LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
say by history, if it were not too high-sounding a
phrase.
Let us examine the arguments with the help of
an analysis of the discussion at the congress. The
first speech, that of Comrade Egorov, is interesting
only because his attitude is characteristic of many
of the delegates, who by no means found it easy
to orient themselves in a really new and fairly
complex and detailed question. The second speech,
that of Comrade Axelrod, already treats the ques-
tion as one of principle. It was the first speech on
a question of principle—in fact, the first speech at
all—made by Comrade Axelrod. One cannot say
that his “professor” debut was a great successor.
“I think,” said Comrade Axelrod, “that we ought to
draw a distinction between the conceptions Party
and Organization. The two conceptions are being
here mixed. Such a confusion is dangerous.”
That was the first argument against my draft. Let
us examine it. When I say that the Party should
be a sum (and not a simple arithmetic sum, but a
complex) of organizations, does that mean that I
“mix’’ the conceptions Party and Organization? *
* The word “organization” is usually employed in two
senses, a wide sense and a narrow sense. In the narrow
sense it implies an individual cell of the human community,
however elementary its forms may be. In the wider sense it
implies the sum of such cells fused into a whole. For in-
stance, fleet, army, state at one and the same time represent
a sum of organizations (in the narrow sense of the word) and
a species of the social organization (in the wide sense of the
word). The department for education is an organization (in
121