LENIN ON ORGANIZATION show of anarchist phrases; he must learn to demand that Party duties should be fulfilled not by the rank and file alone, but also by “the people above”; he must learn to treat ‘“khvostism” in questions of or- ganization with the same contempt with which he treats “khvostism” on questions of tactics. The final characteristic peculiarity of the position adopted by “Iskra” on questions of organization, namely, its defense of autonomism as against cen- tralism, is also associated with Girondism and noble anarchism. A similar principle (if there is any principle at all *) lies behind the outcry against bureaucracy and autocracy, the complaints regard- ing the “undeserved neglect of the non-Iskrists” (who at the congress defended autonomy), the comic outcries against the demand for ‘“uncondi tional obedience,” the bitter lament against “pom- posity,” etc., etc. The opportunist wing of every organization always defends and justifies backward- ness of every kind, whether on questions of pro- gram, tactics or organization. The new “Iskra’s” defense of organizational backwardness (Khvost- ism) is closely bound up with its defense of auto- nomism. Autonomism generally has already been discredited by the three-year’s advocacy of it by the old “Iskra,” which makes it all the more shame- ful for the new “Iskra” to come out openly in its favor. It still assures us of its sympathy for cen- tralism, but the only indication of it it gives is to * I here, as in this paragraph generally, leave the laments over “co-option” out of consideration, 172