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