Vperyod, No. 2, May 27, 1908.
Published according to the Vperyod text.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965, Moscow, Volume 10, pages 483-484.
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 and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README
The documents reproduced above reveal an extremely important controversy in the St. Petersburg Committee of the Party. This controversy is important for two reasons.
First, the right of every autonomous Party organisation to adopt its own independent resolution, and not merely to subscribe to the resolutions of the Central Committee, is absolutely indisputable—if one regards it from the formal point of view.
That the resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee does not contradict any of the decisions of the Unity Congress is obvious. It is, indeed, the duty of the local organisations to work out independently—within the framework of the Congress resolutions—their own directives.
Secondly, on the point at issue, the Central Committee’s resolution is obviously unsatisfactory and contradicts the decision of the Congress. This resolution does not contain a single word to explain what is meant by “the Duma is useless”, nor does it widen and sharpen the conflicts within the Duma. The resolution proposes a slogan (“substitute for the present Ministry a Ministry appointed by the Duma”) which does not in the least follow from the resolution of the Congress. This slogan is ambiguous. It confuses the minds of the proletariat. For the Cadets use the demand for a Duma Ministry as a screen to hide their desire to strike a bargain with the autocratic government and to weaken the revolution, to hamper the convocation of a constituent assembly.
We propose to go into this resolution in greater detail on another occasion ; in the meantime we invite all members of the Party to pay the closest attention to the extremely important controversy in the St. Petersburg Commit tee of the R.S.D.L.P.
 See pp. 500-04 of this volume.—Ed.