In the bourgeois, Cadet newspaper "Tovarshch" of October 12th (No. 85), there were reprinted, without any caveat whatsoever, the words of the Cadet newspaper "Novy Put": "We ('Novy Put') cannot but acknowledge that, in insisting on a permanent bloc with the extreme left (we learn of this from Mr. Martov's letter), the Bolsheviks are more consistent than Mr. Martov."

Thus, "Novy Put" directly cites L. Martov in confirmation of its false report about the Bolsheviks.

It is necessary to restore the facts.

In No. 1 of the "Bolshevik" *Proletariat*, in the article "On the Boycott," it was stated (p. 3): "We shall convene the Fifth Congress of the Party; we shall establish at it that in the event of elections, an electoral agreement for a few weeks with the Trudoviks is necessary (without convening the Fifth Congress of the Party, a coordinated electoral campaign is impossible, and all 'blocs with other parties' are absolutely forbidden by a resolution of the Fourth Congress). And we shall then smash the Cadets utterly"[10].

That is all that exists thus far in the Social-Democratic literature known to us regarding the Bolsheviks' attitude toward electoral agreements. It is clear that "Novy Put" has been misled by L. Martov. The Bolsheviks have not only never insisted upon, but have not even mentioned a "permanent bloc with the extreme left." That is the first point. Second: for any "blocs" whatsoever, the Bolsheviks demanded a reexamination of an already-existing resolution at a new congress. Those for whom a new congress of the Social-Democratic workers' party is terrifying pass over this in silence. The bourgeois newspapers, which give their readers false information or arouse a false impression that among the Social-Democrats there is no formal prohibition of all blocs, also pass over this in silence.

Third: L. Martov, writing in the bourgeois newspapers, deliberately, or through carelessness, or through ignorance, insinuates through the medium of the Cadet newspaper "Tovarshch" to readers the idea that the Bolsheviks permit agreements even at the lower electoral stage—that is, in agitation before the masses—whereas he himself, L. Martov, recognizes as expedient only "partial agreements at the higher stages of our multi-tiered electoral system."

L. Martov has no data whatsoever for this assertion. L. Martov spreads falsehood through the medium of the bourgeois press, because only for the higher stages did the Bolsheviks propose an agreement, and only with the Trudoviks, and only for a few weeks, and only with the permission of the Fifth Congress.

To spread this falsehood, which can easily penetrate the masses given the well-known inclination of Cadet newspapers to sympathize with the Mensheviks and sympathetically reprint everything that the latter see fit to lie about regarding the Bolsheviks—L. Martov took advantage of an "abridged" presentation of the views of *Proletariat*. Although all these views fit entirely in the five printed lines reproduced above in full, nevertheless L. Martov found it necessary to abridge them, and moreover to present them in his own words. And the reader sees that L. Martov's abridged presentation amounts to a complete distortion.

In the five lines of *Proletariat*, the question is touched upon in passing. Neither lower nor higher stages of elections are specifically mentioned. Perhaps it will be objected to me on this account that I likewise have no data to assert that in these five lines there is no discussion of agreements at the first stage? Only a person wishing to quibble over the letter and distort the obvious sense of another's argument could make this objection.

It is beyond doubt that in an exposition of the question in five lines there are many gaps, but does the general spirit of the article and all its content permit one to interpret what is not stated in an extensive (with respect to agreements) rather than a restrictive sense?

And the "letter" of the cited quotation (if it is not "abridged" à la L. Martov) speaks absolutely against an extensive interpretation, because anyone even slightly familiar with elections understands that an agreement at the first stage cannot be limited to "a few weeks" but requires months. It is sufficient to point out that in Petersburg even now they are naming parties that wish to form a bloc at elections with the Cadets, even now they are transmitting approximate distributions of the city of Petersburg's deputy mandates between the Cadets and these parties. Elections are supposed, they say, for December 17th. Over two months, people who genuinely desire an agreement at the lower stage are already beginning, directly or through intermediaries, to come to an understanding. Taking into account, then, the duration of the elections themselves, adding the time for a party decision on the question, for the transmission of party directives from the center throughout all of Russia—and you will see that an agreement between parties at the lower stage of elections requires months, whereas in "a few weeks" one can conduct precisely only an agreement at the higher stages—that is, a distribution of mandates after the struggle, on the basis of a calculation of the forces revealed by the voting of the voters themselves.

Finally, since I have already been forced to express myself in print on this question, I consider it improper to refrain from setting forth my personal opinion. In the given political situation, I would defend the following at the Fifth Congress: no blocs and agreements whatsoever with any other parties are absolutely impermissible for the Social-Democrats at the lower stage of elections. Our appearance before the masses at elections must be absolutely independent. At the higher stages, agreements with the Trudoviks are admissible exclusively regarding the proportional distribution of mandates, and we must "convert" non-party Trudoviks into party members, setting in opposition opportunists from their number and semi-Cadets (Enses, N.S., "People's Socialist Party," etc.) to revolutionary bourgeois democrats.