The minority of Iskra supporters of a soft or zigzag course defeated the majority (on the question of the statute, and more than once) through a coalition of the Bund + the swamp + the South Workers' men. And when the Bund and "Rabochee Delo" withdrew, the Iskra majority took their revenge. *Voila tout*. And not a single person doubts that, had the Bund not withdrawn, Martov would have beaten us on the centers. And to draw an insult, grievances, a split in the party from such a conclusion! That is madness.

They fabricate stories that "praetorians" kicked out people for slanderous accusations of opportunism, that they defamed and removed capable workers, etc. It's all empty, the fruit of wounded imagination, *rien de plus*. No one, absolutely no one was "defamed" or removed from work, from participation in the cause. Only some were removed from the center — to take offense at this? to tear the party apart over this? to construct a theory of hyperc entralism over this? to shout about iron-fisted rule, etc., over this? Never, not for a moment, have I doubted and cannot doubt that the trio of editors is the only genuinely business-like trio, breaking nothing, but adapting the old "family" collegium to the role of an official body. It was precisely the family character of the six that tormented us all these 3 years; you know this perfectly well. And from the moment that "Iskra" became the party and the party became "Iskra," we had to, we were obliged to break with the six, to break with family character. That is precisely why I declared before the congress that I would demand freedom of choice of editorship — *respective* the trio, which is the sole basis also for proper cooptation.

The break with "family character" was absolutely necessary for the cause, and I am convinced that all six would have peacefully accepted this trio, had it not been for the accompanying fights over one § and over the Central Committee. Only these fights colored the trio in their eyes in this "terrible" absolutely incorrect light. There is nothing "terrible" at all, and the restriction of the *Zickzackkurs* was necessary, and the majority of Iskra supporters (both at the congress and within the Iskra organization) understood this perfectly well.

No, I repeat, the conclusion is not an "unforeseen misfortune," the conclusion is not a "fragmentation of the whole." That is incorrect. It is incorrect to say one can curse the day of "promotion in rank" — or else all our old work would have remained forever the torment of Tantalus. And in a party, on its formal basis, with everything subordinated to the statute* (which we not without reason fought desperately over, fought with Martov over every detail, where he happened to win), in such a party the old family editorial board (which in 3 years did not once — a fact — gather in the number of six) was impossible, especially since the party immediately received, by right, on a formal basis, a whole crowd of non-Iskra people. And this demanded precisely a firm line and consistent, not a zigzag policy. There is no return to the old, and only disturbed imagination can paint a picture that Martov is being led to slaughter, and not for joint work with comrades, each of whom has a shade of political line. *De facto*, I will say further, the deciding, politically deciding (not literary) center was this trio and always before, all these 3 years, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.

I find laughable now "their" complaints about the roughs, about praetorians, lamentations about the "crystal" of the Iskra editorial board, — after Martov beat the majority of Iskra supporters through a union with the Bund and prepared everything for beating them with this same union on the question of centers. A union beat, I say, not a deal; I do not for a moment think of accusing them of a deal with the swamp and the Bund, nothing of the sort. When "they" claim that "shameful rumors" were spread against them (allies of the Bundists, supposedly), "they" repeat their usual error of confusing the personal and the political. A deal would have been personally ugly. A union did not depend on their will; their union was determined by their error; they did not go with the Bund + swamp, but the Bund + swamp + "Southern

* This is why "constitutions among themselves" are now impossible, absolutely impossible neither juridically nor morally.