In No. 104 of *Iskra* there appeared a note regarding our feuilleton: "A Third Step Backward" (*Proletariy* No. 6)[55]. There we recounted quite calmly that the new-*Iskra*-ists made use, in the name of the party, of a printing press, a warehouse, and money, while they preferred to evade handing over party property. To what a state of agitation *Iskra* has been brought by irritation over this statement is evident from their expressions in the spirit of the unforgettable Bundist "filth." *Iskra* so kindly presents us with a "filthy rag" and "slandering cowards" and so forth and so on. Just as Engels once characterized the polemics of a certain sort of emigrant: "Every word – a chamber pot, and indeed not an empty one" (Jedes Wort – ein Nachttopf und kein leerer){63}. We have not forgotten, of course, the French saying: abuse is the argument of one who has no arguments. We shall now offer impartial readers the opportunity to weigh coolly on what account all this noise has arisen. The new-*Iskra*-ists did not reply to the letter from the Central Committee, which after the Third Congress proposed that they hand over party property. They do not recognize the Third Congress, they do not recognize the Central Committee's turn toward the Bolsheviks. Very well. But from this non-recognition it follows only that the new-*Iskra*-ists ought, from their own standpoint, to hand over not everything, but a certain portion of party property. This is so clear that *Iskra* itself now speaks in its note of the "possibility of dividing all party property." If so, our dear opponents, then why would you not answer appropriately to the letter of the Central Committee? But the fact remains undeniable, despite all the energy of your expressions, that the majority gives in all respects a public accounting, publishing the protocols of the Third Congress, while you give no accounting to anyone whatsoever concerning your use of party property, you publish no protocols, you only hurl abuse. Think in a calm moment what impression must be produced upon a thinking public by such conduct!

Further. The Central Committee's turn in favor of the Congress is not pleasing to *Iskra*. This is natural. But this is not its first turn. A year ago, in August 1904, the Central Committee turned toward the minority. A year ago we declared in print and publicly that we do not recognize the legality of the Central Committee's actions. The question is: how did we then behave regarding party property? We handed over both the printing press and the warehouse and the cash to the Mensheviks. *Iskra* may hurl abuse as much as it pleases, but this fact remains a fact. We gave an accounting and handed over property to our opponents, wishing to struggle by party methods and seeking to achieve a Congress. Our opponents hid from the Congress and gave no one any accounting whatsoever (except to their own supporters, and even that not publicly, because, first, there are no protocols of the "conference," and second, neither its agenda nor its scope of authority is known—that is, the limits of the bindingness of its decisions for the Mensheviks themselves).

Our intra-party struggle has ended in a split; now there is only the struggle of one party against another, which is in a state of organizational process. And now, casting a general glance over the history of the struggle prior to the split, anyone—(of course, anyone from those who studies the history of their party from documents rather than limiting themselves to hearsay, as many who come from Russia do)—anyone can see clearly the general character of the struggle. The majority, accused of "formalism," "bureaucratism," and so forth, handed over to its opponents all formal prerogatives, all bureaucratic institutions: first the editorial board of the Central Organ, then the Party Soviet, finally the Central Committee itself. They did not and do not hand over only the Congress. And it turned out that the Bolsheviks restored the party (or created their own party, as the new-*Iskra*-ists naturally think), founding all their party institutions entirely upon the voluntary agreement of party workers—first the Bureau of Committees of the Majority{64}, then *Vpered*, finally the Third Party Congress. On the contrary, our opponents cling precisely to formal prerogatives and bureaucratic institutions, presented to them out of pity! Look, in truth: did not Lenin and Plekhanov hand over the editorial board of the Central Organ to them? Calling itself the "Central Organ of the party," *Proletariy* relies upon the decisions of the Third Congress, not recognized by the Mensheviks but recognized clearly, precisely, and definitively by the majority of the party, whose composition is known to everyone. *Iskra*, on the other hand, calling itself the "Central Organ of the party," relies upon the decisions of the Second Congress, now recognized by neither the Bolsheviks (we have replaced them with the decisions of the Third Congress) nor the Mensheviks!! But that is precisely the point! The Mensheviks' conference itself abolished the statute of the Second Congress. The new-*Iskra*-ists now cling to a title abolished by their own supporters!

Plekhanov himself, who could never fully agree in principle with the new-*Iskra*-ists, who nevertheless made them endless personal concessions, who poured abuse on the Bolsheviks more than sufficiently and to whom the new-*Iskra*-ists were and are always grateful for this—even he declared that the conference dealt a mortal blow to the central institutions, and preferred to shake the dust from his feet. Yet the new-*Iskra*-ists continue to call themselves the "Central Organ" and abuse those who point out to them not only the incorrectness but the absolute impropriety of their entire party position. The abuse, concerning which we have launched the whole discussion, is precisely the psychologically inevitable result of a dim consciousness of this impropriety. Let us remind [our readers] that even Mr. Struve, who has many times expressed his principled sympathies[56] both for the Starovery and for Akimov and for Martynovand for the tendencies of new-*Iskra*-ism in general, and for their conference in particular, was nevertheless obliged to recognize in his time that their position was not entirely correct or rather, not at all correct (see *Osvobozhdeniye* No. 57).

We are perfectly well aware that broad circles of Social Democrats, especially workers, are terribly dissatisfied with the split (who could be satisfied with it?) and are ready to seek a way out of it "anywhere." We fully understand and absolutely respect this mood. But we warn everyone: mood alone is not enough. The formula "anywhere" is useless, because it lacks the main thing: understanding of the means to end the split. No bitter words, no attempts to form something "third"—neither Bolshevik nor Menshevik—will help the cause; they will only entangle it further. The example of such a strong personality as Plekhanov has actually, through the experience of two years, proved this. Let the German Social Democrats, who, like K. Kautsky, know of our split mostly from one-sided accounts, satisfy themselves with bitter words. Their ignorance is still forgivable—though of course inexcusable are their pretensions to judge what they do not know. Russian Social Democrats must finally learn to despise people capable of satisfying themselves with bitter words, who flit from side to side, who mouth phrases about "peace" and are powerless to do anything real for peace. The real path to peace and party unity does not lie through hasty agreements, which lead to new conflicts and new and worse entanglement of the issue, but in the complete clarification in practice of the tactical and organizational tendencies of both sides. In this regard we are as satisfied as can be with the new-*Iskra*-ist conference. It marked the irreversible decomposition of new-*Iskra*-ism. Revolution shatters their tactical tailism. Their "organizational process" becomes the object of universal ridicule. From them falls away, on one side, Plekhanov, "enlightened," evidently, by the conference not only as to its organizational meaning but also as to the principled nature of the new-*Iskra*-ists. From them falls away, on the other side, Akimov, who declares the promises or "principles" of the Petersburg Mensheviks to be an "empty phrase"[57] (*Poslednyye Izvestiya*{65} No. 235). The Third Congress of the party drew one side more tightly together. The conference itself shattered the other side. We have only to advise the "peacemakers": study, comrades, the history of the split, sort out the reasons for the failure of Plekhanov's peacemaking, do not pour new wine into old wineskins!

*Proletariy* No. 9, 26 (13) July 1905

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Proletariy*, collated with the manuscript