Comrades! Martov's speech was so strange that I find myself compelled to rise decisively against his framing of the question. I remind you first and foremost that Martov's protest against the very election of the editorial board, his refusal and that of his comrades to participate in the editorial board to be elected, stands in glaring contradiction with what all of us (including Martov) said when *Iskra* was recognized as a party organ. We were objected to at that time that such recognition made no sense, since one cannot affirm a masthead without affirming the editorial board, and Comrade Martov himself explained to the objectors that this was untrue, that what was being affirmed was a definite political direction, that the composition of the editorial board was not prejudged in any way, that the election of editors still lay ahead, according to item 24 of our *Tagesordnung*{128}. Therefore, Comrade Martov has absolutely no right now to speak of restricting the recognition of *Iskra*. Therefore, Martov's words that his entry into the troika without his old editorial comrades would cast a stain on his entire political reputation testify only to an astonishing confusion of political concepts. To take this point of view means to deny the congress the right to new elections, to any and all changes in the composition of officeholders, to reshuffling the collegiate bodies entrusted to it. What confusion such a framing of the question introduces is evident even from the example of the Organizational Committee. We expressed it complete confidence and the congress's gratitude, but at the same time we ridiculed the very thought that the congress had no right to sort out the internal relations of the OC, we at the same time ruled out any suggestion that the old composition of the OC would constrain us in the "comradely" reshuffling of that composition and in the formation of a new Central Committee from any elements whatsoever. I repeat once more: in Comrade Martov's views on the admissibility of electing part of the former collegium there manifests itself the grossest confusion of political concepts.

I shall now turn to the question of the "two troikas"{129}. Comrade Martov said that this entire project of two troikas is the work of one person, one editorial board member (namely, my project), and that no one else is responsible for it. I categorically protest against this assertion and declare that it is directly false. I remind Comrade Martov that several weeks before the congress I directly stated to him and to another editorial board member that I would demand at the congress a free election of the editorial board. I abandoned this plan only because Comrade Martov himself proposed to me in its place a more convenient plan for electing two troikas. I formulated this plan in writing at that time and sent it first of all to Comrade Martov himself, who returned it to me with corrections – here it is, this very copy, where Martov's corrections are written in red ink{130}. A whole series of comrades subsequently saw this project dozens of times, all editorial board members saw it, and no one ever formally protested against it. I say: "formally," because Comrade Axelrod once, if I am not mistaken, threw out some private remark about his lack of sympathy for this project. But it goes without saying that a protest by the editorial board required not a private remark. The editorial board did not for nothing adopt even before the congress a formal decision to invite a certain seventh person so that, should it become necessary to appear at the congress with some collective statement, we could make an unshakeable decision – something so often not achieved in our collegium of six. And all editorial board members know that the augmentation of the six with a seventh permanent member of the editorial board had long, very long ago been a subject of our constant concern. Thus, I repeat, the solution in the form of electing two troikas was a completely natural solution, which I introduced into my project with the knowledge and agreement of Comrade Martov. And Comrade Martov together with Comrade Trotsky and others defended this system of electing two troikas many and many times after that at a whole series of private gatherings of *Iskra* supporters. In correcting Martov's assertion about the private character of the two-troika plan, I do not, however, presume to dispute Martov's own assertion about the "political significance" of the step we took in not affirming the old editorial board. On the contrary, I fully and unconditionally agree with Comrade Martov that this step has major political significance – only not the significance that Martov ascribes to it. He said that this was an act of struggle for influence over the Central Committee in Russia. I will go further than Martov. Struggle for influence has until now been the whole activity of *Iskra* as a private group, but now the question concerns something greater – the organizational consolidation of influence, not merely struggle for it. The degree to which we diverge here politically with Comrade Martov is evident from the fact that he reproaches me with this desire to influence the Central Committee, while I take as my merit the fact that I have striven and continue to strive to consolidate this influence through organizational means. It turns out that we speak different languages altogether! What would be the point of all our work, all our efforts, if their crowning achievement were merely the same old struggle for influence, and not the complete acquisition and consolidation of influence. Yes, Comrade Martov is absolutely right: the step taken is, without question, a major political step, testifying to the choice of one of the now-emerging directions in our party's further work. And the terrible words about "a state of siege in the party," about "exceptional laws against individual persons and groups," and so on, do not frighten me in the slightest. With respect to unstable and vacillating elements we not only can, we must create a "state of siege," and our entire party statute, our entire centralism now affirmed by the congress, is nothing other than a "state of siege" against so numerous sources of political diffuseness. Against diffuseness precisely are special, even if extraordinary, laws needed, and the step taken by the congress correctly outlined the political direction by creating a firm basis for such laws and such measures.

Printed from the manuscript