LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
other Social Democratic programs, has been so cast 
as to permit the interpretation, and it was indeed 
so interpreted by Plekhanov, that the task of the 
leaders of the organization is to push back the class 
it is leading, and to sever the former from the lat- 
ter.” The formulation of our political tasks is 
therefore exactly the same as that of the “Narod- 
naya Volya.” Comrade Akimov was opposed by 
Comrade Plekhanov and other Iskrists who accused 
him of opportunism. Does not Comrade Axelrod 
think that this dispute indicates (in fact, and not 
in the imagined whimsies of history) an antagonism 
between the modern Jacobins and the modern Gir- 
ondists of Social Democracy? And did not Com- 
rade Axelrod begin to talk of Jacobins because he 
found himself (owing to his errors) in the company 
of the Girondists of Social Democracy? 
Second example. Comrade Posadovsky raises 
the question of the “serious differences” on “the 
fundamental question” of the “absolute value of 
Social Democratic principles.” In conjunction with 
Plekhanov he denies their absolute value. The 
leaders of the “centre,” of the Marsh (Egorov) and 
of the anti-Iskrists (Goldblat) decidedly objected 
to this and pretended to discern in Plekhanov “an 
imitation of bourgeois tactics”’—that indeed is Com- 
rade Axelrod’s idea of the connection between ortho- 
doxy and bourgeois tendencies, only with the dif- 
ference that while with Comrade Axelrod this idea, 
is simply in the air, Goldblat brings it into open 
debate. We once again ask: Does not Comrade 
163