Although there was some talk about "not frightening the bourgeoisie" (see F.D.'s article in Nevsky Golos ), it only raised a smile, because it was obvious that the task that confronted Social-Democracy was not only to "frighten" this bour-
geoisie, but, in the shape of its advocates the Cadets, to dislodge it from its positions.
The hegemony of Social-Democracy, or the hegemony of the Cadets -- that is how life itself presented the question.
From that it was clear that the utmost solidarity was needed in the ranks of Social-Democracy through out the campaign.
It was precisely for that reason that the Election Commission of the St. Petersburg Committee concluded an agreement with the other Commission, which consisted of Mensheviks and solitary Liquidators. It was an agreement about persons, which allowed complete freedom for conducting election propaganda, on the definite understanding that the list of candidates for the Duma "must not include any person whose name or activities are associated with the struggle against the Party principle" (excerpt from the "minutes" of the negotiations). The well-known Social-Democratic list for the Second Curia was arrived at merely as a result of the anti-Liquidators' rejection of Ab . . . and L . . . , notorious St. Petersburg Liquidators "whose name and activities are associated," etc. It will not be superfluous to point out here, in order to characterise the "advocates of unity," that after Chkheidze was nominated in Tiflis they emphatically refused to withdraw his nomination in favour of the Social-Democrat Pokrovsky, ex-member of the Third Duma, and threatened to put up a parallel list and disrupt the campaign.
However, the reservation concerning "freedom of election propaganda" was perhaps superfluous, for the course of the campaign had clearly demonstrated that
no campaign was possible in the fight against the Cadets other than a revolutionary Social-Democratic, i.e., a Bolshevik, campaign. Who does not remember the speeches delivered by the St. Petersburg speakers and Social-Democratic candidates about the "hegemony of the proletariat" and about the "old methods of struggle" as against the "new parliamentary methods," about the "second movement" and the "uselessness of the slogan of a responsible Cadet Ministry"? What became of the Liquidators' lamentations about "not splitting the opposition," about the "Cadet bourgeoisie swinging to the left," and about "bringing pressure to bear" on this bourgeoisie? And what about the anti-Cadet agitation of the Liquidators of Luch who "nagged" and "frightened" the Cadets, sometimes even too much? Does not all this show that life itself uttered the truth even "out of the mouths of babes and sucklings."
What became of the conscientious principles of Dan, Martov and the other opponents of "Cadetophobia"?
The Liquidators' "broad workers' party" again sustained defeat in its struggle against the "underground circle." Just think: the "broad workers'(?) party" a captive in the hands of the tiny, very tiny, "circle"! What a miracle! . . .
The first thing that is clear from the foregoing is that all talk about two camps, the camp of the supporters of the June the Third regime and the camp of its opponents, is groundless. Actually, three and not two camps
appeared in the elections: the revolutionary camp (the Social-Democrats), the counter-revolutionary camp (the Rights), and the camp of the compromisers, who are undermining the revolution and bringing grist to the mill of the counter-revolution (the Cadets). Of a "united opposition" against the reaction there was not a sign.
Further, the elections show that the line of demarcation between the two extreme camps will become more distinct, that, as a consequence, the middle camp will melt away, free the democratically minded to the advantage of Social-Democracy, and itself gradually shift to the side of the counter-revolution.
Hence, talk about "reforms" from above, about "upheavals" being impossible, and about Russia's "organic development" under the aegis of a "Constitution," becomes utterly baseless. The course of events is inevitably leading to a new revolution, and despite the assurances of the Larins and other Liquidators, we shall live through "another 1905."
Lastly, the elections show that the proletariat, and the proletariat alone, is destined to lead the impending revolution, step by step rallying around itself all that is honest and democratic in Russia, all those who are thirsting for the liberation of their country from bondage. To become convinced of that, it is sufficient to note the course of the elections in the workers' curia, to note the sympathies of the St. Petersburg workers that were so clearly expressed in the mandate of the voters' delegates, and to note their revolutionary struggle for elections.
All this gives us grounds for asserting that the elections in St. Petersburg have fully confirmed the correctness of the slogans of revolutionary Social-Democracy.
Revolutionary Social-Democracy is virile and strong -- such is the first deduction to be drawn.
The Liquidators are politically bankrupt -- such is the second deduction.
Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 30,NOTES
January 12 (25), 1913
Signed: K. Stalin.
Reprinted from the newspaper
 J. V. Stalin was the Central Committee's representative during the election campaign in St. Petersburg. The Executive Commission of the St. Petersburg Committee was a small committee of members of the St. Petersburg Committee appointed to direct current work.
 The Liquidators left out of the election platform which they issued in September 1912 the main political demands of the minimum programme of the R.S.D.L.P. Instead of the demand for a democratic republic they inserted the demand for universal suffrage "in the election of the State Duma and local government bodies," and instead of the demand for the confiscation of the land of the landlords they inserted the demand for "a revision of the agrarian legislation of the Third Duma."
 This refers to the so-called "August" conference of the Liquidators which was held in Vienna in August 1912 as a counter-stroke to the Prague Conference of the Bolsheviks.
 The Bolshevik "X" was N. G. Poletayev; the Liquidator "Y" was probably E. Mayevsky (V. A. Gutovsky).
The St. Petersburg Liquidators "Ab. . . and L. . ." mentioned lower down were V. M. Abrosimov and V. Levitsky (V. O. Zederbaum).
 Nevsky Golos (The Voice of the Neva) -- a legal weekly newspaper published by the Menshevik Liquidators in St. Petersburg May-August 1912.