LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
their true nature by demanding that the program 
(for the purpose of Party “membership”) should 
also be recognized only Platonically, that is that 
the simple recognition of its “fundamental postu- 
lates” should be required. “From the point of view 
of Comrade Martov,” said Comrade Pavlovich, “the 
proposal of Comrade Akimov is absolutely logical.” 
Unfortunately, the protocol does not state how 
many votes were given for this proposal of Akimov. 
In all likelihood, not less than seven (five Bundists, 
Akimov and Broucker). As a matter of fact, when 
seven of the delegates abandoned the congress the 
“compact majority” (consisting of the anti-Iskrists, 
the “centre” and the Martovists) which had begun 
to form itself around par. 1 of the statutes was 
transformed into a compact minority! As a matter 
of fact, it was the departure of the seven delegates 
which caused the loss of the motion to reconfirm 
the old editorial board—that so-called outrageous 
breach of “continuity of policy” in the editorship of 
“Iskra.” The seven consisted of the Bundists, 
Akimov and Broucker, that is, the identical seven 
delegates who voted against the motives for regard- 
ing “Iskra” as the central Party organ and the 
for me. Without the aid of the opportunists Comrade Martov 
would never have carried his opportunist formula through. 
(At the League Congress Comrade Martov attempted very 
unsuccessfully to deny this indisputable fact by confining 
himself to the votes of the Bundists and forgetting Comrade 
Akimov and his friends—or, rather remembering them only 
when it might count against me—as for instance, Comrade 
Broucker’s agreement with me). 
160