V. I.

Lenin

Wehave just received No. 106 of the Bund’s Posledniye Izvestia
(dated February 3/January

21[ Second date Old Style.— Ed . ]), which reports an exceptionally important, drastic and highly lamentable
step taken by the Bund. It appears that in Russia there has come out a
statement of the Central Committee of the Bund on the announcement of the
Organising Committee. As a matter of fact, it would be more correct to
say: a statement on the footnote in the announcement of the
Organising Committee, for it is mainly this single footnote that
the Bund deals with in its statement.

Thisis what it is all about. As our readers know, the Organising
Committee stated in this terrible “footnote,” which (ostensibly!)
was the spark that set the forest on fire, literally the following:

“The Bund was also invited to send its representative to the
Organising Committee, but for reasons unknown to us, the Bund did not
respond to this invitation. We hope that these reasons were purely
accidental, and that the Bund will not delay in sending its representative."[ See p. 308 of this volume.— Ed . ]

What,we ask, could be more natural and innocent than this footnote? How
else could the O.C. have acted? To avoid mentioning the Bund would have
been wrong, since the O.C. did not and could not ignore it so long as the
Bund, on the basis of the decision of the Party Congress in 1898, was
affiliated to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. And once we did
mention it, we had to state that we had invited it. Clear enough, one
would think? And it is even clearer that if the O.C. did not know the
reasons for the Bund’s silence, this is exactly what should have been stated:
“for reasons unknown to us.” By adding the words: we hope that these
reasons were purely accidental and that the Bund will not delay
in sending its representative—the O.C. openly and straightforwardly
expressed its desire to work together with the Bund for the
organisation of the congress and the re-establishment of the Party.

Obviously,if the Bund also shared this desire, it would only have to send
its representative, who was invited both through secret channels
and in the press announcement. Instead, the Bund enters into polemics with a footnote (!!), and in a printed statement gives a
separate and particular exposition of its opinions and views on the tasks of the O.C. and the conditions for convoking a
congress. Prior to examining the Bund’s “polemic” and analysing its views, we must protest most emphatically against
the Bund coming out with a separate statement in the press, since such
action is an infringement of the most elementary rules governing the
joint conduct of revolutionary activities and especially
organisational activities. One of two things, gentlemen. Either you do not want to work in one common O.C., in which case no one,
of course, will complain of your acting separately, or you want to work
jointly, in which case you are in duty bound to state your views,
not in separate statements to the public, but to the comrades on the O.C.,
which comes out publicly only as an integral body.

The Bund itself is, of course, fully aware that its action flies in the
face of all rules of comradely conduct of common affairs, and it
attempts to take refuge in the following feeble justification:
“Since we have had no possibility to express our views on the tasks
of the forthcoming congress either through personal attendance at the
conference or through participation in drawing up the ’Announcement,’ we
are obliged to make up for this omission, at least to some extent, by the
present statement.” The question arises: does the Bund really intend in
all seriousness to assure us that it had “no possibility” to
send a letter to the O.C.? Or to send a letter to the St. Petersburg
Committee? Or to the Iskra organisation, or Yuzhny Rabochy? And besides was there no possibility for the Bund to send
its delegate to one of these organisations? Did the Bund try to take at
least one of these “impossibly” difficult steps, which very likely were
especially difficult for an organisation so weak, inexperienced and
lacking in all links as the Bund?

Stopthis game of hide-and-seek, gentlemen! It is both stupid and
unbefitting. You acted separately because you wanted to act
separately. And you wanted to act separately in order to indicate and
immediately carry out your decision to place your relations with
the Russian comrades on a new footing: not to affiliate
to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party on the basis of the Rules of
1898, but to enter into a federative alliance with it. Instead of
discussing this question in detail and comprehensively before the
entire congress, as we wanted to do, when for a very long time we refrained from continuing the polemic we started on the question of
federation and nationality [1] —instead of doing this, as all or
the vast majority of the Russian comrades undoubtedly wanted to do, you
wrecked joint discussion. You did not act as a fellow comrade of
St. Petersburg, the South, and Iskra , one who desired to discuss
together with them the best form of relations (both prior to the congress and at the congress ); you acted as a
contracting party , apart from all the members of the R.S.D.L.P.,
presenting your own terms to the whole of this Party.

Lovecannot be forced, says the Russian proverb. If the Bund does not want
to remain in the closest alliance with the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party, which was properly recommended by the Congress of 1898, then
of course it will cease to maintain the old relations. We do not deny the
“right” of the Bund to express its opinion and its desire (in
general, we do not indulge in talk about “rights” in the cause
of revolution except in cases of dire necessity). But we do very much
regret the fact that the Bund has shown so little tact as to give
expression to its opinion in a separate public statement when it was
invited to enter a common organisation (the O.C.) which had not expressed in advance any hard and fast opinion on the given question
and was calling a congress for the express purpose of discussing each and
every opinion.

The Bund wanted to provoke an immediate declaration of opinions
on the part of all those who entertain different views on this
question. Very well! We, of course, shall not refuse to do so. We shall tell the Russian proletariat, and shall
specially repeat to the Jewish proletariat, that the present Bund leaders
are committing a grave political error, which will undoubtedly be
corrected by time, experience, and the growth of the movement. At one time
the Bund sup ported “economism,” helped to bring about the split
abroad, and adopted resolutions stating that the economic struggle is the
best means of political agitation. We rose up against this and
fought it. And the fight helped to rectify the old mistakes, of which very
likely not even a trace has remained. We fought against the urge towards
terrorism, which to all appearances vanished even more rapidly. We are
convinced that nationalist passion too will vanish. In the end the Jewish
proletariat will understand that its most vital interests demand the
closest unity with the Russian proletariat in one party, that it
is the height of folly to decide in advance whether the evolution of the
Jewish people in free Russia will differ from its evolution in free
Europe, that the Bund ought not to go beyond the demand (in the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party) for the complete autonomy in matters
concerning the Jewish proletariat, which was fully recognised by the 1898
Congress and which has never been denied by anyone.

Butlet us return to the Bund’s statement. It terms the footnote to the
“Announcement” of the O.C. “ambiguous.” This is an untruth that borders on malicious slander. A few lines later, the Bund’s
Central Committee itself admits that the “reasons for our
representative’s absence from the conference were purely accidental.” And
what did the O.C. say? It expressed the hope that it was only for
accidental reasons that the representative of the Bund did not attend. You
yourselves confirm this assumption and then grow angry over it. Why is
that? Further. No one can know of accidental occurrences in
advance. Hence, the assertion of the Bund’s Foreign Committee that the
O.C. knew the reasons that prevented the representative from
appearing is absolutely unfounded. The Bund’s Foreign Committee is in
general playing a very unseemly part in this affair: the Bun d’s Foreign
Committee supplements the statement of the Bund’s Central Committee with
its own inventions, which flatly contradict the words of even the
C. C. itself! How could the

Bund’s Foreign Committee ascertain that the O.C. knew the reasons
for the Bund’s absence, when it was the C.C. (and not the Foreign
Committee) of the Bund that was invited, and when the C.C. itself says
that the reasons for this absence were purely accidental??

“Weare convinced,” says the Bund’s C.C., “that had the initiators of the conference taken a little more trouble, these accidental
reasons could not have kept us from responding....” We would ask any
impartial person: if two comrades who are preparing to get together in the
O.C. admit in a single voice that the reasons which prevented the meeting
were “purely accidental,” is it not out of place and unseemly to
start a public polemic on who is more to blame for the non-appearance? On our part, let us remark that we long ago expressed our
regret (of course, not in the press, but in a letter) over the absence of
the Bund, and we were informed that the Bund had been invited
twice: first, by letter, and then by word of mouth through the
X. Committee of the Bund.

Thedelegate arrived almost a month after the conference, the
Bund complains. Yes, this is a terrible crime, and, of course, it deserves
public exposure, since it lends particular conspicuousness to the
punctuality of the Bund, which has not got round to sending a delegate
even after two months have passed!

Thedelegate “did not keep his promise” to send the “Announcement” of the O.C. either in manuscript or in printed
form, but without fail prior to its distribution.... We advise
our Russian comrades not to talk to certain people without making a record
of the conversation. We too were promised by the Iskra organisation that we would be sent both the manuscript and a printed copy
of the “Announcement,” but nevertheless we did not receive the
manuscript at all, and saw the printed copy much later than
members of organisations which have no contacts with the Iskra
organisation. Let the Bundists decide the question of whether it would be
seemly on our part if we began to publish accusations against the
Iskra organisation of having broken its promise. The delegate of
the O.C. promised the Bund’s C.C. to write at once to the comrade charged
with the printing of the “Announcement” about holding up the
printing: this was actually promised (so far as we can judge from
information at our disposal).

This promise was kept, but it was too late to stop the printing, since
there was no time to get in touch with the printshop.

Tosum up: the O.C. initiators wrote letters, made a personal announcement
through the X. Committee, and sent a delegate to the Bund’s Central
Committee, while for months the Bund did not send a single letter , let alone a delegate! And yet the Bund comes out in the press
with accusations! And strangely enough the Bund’s Foreign Committee
affirms that the initiators of the conference behaved “strangely,”
that their activities are decidedly at variance with their aim, that they
displayed “haste” (the Bund’s C.C., on the contrary, accuses
them of slowness!), that they merely want to “create the
impression” that the Bund “was indifferent”!!

Wehave still to say a few words about the charge against the O.C. that it
has not drawn “the only correct conclusion,” namely: “Since
actually there is no party, the forthcoming congress should be in the
nature of a constituent congress, and, therefore, the right to participate
in it should be accord ed to all Social-Democratic organisations in
Russia, both Russian and those of all other nationalities.” The Bund is
trying to get round the unpleasant fact that, since it does not have a
single centre, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party consists of a
number of committees and organs, and possesses a “Manifesto”
and resolutions of the First Congress, at which, incidentally, the Jewish
proletariat was also represented by people who had not yet made their mark
in “economist,” terrorist, and nationalist waverings. By formally
advancing the “right” of “all” nationalities to found the long-ago-founded Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, the
Bund manifestly confirms that it is precisely over the question of the
notorious “federation” that it has raised the whole issue. But
the Bund should be the last to raise this question, and it is not about
“rights” that the issue should be raised among serious revolutionaries. Everyone knows that the question of cementing and uniting
a basic nucleus of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is on the
order of the day. We cannot but favour representation of “all”
nationalities at the congress, but at the same time we must remember that
we can think of expanding the nucleus or allying it with other
organisations only after the formation of this nucleus has been completed (or, at
the very least, after there is no doubt about its stability). Until we
have ourselves become united organisationally and have firmly set out
along the correct path, amalgamation with us will not give anything to
“all other” nationalities! And the answer to the question of
the possibility (and not of the “right,” gentlemen!) of
“all other” nationalities being represented at our congress
depends on a number of tactical and organisational steps by the O.C. and
the Russian committees, depends, in short, on how successful the activity
of the O.C. will be. It is a historical fact that from the very outset the
Bund has tried to put a spoke in the wheel of the O.C.

---
Notes:
[1]
The polemic between Iskra and the Bund on the question of the
latter’s organisational relations with the R.S.D.L.P. arose out of the
decision of the Bund congress (in April 1901) to insist upon the
federative principle of Party structure. Iskra opposed this
decision. In a number of articles and in his speeches at the Second Party
Congress, Lenin sharply criticised the Bund’s nationalism.