V. I.

Lenin

Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

July 17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903

13. Speech on the Place of the Bund in the R.S.D.L.P.

July 20 (August 2)

Ishall first deal with

Hofman’s [1] speech and his expression “a compact majority.” Comrade Hofman uses
these words by way of reproach. In my opinion we should be proud, not
ashamed, of the fact that there is a compact majority at the Congress. And
we shall be prouder still if our whole Party proves to be a compact, a
highly compact, 90 per cent, majority. ( Applause. ) The majority
were right in making the position of the Bund in the Party the first item
on the agenda, and the Bundists at once proved this by submitting their
so-called Rules, but in essence proposing federation. Once there
are members in the Party who propose federation and others who reject it,
there could be no other course open but to make the question of the Bund
the first item on the agenda. It is no use forcing your favours on
anybody, and the internal affairs of the Party cannot be discussed until
we have firmly and uncompromisingly settled whether or not we want to
march together.

Thecrux of the issue has not always been presented quite correctly in the
debate. The point of the matter is that, in the opinion of many Party
members, federation is harmful and runs counter to the principles
of Social-Democracy as applied to existing Russian conditions. Federation
is harmful because it sanctions segregation and alienation,
elevates them to a principle, to a law. Complete alienation does in deed
prevail among us, and we ought not to sanction it, or cover it with a
fig-leaf, but combat it and resolutely acknowledge and proclaim the
necessity of firmly and unswervingly advancing towards the
closest unity. That is why we reject federation in principle, in limine [ On the threshold.— Ed . ] (as the Latin phrase has it); that is why we reject all
obligatory partitions that serve to divide us. As it is, there will always
be different groupings in the Party, groupings of comrades who do not
think quite alike on questions of programme, tactics or organisation; but
let there be only one division into groups throughout the Party,
that is, let all like-minded members join in a single group, instead of
groups first being formed in one section of the Party, separately
from the groups in another section of the Party, and then having a union
not of groups holding different views or different shades of opinion, but
of sections of the Party, each containing different groups. I repeat, we
recognise no obligatory partitions, and that is why we reject
federation in principle.

Ishall now pass to the question of autonomy. Comrade Lieber has said that
federation means centralism, while autonomy means decentralism. Can it be
that Comrade Lieber takes the Congress members for six-year-old children,
who may be regaled with such sophistries? Is it not clear that centralism
demands the absence of all partitions between the central body
and even the most remote and out-of-the-way sections of the Party? Our
central body will be given the absolute right to communicate directly with
every Party member. The Bundists would only laugh if someone would propose
to them a form of “centralism” within the Bund, under which its Central Committee could not communicate with all the Kovno
groups and comrades otherwise than through the Kovno
Committee. Incidentally, as regards the committees: Comrade Lieber has
exclaimed with feeling, “What is the good of talking about the
Bund’s autonomy if it is to be an organisation subordinated to one central
body? After all, you would not grant autonomy to some Tula Committee!” You
are mistaken, Comrade Lieber; we will certainly and most decidedly grant
autonomy to “some” Tula Committee, too, autonomy in the sense of
freedom from petty interference by the central body, although the duty of
obeying that body will, of course, remain. I have taken the words
“petty interference” from the Bund leaflet, “Autonomy or
Federation?” The Bund has advanced this freedom from “petty interference” as a condition , as a demand to the Party. The mere fact that it advances such ridiculous
demands shows how muddled the Bund is on the question at issue. Does the
Bund really think that the Party would tolerate the existence of a
central body that indulged in “petty” interference in the affairs of any Party organisation or group? Is this not,
in effect, precisely that “organised distrust” which has
already been mentioned at this Congress? Such distrust runs through all
the proposals and arguments of the Bundists. Is it not, in fact, the
duty of our entire Party to fight, for example, for full equality and even for recognition of the right of
nations to self-determination? Consequently, if any section of our
Party failed in this duty, it would unquestionably be liable to
condemnation by virtue of our principles; it would unquestionably be
liable to correction on the part of the central institutions of
the Party. And if the neglect of that duty were conscious and
deliberate, despite full opportunity to carry out that duty, then that
would be treachery .

Further. Comrade Lieber has asked us in moving tones how it can be proved that autonomy is able to guarantee to the Jewish workers’
movement that independence which is absolutely essential to it. A
strange question, indeed! How can it be proved that one of the several
paths suggested is the right one? Tie only way is to try it and see. My
reply to Comrade Lieber’s question is:

Marchwithus , and we undertake to prove to you in practice that all legitimate demands
for independence are gratified in full.

WhenI hear disputes about the place of the Bund, I always recollect the
British miners. They are excellently organised, better than any other
workers. And because of that they want to thwart the general
demand for an 8-hour day put forward by all proletarians. [2]
These miners have the same narrow idea of the unity of the proletariat as
our Bundists. Let the sad example of the miners serve as a warning to our
comrades of the Bund.

---
Notes:
[1]
Hofman—pseudonym of Bund member V. Kossovsky.

[2]
This refers to the Northumberland and Durham miners who, in the eighties
of the nineteenth century, secured a 7-hour working day for skilled
underground workers—through a deal with the coal-owners—but
later for a number of years opposed the legal enactment of an 8-hour
working day for all workers in Britain.