LENIN ON ORGANIZATION 
knows that this antagonism to a great extent 
explains the division of modern Social Democracy 
into revolutionary (orthodox) and opportunist 
(revisionism, ministerialism, reformism), which 
in Russia too has reached full expression during 
the last ten years of the history of our movement. 
Everybody knows, too, that the proletarian tenden- 
cies in the movement are expressed by orthodox 
Social Democracy, and the democratic-intellectual 
tendencies by opportunist Social Democracy. . . 
Another reference of Comrade Axelrod—to the 
“Jacobins” is still more instructive. Comrade Axel- 
rod must certainly know that the division of con- 
temporary Social Democracy into revolutionary and 
opportunist gave rise long ago, and not in Russia 
alone, to “the historical analogy with the epoch of 
the great French Revolution.” Comrade Axelrod 
must certainly know that the Girondists of the 
modern Social Democratic movement frequently 
resort to terms like “Jacobinism” and “Blanquism” 
to describe their opponents. Let us not imitate 
Comrade Axelrod in his fear of the truth; let us 
examine the protocols of our congress and see 
whether we cannot find material in them for analyz- 
ing and testing the tendencies and analogies we 
are considering. 
First example. The dispute on the program at 
the Party congress. Comrade Akimov (in “full 
agreement” with Comrade Martov) declared: “The 
paragraph on the conquest of political power (the 
dictatorship of the proletariat), in comparison with 
162