LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
of blunders (such as the manifesto to society describing
 the evil deeds of the Socialists, and the
exiling of workers from the capitals to the provincial
 industrial centres), rapidly adapted itself to the
new conditions of warfare and managed to place
its armies of provocateurs, spies and gendarmes,
armed with all the latest improvements, wherever
required. So frequent did pogroms become, embracing
 such large numbers of victims and sweeping
 off local groups, that the workers literally lost
their leaders; the movement assumed a sporadic
character; consistency and continuity of work
became absolutely impossible. The amazing dispersedness
 of the local workers, the casual composition
 of the circles, the lack of preparation and the
narrow outlook on questions of theory, politics and
organization which prevailed, were inevitable consequences
 of the conditions we have described.
Matters came to such a pass that in certain localities
 the workers, because of our lack of resistance
and the absence of conspiratorial methods, began
to lose confidence in the intellectuals and draw
away from them. “The intellectuals,” they said,
“lead us into defeat much too thoughtlessly” . . . .
b) Organizations of Workers and Organizations
of Revolutionaries.
It is only natural that a Social Democrat who
regards the conception of the political struggle as
being coincident with the conception of the “economic
 struggle against the masters and the government,”
 should regard the conception ‘“organiza-62