LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
I should (in spiite of the fact there is no justification 
for such a doubt, as I have above shown) agree 
to add to my par. 1 something like the following: 
“As large a number of workers’ organizations as 
possible which accept the program and statutes of 
the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party should 
be included among the Party organizations.” Strict- 
ly speaking, of course, such an expression of wish 
should not be embodied in the statutes, which 
should be confined to legal definitions, but should 
find a place in explanatory commentaries and in 
pamphlets (and, as I have already said, long before 
the statutes were thought of I gave such explana- 
tions in my pamphlets); but such a statement at 
least would not contain the least shadow of an 
untruth tending to lead to disorganization, nor the 
least shadow of opportunist argument* or “anar- 
chist conception” such as are undoubtedly to be 
found in the draft of Comrade Martov. 
* Among such arguments, which are bound to arise in any 
attempt to justify Martov’s formula, should be particularly 
noted the statement of Comrade Trotsky to the effect that 
“opportunism is brought about by more complex (or, is deter- 
mined by more profound) causes than a clause in a statute; 
it is brought about by the relative level of development of 
bourgeois democracy and of the proletariat.” The point is 
not that a clause in a statute may give rise to opportunism, 
but that out of such clauses a more of less powerful weapon 
against opportunism may be forged. The more profound the 
causes are the more powerful must that weapon be. There- 
fore, to cite the “profound causes” of opportunism as a justi- 
fication of a formula which opens the door to opportunism is 
“khvostism” of the crassest kind. When Comrade Trotsky 
was opposed to Comrade Liber he understood that a statute 
is the “organized mistrust” displayed by the whole towards 
156