LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
knows that this antagonism to a great extent
explains the division of modern Social Democracy
into revolutionary (orthodox) and opportunist
(revisionism, ministerialism, reformism), which
in Russia too has reached full expression during
the last ten years of the history of our movement.
Everybody knows, too, that the proletarian tendencies
 in the movement are expressed by orthodox
Social Democracy, and the democratic-intellectual
tendencies by opportunist Social Democracy. . .
Another reference of Comrade Axelrod—to the
“Jacobins” is still more instructive. Comrade Axelrod
 must certainly know that the division of contemporary
 Social Democracy into revolutionary and
opportunist gave rise long ago, and not in Russia
alone, to “the historical analogy with the epoch of
the great French Revolution.” Comrade Axelrod
must certainly know that the Girondists of the
modern Social Democratic movement frequently
resort to terms like “Jacobinism” and “Blanquism”
to describe their opponents. Let us not imitate
Comrade Axelrod in his fear of the truth; let us
examine the protocols of our congress and see
whether we cannot find material in them for analyzing
 and testing the tendencies and analogies we
are considering.
First example. The dispute on the program at
the Party congress. Comrade Akimov (in “full
agreement” with Comrade Martov) declared: “The
paragraph on the conquest of political power (the
dictatorship of the proletariat), in comparison with

162