An Appeal to the Party by Delegates to the Unity Congress Who Belonged to the Former ’Bolshevik’ Group (2024)

V. I. Lenin

An Appeal to the Party by Delegates to the Unity Congress Who Belonged to the Former “Bolshevik” Group^[1]

Written: Written on April 25-26 (May 8-9), 1906
Published: Published in leaflet form. Published according to the leaflet text.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume10, pages310-316.
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

Comrades,

The Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. has been held. The split no longerexists. Not only have the former “Bolshevik” and“Menshevik” factions completely amalgamated organisationally, butunity has also been achieved between the R.S.D.L.P. and the PolishSocial-Democrats,^[2]a unity agreement has been signed with theLettish Social-Democrats,^[3]and unity has been assured with theJewish Social-Democrats, i.e., the^[4]Bund. The politicalsignificance of these events would have been very great in any circ*mstances, but itis truly enormous in the historic period through which we are now passing.

The fate of the great Russian revolution is apparently to be determined in thenear future. The proletariat leading the broad masses of the town and rural poorhas been marching at the head of the revolution from the very beginning of themovement up to this day. In view of the coming formidable, decisive events inthe people’s struggle, it is all the more essential to attain the practicalunity of the class-conscious proletariat of the whole of Russia, and of all hernationalities. In a revolutionary epoch like the present, all theoretical errorsand tactical deviations of the Party are most ruthlessly criticised byexperience itself, which enlightens and educates the working class withunprecedented rapidity. At such a time, the duty of every Social-Democrat is tostrive to ensure that the ideological struggle within the Party on questions of theory and tactics is conducted as openly, widely and freely as possible, butthat on no account does it disturb or hamper the unity of revolutionary actionof the Social-Democratic proletariat.

The great Russian revolution is now on the eve of its turning-point. Thestruggle waged by all classes of bourgeois Russia against the autocracy broughtinto being a paper constitution. A section of the bourgeoisie is completelysatisfied with this and has turned away from the revolution. Another section,wishing to go further, deludes itself with hopes of a“constitutional” path of struggle, and is ready to regard theelection victory of the wavering and hypocritical bourgeois Cadet Party as animportant victory for people’s freedom.

The broad masses of the peasants, fighting courageously against old, semi-feudalRussia, against the omnipotence of officials and the yoke of the landlords,remain on the side of the revolution, but they are far from being fullyclass-conscious. The revolutionary-democratic section of the town pettybourgeoisie also shows but little political awareness. Only the proletariat,which fought heroically for freedom in October, and took up arms in defence ofit in December, remains, as before, a consistently revolutionary class, which isgathering fresh forces and is now consciously preparing for a new and stillgreater battle.

The tsarist government is now with cynical frankness playing at aconstitution. It retains its former power, it continues and intensifies thepersecution of the fighters for liberty, its obvious intention is to make theDuma a futile talking shop, a screen for the autocracy, an instrument fordeceiving the people. Whether these tactics will be crowned with success or notwill be decided in the very near future, by the outcome of the new revolutionaryexplosion now coming to a head.

If the proletariat of the whole of Russia closes its ranks, if it succeeds inrousing all the genuinely revolutionary sections of the people, all those whowant to fight and not to strike a bargain, if it trains itself well for thestruggle and selects the proper moment for the final battle for freedom, itwill be victorious. Then the tsar’s cynical playing at a constitution will fail;then the bourgeoisie will not succeed in striking a bargain with the autocracy; then the Russian revolution will not turn out to be as incomplete, half-hearted, and three-fourths fruitless for the interests of the working class and the peasants, as were the revolutions of the nineteenth century in Western Europe. Then it will really be a great revolution, a complete victory of the people’s uprising will free bourgeois Russia of all the old fetters, and will perhaps open the epoch of socialist revolution in the West.

While striving for a complete democratic revolution, Social-Democrats must inall their work reckon with the inevitability of a new revolutionaryexplosion. We must ruthlessly expose the constitutional illusions fostered bothby the government and by the bourgeoisie as represented by its liberalparty—the Cadets; we must call upon the revolutionary peasantry to closeits ranks for the sake of a complete victory of a peasant uprising; we mustexplain to the masses of the people the great importance of the first Decemberuprising and the inevitability of a new revolt, which alone will be able reallyto wrest power from the tsarist autocracy and really transfer it to thepeople. Such must be the basic aims of our tactics at the present moment inhistory.

We cannot and must not conceal the fact that we are profoundly convinced thatthe Unity Congress did not quite appreciate these tasks. The three mostimportant resolutions of the Congress clearly bear the stamp of the erroneousviews of the former “Menshevik” faction, which numerically waspredominant at the Congress.

The Congress accepted the principle of “municipalisation” in itsagrarian programme. Municipalisation means peasant ownership of allotment landand the renting by the peasants of the landed estates transferred to theZemstvos. This, in effect, is something midway between real agrarian revolutionand Cadet agrarian reform. The peasants will not accept such a plan. They willeither demand the simple division of the land, or its complete transfer to thepeople as their property. Municipalisation would be a serious democratic reformonly in the event of a complete democratic revolution, if a republican regimewere established and if government officials were elected by the people. Weproposed to the Congress that it should at least link municipalisation withthese conditions, but the Congress rejected our proposal. And without these conditions municipalisation, as a liberal bureaucratic reform, will givethe peasants something very different from what they require, and at the sametime it will give new strength, new influence to the bourgeois anti-proletarianelements which dominate the Zemstvos. For it virtually puts the distribution ofthe land into their hands. We must explain this point to the broad masses of theworkers and peasants.

In its resolution on the Duma, the Congress declared it desirable that aSocial-Democratic parliamentary group in this Duma should be formed. TheCongress refused to reckon with the fact that nine-tenths of the class-consciousworkers of Russia, including all the Polish, Lettish and JewishSocial-Democratic proletarians, boycotted the Duma. The Congressrejected a proposal tomake participation in the elections conditional on whether it would be possibleto conduct really wide agitation among the masses. It rejected a proposal thatonly those whom workers’ organisations had nominated for election to the Dumacould be members of the Social-Democratic parliamentary group. The Congress,therefore, embarked on parliamentarism without even providing the safeguards forthe Party which in this connection have been produced by the experience ofrevolutionary Social-Democrats in Europe.

As Social-Democrats we, of course, have recognised the obligation in principleof using parliamentarism as a weapon of the proletarian struggle. But the pointis whether it is admissible for Social-Democrats to take part, in presentconditions, in a “parliament” like our Duma. Is it admissible to form aparliamentary group without Social-Democratic members of parliament elected byworkers’ organisations? Our opinion is that it is not.

The Congress rejected the proposal to make it one of the tasks of the Party tocombat playing at constitutionalism, to combat constitutional illusions. TheCongress stated no opinion on the dual nature of the Cadet Party, which ispredominant in the Duma and which inclines so strongly towards making a dealwith the autocracy, towards blunting and putting an end to the revolution. TheCongress allowed itself to be too greatly impressed by the fleeting and tinselsuccess of the party of bourgeois compromisers between the autocracy andpeople’s freedom.

Nor, in its resolutions on the armed uprising, did the Congress provide what was necessary, namely, direct criticism of the mistakes of the proletariat, a clear assessment of the experience of October-December 1905—it did not even attempt in them to study the relationship between strike and insurrection. Instead of all this, a sort of timid evasion of the armed uprising predominates in the resolutions. The Congress did not openly and clearly tell the working class that the December uprising was a mistake; but at the same time, in a covert way, it condemned that uprising. We think that this is more likely to befog the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat than to promote it.

We must and shall fight ideologically against those decisions of the Congresswhich we regard as erroneous. But at the same time we declare to the whole Partythat we are opposed to a split of any kind. We stand for submission to thedecisions of the Congress. Rejecting boycott of the CentralCommit tee andvaluing joint work, we agreed to those who share our views going on the CentralCommittee, although they will comprise a negligible minority in it. We areprofoundly convinced that the workers’ Social-Democratic organisations must beunited, but in these united organisations there must be wide and free discussionof Party questions, free comradely criticism and assessment of events in Partylife.

On the question of organisation, we differed only as regards the rights of theeditorial board of the Central Organ. We insisted on the right of the CentralCommittee to appoint and dismiss the editors of the CentralOrgan.^[5]We were all agreed on the principle of democratic centralism, onguarantees for the rights of all minorities and for all loyal opposition, on theautonomy of every Party organisation, on recognising that all Partyfunctionaries must be elected, account able to the Party and subject torecall. We see the observance in practice of these principles of organisation,their sincere and consistent application, as a guarantee against splits, aguarantee that the ideological struggle in the Party can and must prove fullyconsistent with strict organisational unity, with the submission of all to thedecisions of the Unity Congress.

We call upon all our fellow-thinkers to accept such submission and suchideological struggle: we invite all the members of the Party carefully to assess the resolutions of the Congress. Revolutionteaches: and we believe that practical unity in struggle of theSocial-Democratic proletariat throughout Russia will safeguard our Party againstfatal errors during the climax of the impending political crisis. In the courseof the fight, events themselves will suggest to the working masses the righttactics to adopt. Let us do all in our power to ensure that our estimate ofthese tactics contributes to the fulfilment of the tasks of revolutionarySocial-Democracy, to prevent the workers’ party from deviating from theconsistent proletarian path to hunt after some cheap fleeting success, so thatthe socialist proletariat may perform to the end its great role of vanguardfighter for liberty!

Notes

[1]Lenin wrote the Appeal immediately after the UnityCongress of the Party. It was discussed and approved by the conference ofBolshevik delegates held at People’s House in Stockholm, and was signed by 26Bolshevik delegates to the Congress who representedthe largest Party organisations.

[2]The merger of the Polish Social-Democratic Party and theR.S.D.L.P. was considered necessary, and proposed more than once, by theSocial-Democracy of Poland and Lithuania (S.D.P.&L.)at its congresses. Atthe Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903), which discussed the question, theS.D.P.&L. did not join the R.S.D.L.P. because ofdifferences over the national question. In January 1906, the ExecutiveCommittee of theS.D.P.&L. resumed talks on a merger with the JointCentral Committee of theR.S.D.L.P. The talks resulted in the drafting of a treaty which theS.D.P.&L. representative brought to the Fourth (Unity)Congress. After introducing some amendments into the draft, theCongress approved it.

[3]The Lettish Social-Democratic Labour Party wasfounded by its First Congress in June 1904. Its Second Congress, which met inJune 1905, adopted the Party Programme and passed a decision on the necessity ofa merger with the R.S.D.L.P. In 1905, it led the revolutionary actions of theworkers and prepared the masses for an armed uprising.

At the Fourth (Unity) Congress, the Party joined the R.S.D.L.P. as a territorialorganisation. After the Congress it was renamed the Social-Democracy of theLettish Territory.

[4]The Bund (The General Jewish Workers’ Union ofLithuania, Poland, and Russia) was formed by a founding congress of JewishSocial- Democratic groups held in Vilno in 1897; it was an association mainly ofsemi-proletarian Jewish artisans in the western regions of Russia. The Bundjoined the R.S.D.L.P. at tile First Congress (1898) “as an autonomousorganisation, independent only in respect of questions affecting the Jewishproletariat specifically”. (The C.P.S. U. in Resolutions and Decisionsof Its Congresses, Conferences, and Plenary Meetings of the CentralCommittee, Moscow, 1954, Part I, p. 14, Russ. ed.)

The Bund brought nationalism and separatism into the working-class movement ofRussia. Its Fourth Congress, held in April 1901, resolved to alter theorganisational relations established by the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Theresolution said that the Congress regarded the R.S.D.L.P. as a federation ofnational organisations and that the Bund should he treated as a member of thatfederation.

After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. had rejected its demand that it berecognised as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat, the Bund leftthe Party. In 1906, the Bund again entered the R.S.D.L.P. on the basis of aresolution of the Fourth (Unity) Congress.

Within the R.S.D.L.P. the Bundists persistently supported the opportunist wingof the Party (the “Economists”, the Mensheviks, the liquidators) andstruggled against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. The Bund countered theBolsheviks’ programmatic demand for the right of nations to self-determinationby a demand for cultural-national autonomy. During the period of the Stolypinreaction, it adopted a liquidationist position and was active in forming theAugust anti-Party bloc. During the First World War (1914-15) it adopted theposition of the social-chauvinists. In 1917, it supported thecounter-revolutionary Provisional Government and fought on the side of theenemies of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In the years of foreignmilitary intervention and civil war the Bund leadership joined forces with thecounter-revolution. At the same time a change was taking place among the rankand file of the Bund in favour of collaboration with Soviet power. In March1921, the Bund decided to dissolve itself, and part of its membership joined theRussian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) according to general procedure.

[5]During the Congress debate on Clause 7 of the Party’s organisational Rulesthe question of the relations between the Central Commit tee and the CentralOrgan gave rise to a controversy. The Mensheviks insisted that the editors ofthe C.O. be elected by the Congress, with the right to vote when politicalmatters were discussed by the Central Committee. The Bolsheviks, on the otherhand, insisted that the editorial board of the C.0. be appointed by the CentralCommittee, which should also have the right to recall the board. The Menshevikmajority of the Congress succeeded in carrying its proposal through. In 1907,the Fifth (London) Congress, revising the clause, adopted the Bolshevik wordingof it (see The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses Conferences, andPlenary Meetings of the Central Committee, Moscow, 1954, Part I, pp. 170-72, Russ. ed.).