Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

70V. I. LENINProletary the heading “Organ of the St. Petersburg Committee”if this Executive Committee claimed to voice the viewsof the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats: we do not want tobe hypocritical—said this article—we have never been andnever will be the organ of such ... also-Bolsheviks.The article was already set up and even in page proofwhen we received a letter from St. Petersburg informingus that the notorious resolution had been rescinded. We hadto postpone publication (as a result No. 47-48 came out afew days later than it should have). Now, fortunately, wehave to speak of the ultimatumists’ resolution not in connectionwith an election campaign in process but in an accountof something that is past ... and it would be well if it were“buried in oblivion”.Here is the text of the resolution passed by the St. PetersburgBolsheviks at a non-official meeting called after theadoption of the notorious resolution:“This non-official inter-district meeting of Social-Democraticworkers and functionaries, having discussed the resolutions of theenlarged editorial board of Proletary, expresses complete solidaritywith the political line of the resolutions: ‘The Tasks of the Bolsheviksin the Party’, ‘The Attitude to Duma Activities, etc.’ and ‘On Ultimatumismand Otzovism’.“At the same time the meeting strongly disagrees with the methodsof struggle against the ultimatumist comrades pursued by the editorialboard in the said resolutions, considering such methods an obstacleto the solution of the basic tasks outlined by the editorial boardof Proletary—the rebuilding of the Party.“The meeting protests no less strongly against the splitting actionsof our ultimatumist and otzovist comrades.”After this resolution was adopted the St. PetersburgCommittee held a new meeting which rescinded the ultimatumistresolution and adopted a new one (see CurrentEvents). This new resolution concludes: “Considering ithighly important and essential to utilise the forthcomingelection campaign, the St. Petersburg Committee resolvesto take an active part in it.”Before we go on to reply to the comrades who do not agreewith what they call our splitting policy we shall quote somepassages from a letter sent by one of these comrades:...“But if the participants in the meeting (the non-official interdistrictmeeting), two-thirds of them workers, were unanimous intheir estimate of the present period and of our tactical moves resulting