The newspaper *Tovarishch* published today (20 January) extensive extracts from the appeal of the 31 Mensheviks, who broke away from the socialist organisation on the eve of the elections in St. Petersburg.

Let us first recall, in a few words, the actual history of what the breakaway Social-Democratic Mensheviks did after their departure from the conference.

1) Having broken away from the Social-Democratic workers, they entered into a bloc with the petty bourgeoisie (Socialist-Revolutionaries, Trudoviks and Popular Socialists) in order to conduct joint bargaining with the Cadets for seats. They concealed from the workers and the public the written agreement concerning this entry of the breakaway Social-Democrats into the petty-bourgeois bloc.

We do not, however, lose hope that this agreement will nonetheless be published, and the secret will become manifest.

2) As a component part of the petty-bourgeois bloc (incorrectly called the “Left bloc” in the newspapers), the breakaway Mensheviks bargained with the Cadets to secure three seats out of six for this bloc. The Cadets offered two seats. No deal was struck. The session of the petty-bourgeois “conference” (the expression is not ours, but taken from the newspapers) with the Cadets took place on 18 January. Both *Rech* and *Tovarishch* reported it. *Rech* today announced that the agreement had not been concluded (though we must, of course, be prepared for the fact that negotiations are still continuing behind the scenes).

The Mensheviks are not, for the time being, reporting in the press about this “move” of theirs to sell the workers’ votes to the Cadets.

They will probably render an account to the petty-bourgeois bloc, of which they were a part during the negotiations, and not to the workers’ party!

They probably have no desire to explain why Comrade Dan was a participant in the negotiations, though not authorised to do so either by the group of 31 or by any other party organisation.

Such are the deeds of the 31 Mensheviks.

And what of their words?

Their first argument is that, having denied the existence of a Black Hundred danger in St. Petersburg, the Bolsheviks had no right to declare for an agreement with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Trudoviks, without allegedly violating the decisions of the All-Russia Conference, which demanded an independent Social-Democratic campaign in the absence of a Black Hundred danger.

This entire argument is an outright lie.

The 31 breakaway Mensheviks are deceiving the reading public. No party institution has ever issued any formal prohibition of agreements with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Trudoviks in the absence of a Black Hundred danger. Such an agreement exists, for example, in Moscow, and the Central Committee did not protest against it.

More than that. The extent to which the 31 Mensheviks distort the truth when citing the decision of the All-Russia Social-Democratic Conference is evident from the following. Everyone knows that the decisions of this (consultative) conference were adopted by the Mensheviks and Bundists against the Bolsheviks, Poles and Letts. And those very same Bundists, who carried through the decision of the All-Russia Social-Democratic Conference, officially recognised the admissibility of blocs with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the revolutionary democracy in general in the event of the absence of a Black Hundred danger, but in the presence of a Cadet danger. There was a decision of the Bund Central Committee to this effect, which no one protested against. This was written about in the Russian organ of the Bund, *Nashe Tribuna*, and all literate Russian Social-Democrats know about it.

The 31 Mensheviks are deceiving the workers and the entire reading public.

We have also explained that the All-Russia Social-Democratic Conference authorised the Central Committee everywhere and in all places to exclude non-Social-Democrats from Social-Democratic lists, i.e., to demand an unconditionally independent Social-Democratic campaign. Nowhere has the Central Committee yet made use of this right, in fact recognising the autonomy of the Bund and all other organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.

Further. The 31 Mensheviks are displeased that the conference excluded the Popular Socialists (Popular Socialists or Social-Narodniks) from the Trudovik bloc. The 31 Mensheviks write: “Everyone knows that these three parties” (the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists and Trudoviks—the latter do not constitute a party) “have long since concluded a close bloc among themselves in St. Petersburg and are acting in unison.”

Thus, the facts have proved that, in calling the Trudovik bloc close, the 31 Mensheviks told an untruth.

The conference of the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats was right to separate the Popular Socialists. It was right, firstly, on principle, for it is beyond doubt that the Popular Socialists are the most right-wing, the most unreliable, the Trudovik party standing closest to the Cadets. And it was right, secondly, from the practical-political standpoint, for it correctly indicated that line of division among the Trudovik parties which inevitably revealed itself in the course of the political campaign. It is now clear to each and everyone that if the Trudoviks had, after all, foisted the Popular Socialists upon us (for the sake of defeating the Cadets in St. Petersburg it would, of course, have been ridiculous to fear the inclusion of the Popular Socialists in the Trudovik bloc), then the responsibility for the unreliable Trudoviks would have rested wholly on the Socialist-Revolutionaries and not on the Social-Democrats. The workers’ party took care that all workers and all citizens should know the real difference between the more reliable and the less reliable Trudoviks, took care that the responsibility for the bad Trudoviks should be placed on the Socialist-Revolutionaries and not on the party of the proletariat.

What conclusion follows from these vicissitudes with the Popular Socialists?

The conclusion that the Mensheviks acted in an unprincipled manner in entering the petty-bourgeois bloc without any discrimination, proving incapable of doing what Social-Democrats are obliged to do in an election campaign, namely: to teach the masses a strict and correct differentiation of the parties. The Mensheviks hastened to sit down in one petty-bourgeois bloc together with the Popular Socialists, i.e., a semi-Cadet group!

The Bolsheviks acted in a principled and consistent manner. They began by an open resolution, published everywhere in the name of an official Social-Democratic institution, informing each and everyone of the unreliability of the Popular Socialist party. And the Bolsheviks have now achieved the point where the most revolutionary Trudoviks (namely, the Socialist-Revolutionaries) have themselves declared that the Popular Socialists can leave the Trudovik bloc without dissolving it!

The Bolsheviks achieved the separation of the revolutionary Trudoviks from the opportunist Trudoviks. The Mensheviks themselves crawled neck-deep into the opportunist petty-bourgeois bloc.

The Bolsheviks openly and publicly called on the Trudoviks to follow them into battle against the Cadets and have already now achieved indisputable political results, without yet entering into any bloc with anyone. The Mensheviks secretly from the workers, and unprincipledly, wormed their way into the petty-bourgeois bloc in order to bargain with the Cadets.

The workers can judge from this where the Mensheviks are in fact leading them.

The third and last argument of the 31 Mensheviks is that an agreement between the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks in St. Petersburg does not diminish but increases the Black Hundred danger. This assertion is so preposterous or hypocritical that we will quote the Mensheviks’ arguments in full:

“A common list of Social-Democrats and Narodniks will be popular enough to draw many votes away from the Cadets, but it will not be sufficient to achieve victory throughout St. Petersburg—especially insufficient if the blame for the failure to reach agreement among all the revolutionary and opposition parties will, in the eyes of the mass voter, fall on the Social-Democrats and their allies. And in that case, the increased drawing away of votes from the Cadets will entire redound to the benefit of the united Black Hundreds, who will defeat both the Cadet list and the Left.”

This entire argument is sheer hypocrisy, intended to cover up the Mensheviks’ bargaining for seats with the Cadets.

Indeed, just think of what the Mensheviks are saying: an agreement between the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks increases the Black Hundred danger, because it draws many votes away from the Cadets! Very well, dear comrades! But, in your opinion, when is a Black Hundred victory more dangerous—when all the non-Black-Hundred votes are divided between two lists, or when they are divided among three lists? Suppose the Black Hundreds have 1,000 votes, and all the rest have 2,100. When is a Black Hundred victory more dangerous: when the 2,100 are divided between two lists, or when they are divided among three?

To solve this brain-racking problem, the 31 Mensheviks can ask the assistance of a first-form schoolboy.

But we shall go further. It is not enough that the 31 Mensheviks utter a downright absurdity, pretending not to understand that with an agreement between the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks in St. Petersburg there will be only two anti-Black-Hundred lists, while in the absence of an agreement there may turn out to be three. That is not enough.

The 31 Mensheviks, moreover, display such ignorance of the history of the first elections that they do not know the relation of Black Hundred and Cadet votes in St. Petersburg at the elections to the First Duma. It is not without reason that we took the example: 1,000 votes for the Black Hundreds, 2,100 for all the rest. This example is typical for 9 out of the 12 St. Petersburg districts at the elections to the First Duma!

In the 9 districts, which together yield 114 electors out of 160, the smallest number of votes cast for the Cadets more than doubles the largest number of votes cast for the Black Hundreds or for the so-called bloc of the Right.

What does this mean?

It means that if in St. Petersburg there are two “Left” (i.e., non-Black-Hundred) lists, no conceivable division of votes among the Left can give victory to the Black Hundreds.

Since the 31 Mensheviks are evidently not firmly grounded in the rudiments of arithmetic, we will explain this to them: let them try to divide 2,100 into two such parts that the 1,000 Black Hundred votes could defeat both of these parts.

Let the Mensheviks rack their brains over this problem just as over the question of whether the putting up of three lists instead of two increases or diminishes the Black Hundred danger.

There is no grounds whatever for thinking that the Black Hundreds will be stronger this year at the elections in St. Petersburg than they were last year. No sane-minded politician would venture to assert this. Everyone sees that the Black Hundreds have utterly disgraced themselves after the exposure of the Lidval affair, the murder of Herzenstein, and so on. Everyone knows that reports of the victory of the Left at the elections are now coming in from all corners of Russia.

Under such conditions, the cries about a Black Hundred danger are either gross ignorance or hypocrisy. And it is those who conceal their real aims and act in secret who need to be hypocritical. The Mensheviks cry out about the Black Hundred danger in order to divert the workers’ attention from the machinations which they are perpetrating or perpetrated yesterday in entering the petty-bourgeois bloc and bargaining with the Cadets.

With two Left lists, no division of votes can give victory to the Black Hundreds in St. Petersburg, unless the number of Black Hundred votes increases by comparison with the past elections—and all indications point to a decrease, not an increase, in that number of votes.

Hence, the Mensheviks entered the petty-bourgeois bloc and bargained with the Cadets not at all for the sake of fighting the Black Hundred danger—that is a childish invention, which can deceive only a completely ignorant or a completely stupid person.

The Mensheviks bargained with the Cadets in order to push their man into the Duma, contrary to the workers, with the help of the Cadets; that is the simple explanation of all these wanderings from the Social-Democrats to the petty-bourgeois bloc, and from the petty-bourgeois bloc to the Cadets.

Only utterly naive people can fail to see this underlying motive of the Menshevik actions, screened by cries about the Black Hundred danger.

That is why the Mensheviks, when in the petty-bourgeois bloc, insisted on three seats in the Duma—in order to ensure themselves at least one seat. If the Cadets had given only two seats, the Mensheviks might have got none. One of these seats the Cadets directly gave to the Narodniks (Popular Socialists), and the other the Cadets did not dare to take away from the workers’ curia. And in the workers’ curia it is still unknown who will win.

That is why the Mensheviks concealed from the public both the authority under which Comrade Dan acted, and the terms of their entry into the petty-bourgeois bloc, and precisely what the debates were at the “conference” of the petty-bourgeois bloc with the Cadets, and so on, and so forth. To this day, after such conduct on the part of the Mensheviks, we did not know and cannot know where they will go after the Cadets’ refusal. Will the Popular Socialists unite with the Mensheviks in order to wheedle two little seats out of the Cadets at the expense of the workers’ curia (one of the editorials in *Rech* spoke of the possibility of such a decision)? Or will they go in for independent Social-Democratic lists, i.e., for putting up three Left lists in St. Petersburg instead of two? Or will they return to the Social-Democratic workers’ party and its decision after their unsuccessful excursion into the drawing-room of the petty bourgeoisie and the anteroom of the Cadets?

If the Mensheviks had really been guided by fear of a Black Hundred danger, and not by a passion to obtain a seat from the Cadets, could they possibly have parted company with the Cadets over the question of the number of seats?

When a socialist really believes in a Black Hundred danger and sincerely fights against it, he gives his votes to the liberal without haggling, and does not break off negotiations because three seats were offered instead of two. For example, in second ballots in Europe, a Black Hundred danger is present when a liberal has received, say, 8,000 votes, a Black-Hundredist or reactionary 10,000, and a socialist 3,000. If the socialist believes that the Black Hundred danger is a real danger for the working class, he votes for the liberal. In Russia we have no second ballots, but a case corresponding to second ballots may occur at the second stage of the elections. If, out of 174 electors, let us assume, 86 are Black Hundreds, 84 Cadets and 4 socialists, then the socialists must give their votes to the Cadet candidate, and not a single person in the entire Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party has so far disputed this.

And yet the Mensheviks assure us that they fear a Black Hundred danger in St. Petersburg, and at the same time break with the Cadets over the question of two or three seats!

This is sheer hypocrisy, intended to cover up the haggling of the petty-bourgeois section of the workers’ party for a seat in the Duma, begged from the Cadets.

And the talk of the Mensheviks about an independent Social-Democratic campaign in St. Petersburg, without the Trudoviks, is now equally hypocritical. For example, Mr. Levitsky—a Menshevik—said on 19 January at the Nemetti Theatre, as reported by *Tovarishch*, the following: “The Social-Democrats sacrificed the independence of their election campaign only in order to prevent a Black Hundred danger. Since this has not succeeded, the Social-Democrats must at least strive to develop a broad agitation, and therefore the speaker declared in favour of an independent Social-Democratic campaign.”

The question is: Is not this Levitsky, if he is of sound mind and firm memory, a hypocrite? Since it proved impossible “to prevent a Black Hundred danger” by creating a single common list of all the Left, including the Cadets, Levitsky therefore wants three Left lists—the Cadet, the Social-Democratic and the Trudovik!

What is this but the wavering of an opportunist who has lost all ground under his feet, who thinks to make us forget that the day before yesterday the Mensheviks were sitting in the petty-bourgeois bloc, and yesterday were bargaining with the Cadets!

The Mensheviks betrayed the workers, went over to the Cadets, and now, when this dirty scheme is failing, want to cleanse themselves with a phrase about an independent Social-Democratic campaign! This is precisely an empty phrase, serving only to divert attention, for with three Left lists the Black Hundreds in St. Petersburg could indeed get through only by virtue of the division of the Left, and the Mensheviks themselves strengthened the position of the petty-bourgeois bloc by renouncing the proletarian party and entering that bloc for joint bargaining with the Cadets.

The Mensheviks indeed now have something from which to “cleanse themselves”—so far have they disgraced themselves by all their conduct in the election campaign in St. Petersburg. The Mensheviks are indeed now left with nothing but an empty, high-sounding phrase, for they themselves do not seriously believe in the possibility of a pure Social-Democratic list now in St. Petersburg.

As for the Bolsheviks, we most energetically warn them against placing trust in those high-sounding and hypocritical phrases.

The Bolsheviks have nothing from which to “cleanse themselves,” nothing to repent of. Our political line, at first ridiculed by the entire bourgeois press of the capital, is now being magnificently and graphically confirmed by the whole course of events. The absurdity of the fairy-tales about a Black Hundred danger is becoming clear. The Cadet danger is becoming obvious. The veil is being lifted over the policy of the Cadets, whose leader is now obtaining (or has obtained?) an audience with Stolypin.

The Bolsheviks did not enter the petty-bourgeois bloc secretly from the workers’ party. They did not strengthen that bloc by sanctioning the participation of the semi-Cadet party of Popular Socialists among the Trudoviks. They did not make a single step or utter a single word which the petty-bourgeois parties could construe as a renunciation by the Social-Democrats of an independent campaign.

At the time when Milyukov was entangling himself at Stolypin’s feet, when the Mensheviks and Trudoviks of every colour were entangling themselves at Milyukov’s feet, the Bolsheviks alone stood quite firm, not for a moment ceasing to do what Comrade Levitsky and his ilk have now remembered, having grown angry with the Cadets.

And therefore we must in no case now commit the folly which the flustered and hypocritical Mensheviks babble about, we must not renounce the revolutionary bloc, the support of the socialists by the petty bourgeoisie against the Cadets.

It is precisely because the Bolsheviks, without wavering, immediately adopted the correct line that they have achieved the point where the vacillation of the Trudoviks and the firmness of the workers’ party (except its opportunist appendage, of course) have now become evident to all in practice. It has become evident in practice that precisely the Social-Democratic proletariat is proceeding independently, along its own path, directing all the other elements against the Black Hundreds and against the liberals, liberating all the petty-bourgeois parties and trends from the influence of Cadet ideology and Cadet policy, and determining openly the degree of reliability and suitability of the revolutionary and opportunist groups among the Trudoviks.

And now, to fear to lead all the Trudoviks, who have experienced the bitterness of Cadet benevolence and are ready to fight the Cadets, would be unpardonable childishness and a display of spinelessness in politics.

The 31 Mensheviks, entangled in haggling with the Cadets, are themselves compelled, against their will, to admit: “a common list of Social-Democrats and Trudoviks will be popular enough to draw many votes away from the Cadets”!... Yes, just so! And for that very reason we cannot neglect the task of undermining the hegemony of the Cadets in the capital, upon which the eyes of all Russia are turned.

It is enough for us to draw away half of the Cadet votes plus one extra vote in several districts, and we shall win, for we shall take advantage of all the benefits of a split between the Black-Hundred bourgeoisie and the liberal-conciliatory bourgeoisie (there is no danger here, for the Cadets have more than twice as many votes as the Black Hundreds in the 9 districts).

It is becoming clearer every day that the Mensheviks took an incorrect political course by crying out about a Black Hundred danger. A more Left composition of the delegates and electors than last year is becoming evident. Instead of the preposterous and shameful aid to the liberal landlords (not justified by a Black Hundred danger, for there is none), a useful and responsible role confronts us: the hegemony of the proletariat over the democratic petty bourgeoisie in the struggle against the subordination of the undeveloped masses to the leadership of the liberals.

The first elections to the Duma gave victory to the Cadets, and these liberal bourgeois are striving with all their might to consolidate and perpetuate their hegemony, based on the stupefaction of the masses, on their lack of independent thought, independent policy.

It is our direct duty to exert every effort to rally around ourselves, precisely in St. Petersburg, all those capable of fighting the Black Hundreds and the Cadets, to rally them in the name of the tasks of the people’s revolution, in the name of the independent activity of the masses of the millions-strong people.

And we shall do this without sacrificing one iota of the full ideological independence of our Social-Democratic agitation, without retreating one step from our socialist aims and their full exposition, without renouncing for a moment the exposure of all the vacillations and betrayals of the petty bourgeoisie.

With firm foot on an unshakeably solid position of the struggle for freedom and the struggle for socialism stands only one force—the revolutionary Social-Democracy.

Written on 20 January (2 February) 1907.

Printed according to the text of the pamphlet.