LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
principle,” which he conducted by gross and even 
scandalous methods (his speeches at the Congress 
of the Foreign League of the Russian Revolutionary 
Social Democrats). 
Owing to such incidents, par. 1 has assumed 
tremendous significance, and we must get a clear 
idea of the character of the groupings which 
revealed themselves at the Congress during the 
vote on par. 1 and—what is incomparably more 
important—of the real nature of the shades of 
opinion which manifested themselves, or began to 
manifest themselves. Now, after the events with 
which the reader is familiar have taken place, the 
question is put thus: Did the draft as submitted 
by Martov and supported by Axelrod reflect his (or 
their) lack of firmness, and their vacillation and 
political haziness, as I at the Party Congress ex- 
pressed it, or his (or their) inclination towards 
Jauresism and anarchism, as Plekhanov suggested 
at the League Congress (see protocol No. 102 inter 
alia of the League)? Or did my draft, as supported 
by Plekhanov, reflect an incorrect, bureaucratic, 
formal, pompous and un-Social Democratic concep- 
tion of centralism? Opportunism and anarchism, 
or bureaucracy and formalism?—so the question 
is put now, when the little difference has become a 
big difference! In examining the essence of the 
arguments for and against my draft, one should 
bear in mind this method of stating the question 
which has been forced upon us by events—I would 
130