LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
Party Congress. The debate occupied almost the
whole of two sittings and ended in two personal
votes (during the whole course of the congress, if
I am not mistaken, there were only eight personal
votes; personal votes, owing to the great loss of
time they involved were resorted to only in extreme
cases). The question involved in this instance was
undoubtedly one of principle. The interest displayed
 by the congress in the debate was tremendous.
 All the delegates took part in the voting—
a rather rare phenomenon at our congress (as at
all large congresses) and also a further indication
of the interest displayed by the disputants.
It will be asked, what was the crux of the question?
 I said at the Congress, and have since more
than once repeated, that, “I by no means regard
our difference of opinion (over par. 1) as being so
important that the life and death of the Party
depends on it. ‘We shall not perish merely because
of a bad point in the statutes.” The difference in
itself, although it implies differences of principle,
ought not to have called forth such a division (or
to speak without circumlocution, such a split) as
took place after the congress. But a small difference
 may become a big difference if it is insisted
on, prime importance is attached to it, and if every
root and branch of the difference is deliberately
professed. A small difference may acquire tremendous
 significance if it becomes a starting point for
definitely erroneous views, and if these erroneous
views, being reinforced by fresh differences, are

128