

Ionov’s statement says that he will send his invitation to the Bund C.C.{17} When is he going to do so? How much time has elapsed? Why is there no reply? Ionov says that not having the powers he cannot attend a meeting of the C.C. members. Why then is Lieber here? I propose a resolution on Ionov’s reply, because it makes clear that an intrigue is being carried on.


Let us sum up what has been said about the Bureau. It turns out that the remaining members of the Bureau were meant. About the work it is said that no work has been done. Comrade Adrianov is a prominent Menshevik and the Mensheviks would have been aware of his work if he had done any. Even his closest associates know nothing about it. Any further attempt to play up the existence of a bureau somewhere is to deceive the Party. In view of the arrests, Ber could not contact the Bund C.C. What then is the Party to do? It cannot afford to wait. There must be initiative in this case.


Ber is shouting about the law, but at the same time he has been resolutely fighting in the C.C. Bureau Abroad against the law and in favour of the liquidators.{18} This kind of behaviour makes me doubt the sincerity of his statements and expect him to make fresh attempts to break up all-Party institutions.

First published in 1961 in Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works
Printed from the minutes



MAY 30 (JUNE 12)


I state that for six months the lower institution (C.C. Bureau Abroad) has been violating decisions and refusing to convene the higher institution. I am forced to state this in order to give a warning against putting any trust in an institution which for six months now has been trying to close the Party’s way to a resumption of its central institution.


I point out that as early as the spring of 1910 we had a letter from Inok saying that C.C. members were being shadowed. We fought with every means against the Russian gamble.{20} Makar resumed the business in 1910 and the dispatch of money right away revealed the hopelessness of the attempt. It was quite plain at once that to call the C.C. in Russia meant to send people to gaol. From the spring of 1908 to the 1910 Plenary Meeting the C.C. did not meet in Russia a single time. The history of the convocation in Russia shows that the task is unfeasible. Sending the C.C. to Russia was tantamount to sending it to prison.


Over a period of 18 months, four Bolsheviks have been arrested while doing central work. Not a single Menshevik has been arrested because they have been working to set up a Stolypin party: Letters were not written to us and correspondence was suspended for reasons of secrecy. The Mensheviks, far from working to set up the C.C., even refused to attend for co-optation (Mikhail, Roman and Yuri), Pyotr has been nowhere near the Bureau, while Kostrov lived close by. It is an incontrovertible fact that only the Bolsheviks have been working.

Concerning Lyubich we have a letter from Inok indicating his consent to work. Concerning Pyotr we merely have the information that he has been nowhere near the Bureau. A C.C. member has the clear duty of going to work on the C.C. Martynov is an émigré=Bogdanov, Nikita. If he is invited, then they and Victor should be invited too. Mikhail, Yuri and Roman have nothing to do with the C.C. These are men who are building a Stolypin labour party and are engaged in activity which was resolutely condemned by the January Plenary Meeting. We have nothing in common with the architects of a Stolypin labour party or with those who are helping them.

First published in 1961 in Vol. 20 of the Fifth Russian edition of the Collected Works Printed from the minutes



The Organising Commission{22} has been recruiting for the work of convening a conference representatives of local organisations in Russia and influential comrades engaged in activity among the masses, so that they should, if possible at once, set up a Russian collegium performing all the practical work in convening the conference, under the general control of the Organising Commission—in the sense of fulfilling directives stated in the resolutions and the letter of the Plenary Meeting.

Written on June 1 (14), 1911 Printed from the original
First published in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXV



In voting for the resolution as a whole{24} in order to bring together as closely as possible all the Party elements without exception, we resolutely protest against the permissibility   of inviting to the Organising Commission the Golos and the Vperyod people abroad, i.e., representatives of anti-Party groups which have developed into special factions abroad and which in the 18 months since the Plenary Meeting have proved themselves capable only of acting against the Party, only of slowing down its work, only of helping the independent legalist labour party or the otzovists.

N. Lenin

Written on June 1 (14), 1911 Printed from the original
First published in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXV


[1] This provisional bureau was recognised both by non-Russian organisations and by our Party’s C.C. Bureau Abroad and C.O. —Lenin

{2} Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee members Living abroad was held in Paris from May 28 to June 4 (June 10 to 17), 1911. It was prepared and called under Lenin’s direction apart from the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, whose liquidationist majority had repeatedly thwarted the convocation of a C.C. Plenary Meeting. Preparations for the meeting began in April 1911. It was to take measures to call a Plenary meeting of the Central Commit tee and eliminate the grave crisis in which the Party found itself, being virtually without central governing bodies. The meeting was attended by Bolsheviks, Polish and Latvian Social-Democrats, one Golos man and one Bundist. The Latvian Social-Democrat M. V. Ozolin announced that in accordance with a decision of his Central Committee he would attend the meeting with voice only. The Bundist Lieber said that he had not been authorised by the Bund C.C. to represent it at the meeting.

In view of the forthcoming elections to the Fourth Duma, the meeting outlined measures to elaborate the Party’s tactics in the election campaign and draft an electoral platform. The main item on the agenda was the calling of a Party conference. Because it was impossible to call a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee right away, the meeting undertook to call a conference, and set up an Organising Commission to prepare the conference. The meeting adopted Lenin’s proposal to set up a Russian collegium for practical work in preparing the conference (see p. 240). The meeting decisions provided for invitations to Party organisations abroad to work together on the Organising Commission. Lenin, who voted for the resolution as a whole, lodged a protest against the invitation to the Organising Commission of representatives of anti-Party groups—the Golos and Vperyod followers (pp. 240–41).

The meeting condemned the anti-Party, factional policy of the Central Committee Bureau Abroad, and decided to refer the question of its existence to the C.C. Plenary Meeting. In the voting on the last section of the resolution, Lenin abstained, because he insisted on an immediate reorganisation of the C.C.B.A. To handle technical matters (Party publishing, transportation, etc.), the meeting set up a Technical Commission which was to be responsible to the group of members and alternate members of the Central Committee attending the meeting.

A special bulletin issued after the meeting—“Announcement”—set out the circumstances in which the meeting had been called, its composition and purposes. It also contained the resolutions of the meeting.

This meeting was an important step in mustering the Party forces, in uniting them for the struggle against the Golos liquidators, the Vperyod followers and the Trotskyites, and for strengthening the Party. Its decisions helped to rally and strengthen local Party organisations. To prepare a general Party conference, Lenin sent to Russia experienced Party workers—the Bolsheviks G. K. Orjonikidze (Sergo), B. A. Breslav (Zakhar) and I. I. Shvarts (Semyon). By September 1911, the meeting decisions were approved by the committees and the Social-Democratic organisations   of a number of towns in Russia. In September 1911, there was formed the Russian Organising Commission, consisting of representatives of a number of Social-Democratic organisations. The Commission prepared the convocation in January 1912 of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. For the material on the meeting see also present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 195–205. p. 233

{3} The document is printed from a copy in F. E. Dzerzhinsky’s hand. The original written by Lenin has not been found.

The minutes of the June meeting of the C.C. members contain no indication that Lenin made the report at the meeting. It might have been given to the conferees before the meeting opened. p. 233

{4} The Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, known as the “unity” meeting, was held in Paris from January 3 to 23 (January 15 to February 5), 1910.

It was attended by representatives of all factions and groups and of non-Russian Social-Democratic organisations. The conciliators had a majority at the meeting. Lenin conducted a persistent struggle against the opportunists and conciliators to secure the condemnation of liquidationism and otzovism and to bring the Bolsheviks and the pro-Party Mensheviks closer together. On the agenda were these questions: 1) Report by the Russian Bureau of the C.C. 2) Report by the C.C. Bureau Abroad. 3) Report by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ. 4) Reports by the Central Committees of the non-Russian Social-Democratic Parties. 5) State of affairs in the Party. 6) Convocation of a regular Party conference. 7) Rules of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, etc.

On Lenin’s insistence, the Plenary Meeting adopted the resolution “On the State of Affairs in the Party”, which condemned liquidationism and otzovism, recognised the danger of these trends and urged the need to fight them. Lenin said that the January Plenary Meeting finally determined the Party’s tactical line during the counter-revolutionary period, deciding, in pursuance of the resolutions of the Fifth (All-Russia) Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (1908), that liquidationism and otzovism were manifestations of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. The Plenary Meeting also connected the question of the need to have real Party unity, with the Party’s ideological and political tasks in the current historical period. At the same time, Lenin sharply condemned the Plenary Meeting’s conciliatory decisions.

For details about the Plenary Meeting see Lenin’s “Notes of a Publicist” (present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 195–259). p. 233

{5} A reference to the members and alternate members of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee elected at the Fifth (London) Congress, which was held from April 30 to May 19 (May 13 to June 1), 1907. p. 234

{6} The Rules of the Central Committee, adopted at the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, said: “Plenary Meetings (of 15 members) shall be attended by   1) members of the collegium operating in Russia; 2) members of the C.C. Bureau Abroad, with the exception of those who are not members of the C.C.; 3) if these do not add up to the figure of 15, the other candidates shall attend the Plenary Meeting in the following order: a) candidates of the London Congress doing any Party work in Russia; b) members of the C.C. and alternate members living abroad and engaged in work assigned to them by the Central Committee” (K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 239). p. 234

{7} The Vperyod group—an anti-Party group of otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders, organised on the initiative of A. Bogdanov and G. A. Alexinsky in December 1909, following the break-up of the otzovist-ultimatumist factional centre, the Capri school; it had a periodical of the same name.

The group, without any support in the working-class movement, broke up in 1913 and 1914, but was formally dissolved after the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917. p. 235

{8} Diskussionny Listok (Discussion Bulletin)—a supplement to Sotsial-Demokrat, the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.; it was published in Paris under a decision of the January Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee from March 6 (19), 1910, to April 29 (May 12), 1911. There were three issues. On its Editorial Board were representatives of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, ultimatumists, Bundists, Plekhanovites, Polish Social-Democrats and Latvian Social-Democrats. It carried Lenin’s articles “Notes of a Publicist”, “The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party Struggle in Russia” and “A Conversation Between a Legalist and an Opponent of Liquidationism” (see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 195–259, 374–92, and Vol. 17, pp. 179–88). p. 235

{9} A reference to the School Commission (Committee) set up by the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, to organise a Party school abroad. It consisted of nine persons: two Bolsheviks, two Mensheviks, two Vperyod sup porters, and one each from the national organisations—the Bund, the Latvian and the Polish Social-Democrats. p. 235

{10} The Fourth Duma opened on November 15 (28), 1912. Elections were held in the autumn of 1912 under the reactionary electoral law of June 3 (16), 1907, and were accompanied by a series of government measures designed to create a Black-Hundred majority in the Duma. Lenin described the election campaign and assessed the class and party composition of the Duma in his article “Results of the Elections” (see present edition, Vol. 18, pp. 493–518).

The Social-Democratic group in the Fourth Duma included six Bolsheviks—A. Y. Badayev, M. K. Muranov, G. I. Petrovsky, F. N. Samoilov, N. R. Shagov and R. V. Malinovsky (who later was exposed as a provocateur), seven Mensheviks and one member who did not enjoy full rights (the Warsaw deputy, E. J. Jagiello), and who sided with the Mensheviks. Making use of their slight numerical superiority, the Mensheviks hampered the work of the group   and blocked the passage of a number of measures proposed by the Bolsheviks. In October 1913, the Bolshevik deputies, on instructions from the Central Committee, withdrew from the united Social-Democratic group and formed their own. Lenin gave day-to-day guidance to the Bolshevik deputies and taught them to make revolutionary use of the Duma rostrum.

The Duma proved to be incapable of settling any major questions which the country’s objective development brought up, and its work increasingly boiled down to wordy debate. Its legislative activity was largely designed to strengthen such pillars of the autocracy as the courts, the church and the police.

The Duma approved Russia’s entry into the First World War. The Mensheviks and the S.R.s took a defencist stand. Only the Bolshevik Party resolutely opposed the war. The Bolshevik group refused to vote the war credits and started revolutionary propaganda in the masses. In November 1914, the Bolshevik deputies were arrested and committed for trial.

In August 1915, the bourgeois and landowner groups set up a “Progressive bloc”, consisting of more than one-half of the deputies. Lenin said it was “the liberal-Octobrist bloc for the purpose of reaching an understanding with the tsar on a programme of reforms and mobilising industry for the victory over Germany” (see present edition, Vol. 21, p. 378).

On February 26 (March 11), 1917, the tsar announced the dissolution of the Fourth Duma, but, while not daring to protest openly, the deputies decided to continue their sittings unofficially. On February 27 (March 12) they formed a Provisional Committee of the Duma to fight the revolution and save the monarchy. By agreement with the S.R. and Menshevik representatives of the Petrograd Soviet, the Committee decided to set up a bourgeois Provisional Government. The Committee’s members were rabid enemies of the revolution, and at their private meetings demanded the establishment of a military dictatorship and the abolition of the Soviets. On October 6 (19), 1917, under the pressure of the revolutionary masses, the bourgeois Provisional Government was forced to decree the dissolution of the Duma. p. 235

{11} Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn)—a legal monthly of the Menshevik liquidators published in St. Petersburg from January 1910 to September 1914. It was edited by A. N. Potresov, and among its contributors were F. I. Dan and S. 0. Tsederbaum (V. Yezhov). It was the liquidationist centre in Russia. A resolution of the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (1912) said that “a section of the Social-Democrats, grouped round the journals Nasha Zarya and Dyelo Zhizni, have openly come out in defence of a trend which the whole Party has recognised as a product of bourgeois influence on the proletariat” (K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 283). p. 235

{12} Dyelo Zhizni (Life Cause)—a legal journal, an organ of the Menshevik liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from January to October 1911. There were nine issues. p. 235

{13} Zvezda (The Star)—a legal Bolshevik newspaper published in St. Petersburg from December 16 (29), 1910, to April 22 (May 5), 1912. It was initially published as a weekly, twice a week from January 21 (February  3), 1912, and three times a week from March 8 (21), 1912.

Lenin gave ideological guidance to the newspaper: he carried on a correspondence with the members of the Editorial Board, directing their work, criticising their mistakes, especially in the initial period of its publication, struggling for the paper’s consistent Marxist approach. A great deal of editorial and organisational work was done by N. N. Baturin, N. G. Poletayev, K. S. Yeremeyev and M. S. Olminsky. Among those who took an active part in the paper were V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich and Demyan Bedny. It carried a number of articles by G. V. Plekhanov. Lenin got Maxim Gorky to write for it. Zvezda enjoyed great prestige among the working people of Russia. p. 236

{14} The attendant circumstances were as follows: the Golos Menshevik B. I. Gorev (Goldman) came out against the presence at the meeting of the representatives of non-Russian organisations, M. I. Lieber of the Bund and M. V. Ozolin of the Latvian Social-Democrats, without mandates from their Central Committees. Lieber said they had had no time to contact their centres and that he was not representing the Bund. p. 237

{15} A reference to the speeches by Gorev (Goldman) and Lieber, who said that there were members of the Russia Bureau in Russia who should be contacted before the C. C. Plenary Meeting is called abroad. p. 237

{16} The Central Committee Bureau in Russia was elected at a general meeting of the Collegium of C. C. members, which was active in Russia from 1908. The Bureau was in charge of all the affairs of the Russian Collegium in between general meetings of the C.C. In 1910 and 1911, after the January 1910 Plenary Meeting of the C.C., the Bureau in Russia consisted of the following members and alternate members of the Central Committee: the Bolsheviks I. P. Goldenberg (Meshkovsky) and I. F. Dubrovinsky (Innokenty), and after their arrest, V. P. Nogin (Makar) and G. D. Leiteisen (Lindov). The Menshevik liquidators, members and alternate members of the C.C., kept aloof from its work, while I. A. Isuv (Mikhail), P. A. Bronstein (Yuri) and K. M. Yermolayev (Roman) not only refused to participate but declared that they considered the very existence of the C.C. to be harmful. All the efforts of the Bureau to call the Russian Collegium failed.

In March 1911, following the arrest of Nogin and Leiteisen, the Central Committee Bureau in Russia ceased to exist. Lenin gave a positive evaluation of the Russia Bureau’s efforts to organise work in Russia and call the C.C.’s Russian Collegium, but sharply criticised the members’ conciliatory stand.

At the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., the Bureau in Russia was re-established. It consisted of C.C. members:   G. K. Orjonikidze, S. S. Spandaryan, J. V. Stalin and Y. M. Sverdlov, and alternate C.C. members: M. I. Kalinin, Y. D. Stasova and others. In view of frequent arrests of Party workers in Russia, the composition of the Bureau was subsequently changed many times, new members being co-opted in place of the old ones. After the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917, the Bureau in Russia ceased to operate. p. 238

{17} A statement by the Bundist Ionov (F. M. Koigen) said that not having any powers from the Bund’s C.C., he was unable to attend the meeting and that he would send on his invitation to the Bund’s C.C. at the earliest opportunity. p. 238

{18} A reference to the speech by Lieber (Ber) to the effect that there was no need to decide on the question of a C.C. Plenary Meeting by having an urgent meeting of C.C. members, but that a “legal way out” should be sought through the C.C.B.A. p. 238

{19} The speech was in reply to Lieber’s statement that the majority of the C.C.B.A. wanted a Plenary Meeting called and were prepared to adopt an official resolution on this question. p. 239

{20} A reference to the proposal by the liquidationist majority of the C.C.B.A. to call a C.C. Plenary Meeting in Russia. p. 239

{21} This speech, like the next one, is connected with the discussion of the persons entitled to attend a C.C. Plenary Meeting. p. 239

{22} The Organising Commission (Organising Commission Abroad, O.C.A.) for convening a general Party conference was set up by the C.C. members’ meeting on June 1 (14), 1911, and consisted of Bolsheviks, conciliators and Polish Social-Democrats. Other organisations and groups abroad invited to take part in the commission did not send their representatives. The O.C. sent G.K. Orjonikidze as its agent to Russia to work for the preparation of a general Party conference, and issued an appeal “To All Social-Democratic Party Organisations, Groups and Circles”, urging them to start elections to the Russian Organising Commission.

As a result of the work carried out by the Bolsheviks, the R.O.C. was set up. At the end of October, the O.C.A. discussed the R.O.C.’s “Announcement” of its constitution and resolutions stating that it assumed full powers in calling the conference and that the Organising and Technical Commissions Abroad were to be subordinate to the R.O.C. When the conciliatory majority of the O.C.A. refused to abide by these decisions, the Bolsheviks left the O.C.A. On October 30 (November 12), Orjonikidze, who had arrived in Paris, gave a report in the O.C.A. on the activity of the R.O.C. after which the O.C.A. was forced to recognise the governing role of the R.O.C. But soon the O.C.A. started an open struggle against the R.O.C. On November 20 (December 3) it issued a leaflet, “Open Letter to the Russian Organising Commission”, accusing the latter of factional activity. The O.C.A.’s anti-Party activity was exposed by Orjonikidze in his “Letter to the Editorial Board” carried in No. 25 of Sotsial-Demokrat on December 8 (21), 1911.   All the work of calling the general Party conference, held in January 1912, was carried out by the R.O.C., which rallied together the illegal Party organisations in Russia. p. 240

{23} The statement also bears the signature of G. Y. Zinoviev. p. 240

{24} A reference to the resolution of the June meeting of the C.C. members “On Convening a Party Conference”. p. 240

Works Index   |   Volume 41 | Collected Works   |   L.I.A. Index
< backward   forward >