I think that we must exert all our efforts to agitate here and in Russia for subordination to the Party Congress, and not to the League Congress.

A boycott of *Iskra* (even if the March one), of course, is nonsense. And not even the March one, but rather it will be Plekhanov's, since Zasulich and Axelrod will quickly give Plekhanov three votes in the five-person group. This is called an "Editorial Board"!! In addition to your witty remark about the Sarov reliquaries, I present a little statistic: in 45 issues of the six-person *Iskra*, of articles and feuilletons, Martov wrote 39, I wrote 32, Plekhanov wrote 24, Starover wrote 8, Zasulich wrote 6, and P. B. Axelrod wrote 4. And this over three years! Not a single issue was composed (in the editorial-technical sense) by anyone other than Martov or myself. And now—as a reward for scandal, as a reward for Starover cutting off one major source of funds—to take them into the Editorial Board! They fought for "principled disagreements"—which so expressively turned into a calculation in Starover's letter of November 3 to Plekhanov of how many sinecures they need. And we are supposed to legalize this struggle for sinecures, conclude a deal with this party of rejected generals or ministers (*greve generale des generaux*, as Plekhanov said) or with a party of hysterical scandalmongers!! What then is the point of Party Congresses if affairs are decided by foreign nepotism, hysteria, and scandals??

More about the notorious "troika," in which the hysterical Martov sees the center of my "intriguing." You surely remember, even from the time of the Congress, my program for the Congress and my commentary on this program. I would very much like all Party members to know this document, and therefore I present it to you once more in its exact form: "Item 23 (Tagesordnung**). Elections of the Central Committee and the Editorial Board of the Central Organ of the Party."

My commentary: "The Congress elects 3 persons to the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and 3 to the Central Committee. These 6 persons together, by a two-thirds majority, supplement, if necessary, the composition of the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee through co-optation and present an appropriate report to the Congress. After the Congress approves this report, further co-optation is carried out by the Editorial Board of the Central Organ and the Central Committee separately"*.

Is it not clear from this that what is being carried through here is a renewal of the Editorial Board, impossible without the agreement of the Central Committee (4 out of 6 are needed for co-optation), and moreover the question of whether to expand the initial three-person group or leave it as is remains open (co-optation only "if necessary")? I showed this draft to everyone (and certainly to Plekhanov) before the Congress. Of course, renewal was necessary because of dissatisfaction with the six-person group (and especially with Plekhanov, who in fact had the vote of P. B. Axelrod, who participated almost never, and the compliant V. I. Zasulich); of course, in a private conversation with Martov I expressed this dissatisfaction sharply, "cursed" both Plekhanov (especially) and Axelrod and Zasulich for their whims, even contemplated expanding the six-person group to a seven-person one, etc. But is it not hysteria to turn these private conversations inside out now and howl that "the troika was directed against Plekhanov," that I laid a "trap" for Martov, etc.?? Of course, when we agree with Martov, the troika would be against Plekhanov, and when Plekhanov is with Martov (on the question of demonstrations, for example), then against me, etc. Hysterical howls merely cover up a pathetic inability to understand that the Editorial Board must contain exclusively genuine, not fictitious editors; that it must be a business, not a philistine collegium; that each person in it must have his own opinion on each question (which never happened with the troika of unelected individuals).

Martov approved my plan of two troikas, and when he saw that it turned against him, Martov, he fell into hysteria and began to howl about intriguing! It is no wonder that Plekhanov called him in the corridors of the League Congress a "miserable man"!

Yes... it is this nasty foreign quarreling that overcame the decision of the majority of Russian workers. And Plekhanov wavered, partly out of fear of foreign scandal, partly sensing (perhaps) that in the five-person group he himself would be third...

* See *Works*, 5th edition, vol. 7, pp. 399-400. Ed.

** - agenda. Ed.