LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
principle,” which he conducted by gross and even
scandalous methods (his speeches at the Congress
of the Foreign League of the Russian Revolutionary
Social Democrats).
Owing to such incidents, par. 1 has assumed
tremendous significance, and we must get a clear
idea of the character of the groupings which
revealed themselves at the Congress during the
vote on par. 1 and—what is incomparably more
important—of the real nature of the shades of
opinion which manifested themselves, or began to
manifest themselves. Now, after the events with
which the reader is familiar have taken place, the
question is put thus: Did the draft as submitted
by Martov and supported by Axelrod reflect his (or
their) lack of firmness, and their vacillation and
political haziness, as I at the Party Congress ex-
pressed it, or his (or their) inclination towards
Jauresism and anarchism, as Plekhanov suggested
at the League Congress (see protocol No. 102 inter
alia of the League)? Or did my draft, as supported
by Plekhanov, reflect an incorrect, bureaucratic,
formal, pompous and un-Social Democratic concep-
tion of centralism? Opportunism and anarchism,
or bureaucracy and formalism?—so the question
is put now, when the little difference has become a
big difference! In examining the essence of the
arguments for and against my draft, one should
bear in mind this method of stating the question
which has been forced upon us by events—I would
130