LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
write the word centralism in italics. In fact, the 
slightest critical examination of the “principles” of 
the “true Social Democratic” (not anarchistic?) 
quasi-centralism of the new “Iskra’ will reveal the 
autonomist point of view at every step. Is it now 
not clear to everybody that on questions of organ- 
ization Martov and Axelrod have gone to the side 
of Akimov? Have they not themselves solemnly 
admitted this by their famous complaint against 
“the undeserved neglect of the non-Isk~ists’”? and 
did not Akimov and his friends defend autonomism 
at our Party congress? 
It was autonomism (if not anarchism) which 
Martov and Axelrod advocated at the League Con- 
gress, when with ludicrous zeal they tried to prove 
that the part should not be subordinated to the 
whole, that the Party should be autonomous in deter- 
mining its relations to the whole and that the stat- 
utes of the Foreign League, in which these relations 
are formulated, had been drawn up against the will 
of the majority of the Party and of the Party centre. 
It is autonomism that Comrade Martov is now open- 
ly defending in the pages of the new “Iskra” (No. 
60) on the question of the introduction of mem- 
bers into the local committees by the Central Com- 
mittees. I shall not speak of the childish sophistries 
with which Comrade Martov defended autonomism 
at the League Congress and in the new “Iskra.” * 
* While he analyzes several clauses of the statutes, Com- 
rade Martov overlooks the clause which deals with the rela 
tions of the whole to the part. The Central Committee “dis- 
173