LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
of the central points of the question. Is it true
that this principle (which allows a person who does
not belong to any organization of the Party, but
who only “in one way or another helps it”) is really
a Social Democratic principle? Plekhanov gave
the only possible reply to this question: ‘Axelrod
was wrong in his reference to the ’seventies. There
existed at that time, an execellent organization with
a magnificently disciplined centre; around it were
gathered groups of various kinds which it had
created; beyond these organizations sheer chaos
and anarchy. The component parts of this chaos
called themselves members of the Party, but from
this circumstance the cause did not gain, but, on
the contrary, lost. We must not imitate the anarchy
of the ’seventies, we must avoid it.” Thus, the
“principle” which Comrade Axelrod wanted to pass
off as a Social Democratic principle, is in fact a
principle of anarchy. In order to confute this, the
possibility of control, guidance and discipline outside
 the Party must be demonstrated; the necessity
for applying the name of Party member to the
“elements of the chaos” must be proven. Neither
the one nor the other can be proved by the defenders
of the draft of Comrade Martov. Comrade Axelrod
took as an example: “a professor who regards himself
 ag a Social Democrat and declares the fact.”
To finish off the idea which this example implies,
Comrade Axelrod ought to have further stated
whether the organized Social Democrats themselves
regard the professor as a Social Democrat? Not

122