Under this heading, the Bund has issued a translation of an article from № 34 of *Arbeiterstimme*{42}. This article, appended to the decisions of the V Congress of the Bund, serves as a kind of official commentary to them. Here an attempt is made to systematically set forth all the arguments that lead to the conclusion that the Bund "must be a federative part of the party." It is interesting to examine these arguments.

The author begins by stating that the most burning question before Russian social-democracy is that of unification. On what principles can it take place? The Manifesto of 1898{43} took as its basis the principle of autonomy. The author analyzes this principle and finds it logically incoherent and internally contradictory. If we understand by questions specifically concerning the Jewish proletariat only questions about the methods of agitation (adapted to the special language, special psychology, special culture of Jews), then this would be technical (?) autonomy. But such autonomy means the destruction of all independence, since every committee of the party employs it, and equating the Bund with committees is a negation of autonomy. If, however, we understand by autonomy some autonomy in program questions, then it is absurd to deprive the Bund of any independence in the remaining program questions; independence in program questions necessarily presupposes representation of the Bund, as such, in the central organs of the party, i.e., not autonomy, but federation. A firm basis for the position of the Bund in the party must be sought in the history of the Jewish revolutionary movement in Russia. This history shows us the merger of all organizations working among Jewish workers into a single union – the Bund – and the expansion of its activity from Lithuania to Poland, and then to southern Russia. History, consequently, swept away all territorial barriers and presented the Bund as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat. Here is a principle which is not the fruit of idle speculation (?), but is the result of the entire history of the Jewish workers' movement; the Bund is the sole representative of the interests of the Jewish proletariat. And, of course, an organization of the proletariat of an entire nationality can enter the party only with the party organized on a federative basis: the Jewish proletariat is not only part of the universal family of proletarians, but also part of the Jewish people, occupying a special position among other peoples. Finally, close unity between the parts of the party is expressed precisely in federation, since the basic characteristic of the latter is the direct participation in the affairs of the party of each of its component parts; all parts of the party then feel themselves equal in rights. Autonomy, on the other hand, presupposes the lack of rights of the parts of the party, indifference to common affairs, mutual distrust, friction and conflicts.

Such is the author's argumentation, set forth by us almost entirely in his own expressions. It reduces to three points: considerations of a general nature regarding the internal contradictoriness of autonomy and its unsuitability from the standpoint of close unity of the parts of the party; the lessons of history, which presented the Bund as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat; and, finally, the reference to the fact that the Jewish proletariat is the proletariat of an entire nationality occupying a special position. The author wishes, consequently, to rely on general organizational principles, on the lessons of history, and on the idea of nationality. The author endeavors – and justice must be given him – to examine the question from all sides. And it is precisely for this reason that his exposition so strikingly highlights the position taken by the Bund on the question that agitates all of us.

With federation, we are told, the parts of the party are equal in rights and participate directly in common affairs; with autonomy, they lack rights and, as such, do not participate in the life of the party as a whole. This reasoning belongs entirely to the realm of patent absurdities – it resembles, as two drops of water, those reasonings which mathematicians call mathematical sophisms and in which – by a strictly logical path, at first glance – it is proven that twice two is five, that a part is greater than the whole, etc. There exist collections of such mathematical sophisms, and they are of use to schoolchildren. But for people who fancy themselves the sole representatives of the Jewish proletariat, it is awkward even to clarify such an elementary sophism as the different understanding of "part of the party" in the two halves of one and the same argument. When speaking of federation, by part of the party one means the sum of organizations in different localities; when speaking of autonomy, by part of the party one means each individual local organization. Place these supposedly identical concepts next to each other in one syllogism, and you obtain the inevitable conclusion that twice two is five. And if the Bundists still do not understand the essence of their sophism, they can look into their own maximum statute and see there that precisely with federation local organizations communicate with the center of the party mediately, while with autonomy directly. No, it would be better for our federalists not to speak about "close unity"! Refuting the proposition that federation means separation, while autonomy means merger of the parts of the party, can only make people laugh.

Hardly more successful is the attempt to prove the "logical incoherence" of autonomy by dividing it into programmatic and technical. The very division itself is supremely absurd. Why can questions about special methods of agitation among Jewish workers be called technical? What has technique to do with it when the discussion is about peculiarities of language, psychology, conditions of life? How can one speak of independence in program questions concerning, for example, the demand for civil equality of Jews? The social-democratic program puts forward only basic demands, general to the entire proletariat, regardless of professional, local, national, or racial differences. These differences conduce to the fact that one and the same demand for complete equality of citizens before the law generates agitation in one place against one type of inequality, in another place or toward other groups of the proletariat – against another type of inequality, etc. One and the same program point is applied differently depending on the difference in conditions of life, difference in culture, difference in the correlation of social forces in different regions of the country, etc. Agitation for one and the same program demand is conducted in different ways, in different languages, adapted to all these differences. Autonomy in questions specifically concerning the proletariat of a certain race, a certain nation, a certain district, means, consequently, that the determination of special demands put forth in fulfillment of the general program, the determination of methods of agitation, is left to the independent decision of the corresponding organization. The party as a whole, its central institutions, establish the general basic principles of the program and tactics; the various ways of putting these principles into practice and in agitation, however, are established by different organizations of the party subordinate to the center in accordance with local, racial, national, cultural, and other differences.

The question is: is such a concept of autonomy unclear? And is not the division of autonomy into programmatic and technical questions pure scholasticism?

Look at how the concept of autonomy is "logically analyzed" in the pamphlet we are examining. "From the entire mass of questions with which social-democracy has to deal," says this pamphlet concerning the principle of autonomy laid down in the basis of the Manifesto of 1898, "certain questions are distinguished (sic!![26]) regarding which it is acknowledged that they specifically concern the Jewish proletariat… The autonomy of the Bund ends where the realm of general questions begins… From this follows a dual position of the Bund in the party: in special questions it acts as the Bund… in general questions it loses its physiognomy and is equated to an ordinary committee of the party…" The social-democratic program demands complete equality of all citizens before the law. In fulfillment of this program, a Jewish worker in Vilna puts forward one special demand, while a Bashkir, a worker in Ufa, puts forward a completely different special demand. Does this mean that "from the mass of questions" "certain ones are distinguished"? If the general demand for equality is carried out in life by the putting forward of a series of special demands for the elimination of special types of inequality, does it really mean that special questions are distinguished from general questions? Special demands are not distinguished from general ones, but are put forth in fulfillment of general demands of the program. What is distinguished is that which specifically concerns a Jew in Vilna from that which specifically concerns a Bashkir in Ufa. The generalization of their demands, representation of their common class interests (and not special, professional, racial, local, national, etc.) is the affair of the entire party, the affair of the party center. This would seem to be a rather clear matter! But the Bundists have muddled it because instead of logical analysis they have given us yet more examples of logical absurdities. They have absolutely failed to understand the relationship of the general demands of social-democracy to special ones. They have imagined that "from the entire mass of questions with which social-democracy has to deal, certain ones are distinguished," when in reality each question touched upon by our program is a generalization of a whole series of special questions and demands; each program point is general for the entire proletariat, while at the same time subdividing into special questions depending on the difference in the professions of proletarians, their conditions of life, language, etc. and so forth. The Bundists are troubled by the contradictoriness and duality of the position of the Bund, consisting, it seems, in the fact that in special questions it acts as the Bund, while in general ones it loses its physiognomy. A little reflection would show them that such "duality" exists in the position of absolutely every social-democratic worker, who in special questions acts as the representative of a certain profession, as a member of a certain nation, as a resident of a certain locality, while in general questions "loses his physiognomy" and is equated to every other social-democrat. The autonomy of the Bund, according to the statute of 1898, is a phenomenon entirely homogeneous with the autonomy of the Tula Committee; only the limits of this autonomy are somewhat different and somewhat broader in the first case than in the second. And nothing whatsoever, except glaring logical incoherence, is contained in the following proposition by which the Bund refutes such a conclusion: "If the Bund is granted independence in certain program questions, on what grounds is it deprived of all independence in the remaining program questions?" This counterposition of special questions to general ones, as "certain" to "remaining," is an incomparable specimen of Bundist "logical analysis"! People simply cannot understand that this means counterposing the different color, taste, and smell of individual apples to the number of "remaining" apples. We venture to assure you, gentlemen, that not only some, but each apple has its own particular taste, color, and smell. Not only in "certain," but in all without exception program questions is independence granted to you, gentlemen, but only insofar as the discussion concerns the application of these questions to the special peculiarities of the Jewish proletariat. *Mein teuerer Freund, ich rat' Euch drum zuerst Collegium logicum!*[27]

The second argument of the Bundists consists in a reference to history, which supposedly presented the Bund as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat.

This proposition is, first of all, incorrect. The author of the pamphlet himself says that "the work of other organizations (besides the Bund) in this direction (i.e., work among the Jewish proletariat) either produced nothing, or produced results not worth noting." This means that work was being conducted, by his own admission, and consequently the Bund was not the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat; in evaluating the results of this work, no one, of course, will rely on the judgment of the Bund itself; finally, it is well known that the Bund opposed the work of other organizations among the Jewish proletariat (it suffices to mention the well-known episode of the Bund's struggle against the Ekaterinoslav Committee of the party, which dared to issue a proclamation to Jewish workers{44}) – consequently, even if the results had truly been not worth noting, there is a share of blame for this on the Bund itself.

Further. The measure of truth that is contained in the Bund's historical reference does not in the slightest prove the correctness of its argumentation. The facts that actually took place and which the Bund had in mind speak not for, but against it. These facts consist in the fact that the Bund existed and developed – over the course of those five years that passed since the first Congress – in complete independence and separately from the rest of the organizations of the party. In general, the actual connection between all organizations of the party during this time was extremely weak, but the connection of the Bund with the rest of the parts of the party was not only much weaker than the connection between other organizations, but was also becoming progressively weaker. That the Bund itself weakened this connection is directly demonstrated by the history of the foreign organizations of our party. In 1898, members of the Bund were part of one general party organization abroad; by 1903, they had separated into a completely independent foreign organization. The independence and self-reliance of the Bund is beyond question, as is their gradual strengthening.

What follows from this undoubted fact? For the Bundists – from this follows the necessity to bow before this fact, to slavishly submit to it, to convert it into a principle, into the sole principle that gives a firm basis for the position of the Bund, to enshrine this principle in the statute, which should recognize the Bund as the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat in the party. In our view, however, such a conclusion is the purest opportunism, "tailism" of the worst sort. From the five-year history of fragmentation, one should draw not the conclusion about the enshrinement of fragmentation, but about the necessity to end it once and for all. And surely no one can any longer deny that this was indeed genuine fragmentation? All parts of the party developed independently and separately during this time – should one not already from this draw the "principle" of federation between Siberia, the Caucasus, the Urals, the South, etc.?? The Bundists themselves say that the party, in the sense of organizational unification of its parts, did not exist in fact – then how can one draw conclusions about the restoration of organizational unity from what developed during the non-existence of the party? No, gentlemen, your reference to the history of fragmentation, which created separation, proves nothing whatsoever except the abnormality of this separated state. To derive an organizational "principle" from several years of party disorganization means to act like those representatives of the historical school who, by a famous sarcastic remark of Marx, were prepared to defend the knout on the ground that it was a historical knout{45}.

Thus, neither the "logical analysis" of autonomy, nor the historical references can in the slightest provide even a shadow of "principled" justification for the Bund's separation. On the other hand, the third argument of the Bund undoubtedly has a principled character, consisting as it does in an appeal to the idea of the Jewish nation. Unfortunately, however, this Zionist idea is completely false and reactionary in its essence. "Jews have ceased to exist as a nation, inconceivable without a definite territory," says one of the most outstanding Marxist theoreticians, Karl Kautsky (see № 42 of *Iskra* and separate offprint from it: "The Kishinev Massacre and the Jewish Question," p. 3). And recently, examining the question of nationalities in Austria, the same writer, attempting to give a scientific definition of the concept of nationality, establishes two basic characteristics of this concept: language and territory (*Die Neue Zeit*{46}, 1903, № 2). Word for word the same thing is written by a French Jew, the radical Alfred Naquet, polemicizing with anti-Semites and Zionists. "If Bernard Lazare," he says of the well-known Zionist, "sees fit to consider himself a citizen of a special people, that is his affair; but I declare that, although I was born a Jew, I do not recognize Jewish nationality… I have no other nationality than the French… Do Jews constitute a special people? Although in the very distant past they were undoubtedly a people, nevertheless I answer this question with a categorical no. The concept of a people presupposes certain conditions which are not present in this case. A people must have a territory on which it might develop, and then in our time, at any rate, as long as the world confederation has not yet expanded this basis, a people must have a common language. The Jews no longer have either territory or a common language… Bernard Lazare, certainly like me, did not know a word of Hebrew and it would not have been easy for him, had Zionism achieved its goal, to come to an understanding with his compatriots (congénères) from other parts of the world" (*La Petite République*, 24 Sept. 1903){47}. "German and French Jews are entirely unlike Polish and Russian Jews. The characteristic features of Jews have nothing about them that bears the imprint (empreinte) of nationality. If it were permissible, together with Drumont, to recognize Jews as a nation, it would be an artificial nation. The modern Jew is a product of unnatural selection to which his ancestors were subjected over almost 18 centuries." The Bundists are left with nothing but to elaborate the idea of a special nationality of Russian Jews, whose language is jargon and whose territory is the Pale of Settlement.

The idea of a special Jewish people, completely untenable from a scientific standpoint,[28] is reactionary in its political significance. Irrefutable practical proof of this is furnished by the well-known facts of recent history and contemporary political reality. Throughout all of Europe, the fall of the medieval period and the development of political freedom went hand in hand with the political emancipation of Jews, their transition from jargon to the language of the people among whom they live, and generally with undoubted progress in their assimilation with the surrounding population. Must we again return to theories of national particularity and declare that Russia will be an exception, although the liberation movement of Jews is much deeper and much broader in Russia, thanks to the awakening of heroic self-consciousness among the Jewish proletariat? Can it be explained by chance that it is precisely the reactionary forces of all Europe and especially of Russia that rise up against the assimilation of Jewry and strive to fix its separation?

The Jewish question stands precisely thus: assimilation or separation? – and the idea of Jewish "nationality" bears a patently reactionary character not only in the consistent supporters of it (the Zionists), but also in those who attempt to reconcile it with the ideas of social-democracy (the Bundists). The idea of Jewish nationality contradicts the interests of the Jewish proletariat, creating in it directly and indirectly a mood hostile to assimilation, a "ghetto" mood. "When the National Assembly of 1791 decreed the emancipation of Jews," wrote Renan, "it concerned itself very little with the question of race… The business of the nineteenth century is the destruction of all 'ghettos,' and I will not congratulate those who strive for their restoration. The Jewish race has rendered the world the greatest services. Being assimilated with various nations, harmoniously merged with various national units, it will in the future render services corresponding to those it has rendered in the past." And Karl Kautsky, speaking specifically of Russian Jews, expresses himself even more vigorously. Hostility toward foreign population elements can only be eliminated "by the fact that the foreign population elements cease to be foreign, merge with the general mass of the population. This is the sole possible solution of the Jewish question, and we must support everything that tends to eliminate Jewish separation." And here, the Bund acts against this sole possible solution, not eliminating but intensifying and enshrining Jewish separation through the propagation of the idea of a Jewish "nation" and the project of federation of Jewish with non-Jewish proletarians. This is the fundamental error of "Bundism," which must be and will be corrected by the consistent representatives of Jewish social-democracy. This error leads the Bundists to such an unprecedented thing in international social-democracy as the arousal of distrust of Jewish proletarians toward non-Jewish, suspicion of the latter, the spread of falsehoods about them. Here is the proof, taken from the same pamphlet: "Such an absurdity (that an organization of the proletariat of an entire nationality be deprived of representation in the central organs of the party) can be openly preached only (note this!) with respect to the Jewish proletariat, which, by virtue of the special historical destinies of the Jewish people, still must struggle for an equal position (!!) in the family of the world proletariat." We encountered recently precisely such an outburst in a Zionist sheet, whose authors rave and rage against *Iskra*, seeing in its struggle with the Bund an unwillingness to recognize the "equality" of the Jew with the non-Jew. And now the Bundists repeat Zionist outrages! Outright falsehoods are being spread, because we have "only" with respect to Jews, and also with respect to Armenians, Georgians, and others, "preached" "deprivation of representation," and toward Poles we have called for rapprochement, unification, merger of all the proletariat fighting against the Tsar's autocracy. It is not for nothing that the PPS (Polish Socialist Party) also attacked us! To call one's struggle for the Zionist idea of a Jewish nation, for the federative principle of organizing the party, a "struggle for the equal position of Jews in the family of the world proletariat" – means to lower the struggle from the realm of ideas and principles into the realm of suspicions, incitement, and the kindling of historically accumulated prejudices. It means to demonstrate openly the lack of genuinely ideological and principled weapons in one's struggle.

We have arrived, therefore, at the conclusion that neither the logical, nor the historical, nor the nationalist arguments of the Bund withstand any criticism. The period of fragmentation, having intensified the vacillations among Russian social-democrats and the separation of individual organizations, had an effect in the same direction and even more strongly on the Bundists. Instead of making their slogan the struggle against this historically accumulated (and by fragmentation intensified) separation, they raised it to a principle, seizing upon sophistries about the internal contradictoriness of autonomy, upon the Zionist idea of a Jewish nation. Only a decisive and direct acknowledgment of this error and the proclamation of a turn toward merger can turn the Bund away from the erroneous path it has taken. And we are confident that the best representatives of social-democratic ideas among the Jewish proletariat will sooner or later force the Bund to turn from the path of separation to the path of merger.

*Iskra* № 51, 22 October 1903
Printed according to the text of *Iskra*