LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
able to embrace the whole, or nearly the whole of
the working class. We would simply be deceiving
ourselves, closing our eyes to the tremendousness
of our tasks, and narrowing those tasks, if we
allowed ourselves to forget the difference between
the front rank and the masses which are straining
towards it, or to forget that it is the permanent
duty of the front rank to lift ever larger sections
to its own level. It is by thus closing our eyes and
forgetting that the border line between those who
associate with and those who belong, between the
conscious and active and the mere supporters,
becomes effaced.
To cite the fact that we are a class Party as a
justification of organizational slovenliness and of
the confusion of organization with disorganization,
is to repeat the error of Nadezhidin (19), who confused
 the “philosophical and social-historical question
 of striking the ‘roots’ of a movement into ‘the
depths’ ” with the technical question of organization
(cf. “What is to be Done,” page 19 of this book).
This confusion, to which Comrade Axelrod set the
example, was repeated scores of times by the
orators who supported the draft of Comrade Martov.
 “The more widely the name of Party members
 is distributed the better,” said Comrade Martov,
 failing to explain, however, what advantage
is to be gained from the wide distribution of a
hame which does not correspond with its denotation.
 Can it be denied that control over members
who belong to no organization of the Party must

127