Published:Volna, No. 22, May 20, 1906. Published according to theVolna test.
Source:Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers,1965, Moscow,Volume 10, pages 442-443.
Translated:
Transcription\Markup:R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,display and perform this work; as well as make derivative andcommercial works. Please credit “Marxists InternetArchive” as your source.•README
The editors have received the following communication, signed by the CentralCommittee of the R.S.D.L.P.
“In view of the fact that several Party organisations have raised thequestionof the limits within which the decisions of Party congresses may becriticised, the Central Committee, bearing in mind that the interests ofthe Russian proletariat have always demanded the greatest possible unity in thetactics of the R.S.D.L.P., and thatthis unity in the politicalactivities of the various sections of our Party is now more necessary thanever, is of the opinion:
(1)that in the Party press and at Party meetings, everybody must be allowedfull freedom to express his personal opinions and to advocate his individual views;
(2)that at public political meetings members of the Party should refrain from conductingagitation that runs counter to congress decisions;
(3)that no Party member should atsuch meetingscall for action that runs counter to congress decisions, or propose resolutions that are out of harmony with congress decisions.” (All italics ours.)
In examining the substance of this resolution, we see a number of queerpoints. The resolution says that “at Party meetings” “fullfreedom” is to be allowed for the expression of personal opinions and forcriticism (§ 1), but at “public meetings” (§ 2) “noParty member should call for action that runs counter to congressdecisions”. But see what comes of this: at Party meetings, members of thePartyhave the right to call for action that runs counter to congressdecisions; but at public meetings they arenot “allowed”full freedom to “express personal opinions”!!
Those who drafted the resolution have a totally wrong conception of therelationship betweenfreedom to criticise within the Party and theParty’sunity of action. Criticism within the limits of theprinciples of the Party Programme must be quite free (we remind thereader of what Plekhanov said on this subject at the Second Congress of theR.S.D.L.P.), not only at Party meetings, but also at public meetings. Such criticism, or such “agitation” (for criticism is inseparablefrom agitation) cannot be prohibited. The Party’s political action must beunited. No “calls” that violate the unity of definite actions can betolerated either at public meetings, or at Party meetings, or in the Partypress.
Obviously, the Central Committee has defined freedom to criticise inaccuratelyand too narrowly, and unity of action inaccurately and too broadly.
Let us take an example. The Congress decided that the Party should take part inthe Duma elections. Taking part in elections is a very definite action. Duringthe elections (as in Baku today, for example), no member of the Partyanywhere has any right ’whatever to call upon the people toabstain from voting; nor can “criticism” of the decision totake part in the elections be tolerated during this period, for it would in factjeopardise success in the election campaign.Before elections havebeen announced, however, Party memberseverywhere have a perfect righttocriticise the decision to take part in elections. Of course, theapplication of this principle in practice will sometimes give rise to disputesand misunderstandings; butonly on the basis ofthis principlecanall disputes and all misunderstandings be settled honourably forthe Party. The resolution of the Central Committee, however, creates animpossible situation.
The Central Committee’s resolution is essentially wrong andruns counter tothe Party Rules. The principle of democratic centralism and autonomy forlocal Party organisations implies universal and fullfreedom tocriticise, so long as this does not disturb the unity ofa definiteaction; it rules outall criticism which disrupts or makesdifficult theunity of an action decided on by the Party.
We think that the Central Committee has made a big mistake by publishing aresolution on this important question without first having it discussed in theParty press and by Party organisations; such a discussion would have helped itto avoid the mistakes we have indicated.
We call upon all Party organisations to discuss this resolution of the CentralCommittee now, and to express a definite opinion on it.
[1]On May 11(24), 1906, 300 R.S.D.L.P. members of theMoskovsky district in St. Petersburg held a meeting to discuss the results ofthe Unity Congress. The reports were made by Lenin (no record of his report hasbeen preserved) and the Menshevik Dan. Towards the close of the meeting acontroversy broke out between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks over whether it waspermissible to criticise decisions of the Unity Congress in the press and atpublic meetings. The Mensheviks, who were doing their utmost to limit theideological struggle over the Congress decisions, consideredcriticism permissible only at Party meetings, and proposed aresolution to that effect. Lenin moved an amendment saying that all the Congress decisions shouldbe discussed not only at Party meetings, but also in the Social-Democratic press and at public meetings. The resolution, including Lenin’s amendment, was carried against 39 votes (Volna, No. 15, May 12, 1906). In reply to Lenin’s amendment the Central Committee, most of whose members were Mensheviks, adopted the resolution which Lenin criticises in his article.