The resolution is lengthy — a "litany," as comrade Dan says — this is true, but this shortcoming is redeemed by its merit — the resolution has examined all the arguments, without which the explanation of tactics is not thought through, is not correct. For the masses brevity is needed, but this resolution is for organizations, not for the masses. There has been no discussion on all points, but all of them have been touched upon. The entire complex of views that are being pursued in political agitation must be developed. There can be no question whatsoever of any suppression of the minority by the majority, although, it is true, the position of the defeated part is not an enviable one. As a way out, one can propose a division of labor: you criticize the Duma, and we will develop the tactics. No one wants to impose upon comrade Dan the defense of points with which he does not agree. The accusation of factionalism and polemic is without foundation.

Even in the short resolution (Martov's) there is polemic, but for what reason do you, in proposing that we accept it, want to make us ridiculous. In the draft of the long resolution there appear to be motives that have not been discussed by the proletariat. But the scarecrow of the Rasteryaevtsy mocked the very idea of representation{90}, and surely they had in mind as well the peasantry.