LENIN ON ORGANIZATION vidual electoral districts used, even formerly, to “come to a friendly agreement” with the Party leadership as to what candidate was to be put for- ward. But the Party has already become too large for this tacit customary right. A customary right ceases to be a right when it ceases to be recognized as something self-understood, when its limits, and even its very existence, is disputed. It then becomes absolutely essential to formulate that right definite- ly, to codify it, to proceed to ‘“an exact statutory formulation* (statuarische Festelgung) and to in- troduce greater strictness (grdssere Straffheit) of organization.” We here see under other circumstances the same struggle of the opportunist and the revolutionary Party wings on the question of organization, the same conflict between autonomism and centralism and democracy and “bureaucracy,” between the tendency to undermine strictness and the tendency to increase strictness of organization and discipline, between the psychology of the unstable wavering intellectual and that of the tried proletarian, be- tween intellectual individualism and proletarian solidarity. It will be asked, what was the attitude of bourgeois democracy towards this conflict—not that bourgeois democracy which capricious history * It is extremely instructive to contrast this remark of fautsky’s regarding the replacement of a tacitly recognized Justomary right by a right laid down in the statutes with that “transformation” which our Party in general, and the Party editorial board in particular, have been passing through since the Party Congress. 182