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; because
 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, deliberately
 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 purposes”
 (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