LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
a systematic, carefully thought-out and gradually 
prepared plan for stubborn and protracted action, 
but were the simple and spontaneous development 
of group work conducted on traditional lines; be- 
cause the police, of course, almost invariably knew 
the ring-leaders of the local movement, who had 
usually “recommended” themselves to attention 
from their early student days, and only awaited the 
most favorable moment for the slaughter, delib- 
erately allowing the circle to become sufficiently 
strong and extensive in order to provide a tangible 
corpus delicti *, and deliberately leaving a certain 
number of persons untouched “for breeding pur- 
poses” (according to the technical phrase, which, 
I believe, is also used by the gendarmes). Such 
warfare may be likened to the attack of a band 
of peasants armed with cudgels upon a modern 
army. One can only marvel at the vitality of a 
movement which is able to extend and grow and 
gain successes in spite of the complete absence of 
preparation and equipment. It is true that from 
the historical point of view the primitive nature of 
the equipment was at first not only inevitable, but 
even legitimate, for it was one of the means by 
which fighters were widely attracted. But as soon 
as real serious warfare began (that is, with the 
outbreak of the strike movement, in the summer 
of 1896) the defects of our military organization 
began to make themselves more and more felt. The 
government, bewildered at first and guilty of a series 
* Evidence of crime. 
61