LENIN ON ORGANIZATION
personal differences, which here, as everywhere have
played no little part, we observe in the agitation
against the revisionists the obvious mistrust of official
 persons towards ‘outsiders’ (W. Heine has
apparently not read the pamphlet on ‘The State
of Siege,” and therefore resorts to the anglicism
‘outsiders’), the mistrust of tradition towards the
unusual, of the impersonal institution towards the
individual (c. p. the resolution of Axelrod at the
League Congress on the suppression of personal
initiative) ; in a word, the same tendency which we
described above as a tendency towards bureaucracy
and centralism within the Party.”
The conception “discipline” arouses in Comrade
W. Heine no less noble disgust than in Comrade
Axelrod. “The revisionists,” he writes, “have been
accused of lack of discipline because they wrote in
the ‘Sozialistische Monatsheft,’ an organ which
was even denied the character of a Social Democratic
 journal because it was not under the control
of the party. The very attempt to narrow down the
meaning of ‘Social Democrat,” the very demand
for ‘discipline in the sphere of mental production,
where freedom must unconditionally reign, (remember,
 the struggle of ideas is a process, while forms
of organization are only forms) is evidence of the
tendency towards bureaucracy and the suppression
of individuality.” And Comrade Heine continues to
thunder at great length in every variety of tone
against this hateful tendency to create “a great allembracing
 organization, the greatest possible cen-178