At the Marxist Congress that worked out the programme (1903), the Bundists (Jewish liquidators) proposed introducing into the programme the demand for "the creation of institutions guaranteeing them full freedom of cultural development." Opposing this were the present-day liquidators Martynov, Martov, Koltsov. They argued quite correctly that this demand runs counter to the international principles of Social-Democracy. By all votes against the Bundists, the congress rejected this demand (see the minutes).

The Marxists assert that the "creation of institutions" is precisely "cultural-national autonomy," which is rejected by Social-Democracy.

In *The Public Answer* six deputies assert the opposite. They say: we proclaimed the "creation of institutions," but we did not proclaim cultural-national autonomy.

—"Good," we reply to them. Let us assume for a moment that this is indeed not the same thing. But the congress rejected even the "creation of institutions." You know this perfectly well. You know that you have departed from the programme to please the nationalists. The Bundists, whose proposal the congress rejected, welcomed you for this violation of the programme.

After the declaration of the S.D. group at the beginning of the Fourth Duma, they wrote:

—"It may be pointed out that the formula of the S.D.'s (i.e., the liquidators) was not sufficiently clear. Quite correct. But what is important is that the worker deputies (i.e., the supporters of Chkheidze) have abandoned the ossified point of view upon which the official theory on the national question stands" (*Zeit* No. 9, editorial, column 3).

The "official theory" is precisely the programme. The Bundists praise Chkheidze and his friends for violating the programme. The R.S.D.L.P. inquired: does the "S.D. group" agree to withdraw this violation of the programme.

The answer was clear: "This formula (i.e., the 'creation of institutions') contains absolutely nothing that the S.D. group should renounce" (see *The Public Answer*). We do not wish to renounce the violation of the programme—such is the reply of the "S.D. group."