LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
Of course not. I thereby express a perfectly clear 
and definiite wish, a demand, that the Party, as 
the advanced section of a class, should as far as 
possible, be something organized, that the Party 
should adopt into its ranks such elements as are 
amenable to at least a minimum of organization. 
My opponent, on the contrary, mixes up in the 
Party both organized and unorganized elements, 
elements amenable to leadership and elements not 
amenable to leadership, advanced elements and 
incorrigibly backward elements (corrigibly back- 
ward elements should be allowed in the Party). 
Such confusion is indeed dangerous. Comrade Axel- 
rod further refers to the “strictly conspiratorial and 
centralized organizations of the past” (“Land and 
Freedom” and ‘Popular Freedom”): around them, 
he says, “there were grouped a number of persons 
who did not belong to the organization, but who 
helped it in one way or another and were regarded 
as members of the Party... This principle should 
be applied with still greater strictness in a Social 
Democratic organization.” Here, we come to one 
the wide sense of the word) and consists of a number of 
organizations (in the narrow sense of the word). Similarly, 
the Party is an organization, should be an organization, (in 
the wide sense of the word); but at the same time it should 
consist of a number of different organizations (in the narrow 
sense of the word). Therefore, when Comrade Axelrod spoke 
of differentiating the conceptions Party and Organization, he 
firstly overlooked the difference between the wide and narrow 
senses of the word, and, secondly, he entirely failed to observe 
that he himself had hopelessly mixed up the organized and 
unorganized elements into one heap. 
132