L e n i n finds the first formulation unsuitable because it lends the Council an arbitral character.{1} The Council, however, must be not only an arbitral institution, but also one co-ordinating the activity of the C.C. and the Central Organ. He also speaks out in favour of the Congress appointing a fifth member. It may well happen that the four members of the Council will be unable to elect a fifth; we shall then find ourselves without a necessary institution.
L e n i n finds Comrade Zasulich’s arguments unsatisfactory.{2} The case she described already implies struggle; in that case the Rules will be of no help. By leaving the election of the fifth member to the four members of the Council, we introduce struggle into the Rules. He considers it necessary to note that the Council is more than a reconciliation body. Thus, for instance, under the Rules, two members of the Council have the right to convene it.
L e n i n favours the retention of this phrase; no one should be barred from taking his appeal to the centre. That is a necessary condition of = centralisation.{3}
There are two questions here. The first is about the qualified majority, and I object to the proposal to reduce it from four-fifths down to two-thirds. Introduction of a motivated protest would show lack of foresight and I object to it.{5} The second question is immensely more important—the right of mutual control over co-optation by the C.C. and the Central Organ. The mutual accord of the two centres is a necessary condition of harmony. This is a question of a break between the two centres. Those who do not want a split must see to it that there is harmony. We know from the life of the Party that there have been people who introduced splits. This is a question of principle; it is an important question and the whole of the Party’s future may depend on it.
The Rules may have been lame in one leg, now Comrade Yegorov makes them lame in both.{6} The Council is to co-opt only in exceptional cases. Complete confidence is necessary for both sides, for both centres, just because this is a complex mechanism. There can be no successful work together without full mutual trust. And the entire question of correct functioning together is closely bound up with the right of co-optation. Comrade Deutsch is wrong in exaggerating the technical difficulties.
| Vtoroi ocherednoi syezd R.S.D.R.P. Polny tekst protokolov, Central Committee publication, Geneva, 1904 | Printed from the text of the book |
{1} During the debate on the first clause of § 4 of the draft Rules—the order governing the appointment of members of the Party Council and the replacement of outgoing Council members—the Rules Committee failed to reach agreement and three formulations were put before the Congress.
The first, motioned by L. Martov and V. A. Noskov (Glebov), said: “The Party Council shall be appointed by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee, each of whom shall delegate two members to the Council; these four members of the Council shall invite the fifth; outgoing members of the Council shall be replaced by the institutions appointing them.”
The second, tabled by V. I. Lenin and V. N. Rozanov (Popov), said: “The Party Council shall be appointed by the Congress from among the members of the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee and shall consist of five persons, with at least two of them from each of these collegiums. The Council itself shall replace the outgoing members of the Council.”
The third, motioned by Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov), said: “The Congress shall elect two members of the C.C. and two of the Editorial Board of the Central Organ to the Council of the Party. These four elected members shall unanimously elect the fifth; outgoing members of the Council shall be replaced by the organisations to which they belong, with the exception of the fifth, who shall be replaced in the manner specified above.”
As a result of the discussion of this question, the Congress adopted the following formulations:
“4. The Congress shall appoint the fifth member of the Council, the Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ.
“5. The Council of the Party shall be appointed by tile Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the C.C., each of whom shall delegate two members to the Council; outgoing members of the council shall be replaced by the institutions appointing them, the fifth shall be replaced by the Council itself” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 426). p. 91
{2} In the discussion of the first clause of § 4 of the draft Rules, Vera Zasulich said: “The objection that the four members of the Council will be unable to elect the fifth is groundless: if an institution like the Council is unable to elect a fifth member, it means that it is altogether incapable of operating” (Vtoroi spent R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 296). p. 91
{3} The point at issue is § 10 of the draft Rules, which says: “Every member of the Party and every person having any dealings with the Party shall have the right to demand that his statement, in its original form, is communicated to the Central Committee or to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ, or to the Party congress” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 426). Lenin spoke against Martov’s proposal to remove the words “and every person having any dealings with the Party”. Martov’s proposal was rejected. p. 91
{4} The speech relates to § 12 of the draft Party Rules dealing with the co-optation to the Party’s collegiate institutions, including the C.C. and the C.O. In his book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Lenin wrote: “Greater strictness as regards the majority required f or adoption of members (four-fifths instead of two-thirds), the requirement of unanimity for co-optation, mutual control over co-optation to the centre bodies—all this we began to advocate when we found ourselves in the minority on the question of the personal composition of the central bodies” (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 298). Martov came out against the proposal that the demand for the unanimity and mutual control of the C.C. and the C.O. in matters of co-optation should be written into the Rules. p. 91
{5} Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov) objected to any qualification (two-thirds or four-fifths) of the majority necessary for co-optation to th Party’s collegiate institutions, believing that in the absence of any motivated protest the question could be decided by a simple majority. p. 91
{6} Y. Y. Levin (Yegorov) said in his speech that the draft Rules were “lame” because they contained no point empowering the Party Council to decide on the question of co-optation to the Party central bodies. p. 92
| | |
| | | | | | |