V. I.
Lenin

Underthis title the Bund has published a translation of an
article from No. 34 of the

Arbeiterstimme . [3]
This article, accompanying the decisions of the Fifth Bund Congress,
represents as it were an official commentary on those decisions. It attempts to give a systematic exposition of all
the arguments which lead to the conclusion that the Bund
“must be a federated component of the Party”. It will be interesting to examine these arguments.

Theauthor begins by stating that the most burning question
facing the Russian Social-Democratic movement is the question of
unity. On what basis can it be effected? The Manifesto of

1898 [4] took the principle of autonomy as the basis. The author examines
this principle and finds it to be logically false and inherently
contradictory. If by questions which specifically concern the
Jewish proletariat are meant only such as relate to methods of
agitation (with reference to the specific language, mentality
and culture of the Jews), that will be technical (?) autonomy. But such autonomy will mean the destruction
of all independence, for it is an autonomy enjoyed by every
Party committee, and to put the Bund on a par with the committees will be a denial of autonomy. If, on the other hand,
autonomy is understood to mean autonomy in some questions of the
programme, it is unreasonable to deprive the Bund of all
independence in the other questions of the programme; and
independence in questions of programme necessarily involves
representation of the Bund, as such, on the central bodies of
the Party—that is, not autonomy, but federation. A sound
basis for the position of the Bund in the Party must be sought in the history of the Jewish revolutionary movement
in Russia, and what that history shows is that all organisations
active among the Jewish workers joined to form a single
union—the Bund—and that its activities spread from
Lithuania to Poland and then to the South of
Russia. Consequently, history broke down all regional barriers
and brought forward the Bund as the sole representative of the
Jewish proletariat. And there you have a principle which is not
the fruit of an idle brain (?) but follows from the whole
history of the Jewish working-class movement: the Bund is the
sole representative of the interests of the Jewish proletariat. And, naturally, the organisation of the proletariat
of a whole nationality can enter the Party only if the latter
has a federal structure: the Jewish proletariat is not only part
of the world family of proletarians, but also part of the Jewish
nation, which occupies a special position among-the nations. Lastly, it is federation that denotes close unity
between the component elements of the Party, for its chief
feature is direct participation by each of them in Party
affairs, and they all feel they have equal rights. Under
autonomy, on the other hand, the components of the Party have no
rights, and there is indifference to its common affairs, and
mutual distrust, friction and conflict.

Suchis the author’s line of argument, which we have presented
almost entirely in his, own words. It boils down to three
things: considerations of a general nature as to the inherent
contradictoriness of autonomy and its unsuitability from the
standpoint of close unity between the components of the Party;
lessons from history, which has made the Bund the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat; and, lastly, the
affirmation that the Jewish proletariat is the proletariat of a
whole nationality, a nationality occupying a special position. Thus the author endeavours to build his case on
general principles of organisation, on the lessons of history,
and on the idea of nationality. He tries—we must give him
his due—to examine the matter from all angles. And for that very reason his statement of the case brings out so
saliently the attitude of the Bund on this question which is of
deep concern to all of us.

Underfederation, we are told, the components of the Party have
equal rights and share directly in its common affairs; under
autonomy they have no rights, and as such do not share in the
general life of the Party. This argument belongs entirely to
the realm of obvious fallacies; it is as like as two peas to
those arguments which mathematicians call mathematical sophistries, and which prove— quite logically, at first
glance—that twice two are five, that the part is greater
than the whole, and so on. There are collections of such
mathematical sophistries, and they are of some value to school
children. But it is even embarrassing to have to explain to
people who claim to be the sole representatives of the Jewish
proletariat so elementary a sophistry as the attribution of
different meanings to the term “component of the
Party” in two parts of one and the same argument. When they speak of federation, they mean by a component of the Party
a sum-total of organisations in different localities; but when
they speak of autonomy, they mean by it each local organisation
separately. Put these supposedly identical concepts side by side
in the same syllogism, and you will arrive inevitably at the
conclusion that twice two are five. And if the Bundists are
still unclear as to the nature of their sophistry, let them consult
their own maximum Rules and they will see that it is under
federation that the local organisations communicate with the
Party centre indirectly, and under autonomy— directly. No,
our federalists would do better not to talk about “close
unity"! By trying to disprove that federation means the
isolation , and autonomy the fusion of the different components of the Party, they only provoke hilarity.

Hardlymore successful is the attempt to prove the “logical falsity” of autonomy by dividing the latter
into programme autonomy and technical autonomy. The division
itself is utterly absurd. Why should the specific methods of
agitation among Jewish workers be classed under technical
questions? What has technique to do with it, when it is a matter
of peculiarities of language, mentality, conditions of life? How
can you talk of independence in questions of programme in
connection, for example, with the demand for civil equality for
the Jews? The Social-Democratic programme only sets forth the
basic demands, common to the entire proletariat, irrespective of occupational, local,
national, or racial distinctions. The effect of these distinctions is that one and the same demand for complete
equality of citizens before the law gives rise to agitation against one form
of inequality in one locality and against another form of
inequality in another locality or in relation to other groups of
the proletariat, and so on. One and the same point in the
programme will be applied differently depending on differences
in conditions of life, differences of culture, differences in
the relation of social forces in different parts of the country,
and so forth. Agitation on behalf of one and the same demand in
the programme will be carried on in different ways and in
different languages taking into account all these differences. Consequently, autonomy in questions specifically
concerning the proletariat of a given race, nation, or district
implies that it is left to the discretion of the organisation
concerned to determine the specific demands to be advanced in
pursuance of the common programme, and the methods of agitation
to be employed. The Party as a whole, its central institutions,
lay down the common fundamental principles of programme and
tactics; as to the different methods of carrying out these
principles in practice and agitating for them, they are laid
down by the various Party organisations subordinate to the
centre, depending on local, racial, national, cultural, and
other differences.

Isthere anything unclear about this conception of autonomy? And is it
not the sheerest scholasticism to make a division into programme
autonomy and technical autonomy?

Justsee how the concept autonomy is “logically analysed” in the pamphlet we are examining. “From
the total body of questions with which the Social-Democrats have to
deal," the pamphlet says in connection with the autonomy
principle taken as the basis in the 1898 Manifesto, “there
are singled out [sic!!1 some questions, which, it is recognised,
specifically concern the Jewish proletariat.... Where the
realm of general questions begins, the autonomy of the Bund
ends.... This gives rise to a duality in the position of the
Bund in the Party: in specific questions it acts as the Bund
... in general questions it loses its distinctive character and
is put on a par with an ordinary committee of the Party...." The Social-Democratic programme demands complete
equality of all citizens before the law. in pursuance of that programme the Jewish worker in Vilna puts forward one
specific demand, and the Bashkir worker in Ufa an entirely
different specific demand. Does that mean that “from the
total body of questions” “some are singled out"? If the general demand for equality is embodied in a
number of specific demands for the abolition of specific forms
of inequality, is that a singling out of the specific from the general questions? The specific demands are not singled
out from the general demands of the programme, but are advanced
in pursuance of them. What is singled out is what specifically concerns the Jew in Vilna as distinct from what
specifically concerns the Bashkir in Ufa. The generalisation of
their demands, the representation of their common class interests (and not of their specific occupational, racial,
local, national, or other interests) is the affair of the whole
Party, of the Party centre. That would surely seem clear. enough! The reason the Bundists have muddled it is that,
instead of logical analysis, they have again and again given us
specimens of logical fallacies. They have entirely failed to
grasp the relation between the Social-Democrats’ general and
specific demands. They imagine that “from the total body
of questions with which the Social-Democrats have to deal, some
questions are singled out”, when actually every question dealt with in our programme is a generalisation of a
number of specific questions and demands; every point in the programme is common to the entire proletariat,
while at the same time it is subdivided into specific questions
depending on the proletarians’ different occupations, their
different conditions of life, differences of language, and so on
and so forth. The Bundists are disturbed by the contradictoriness and duality of the position of the Bund,
consisting, don’t you see, in the fact that in specific
questions it acts as the Bund, while in general questions it
loses its distinctive character. A little reflection would show
them that such a “duality” exists in the position of absolutely every Social-Democratic worker, who in
specific questions acts as a worker in a particular trade, a
member of a particular nation, an inhabitant of a particular
locality, while in general questions he “loses his distinctive character” and is put on a par with
every other Social-Democrat. The autonomy of the
Bund, under the Rules of 1898, is of exactly the same nature
as the autonomy of the Tula Committee; only the limits of
this autonomy are somewhat different and somewhat wider in the
former case than in the latter. And there is nothing but a
crying logical fallacy in the following argument, by which the
Bund tries to refute this conclusion: “If the Bund is allowed independence in some questions of the
programme , on what grounds is it deprived of all independence in the other questions of the
programme?" This contrasting of specific and general questions
as “some” and “the others” is an inimitable specimen of Bundist “logical analysis"!
These people simply cannot understand that it is like contrasting the different colours, tastes, and fragrances of
particular apples to the number of “other” apples. We make bold to inform you,
gentlemen, that not only some, but every apple has its special
taste, colour, and fragrance. Not only in “some” questions of the programme, but in all with out exception , you are allowed independence, gentlemen, but
only as far as concerns their application to the specific
features of the Jewish proletariat. Mein teuerer Freund, ich rat’ Euch drum zuerst Collegium logicum!" [1]

Thesecond argument of the Bundists is an appeal to history, which is
supposed to have brought forward the Bund as the sole representative
of the Jewish proletariat.

Inthe first place, this is not true. The author of the pamphlet
himself says that “the work of other organisations
[besides the Bund] in this direction [i.e., among the Jewish
proletariat] either yielded no results at all, or results too
insignificant to merit attention”. Hence, on his own admission, there was such work, and consequently the Bund
was not the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat; as regards the results of this work, no one, of
course, will rely on the Bunch’s opinion; and, lastly, it is a
known fact that the Bund interfered with the work of other organisations among the Jewish proletariat (we have only
to mention the well-known incident of its campaign against the

Ekaterinoslav Party Committee for daring to issue a proclamation to
the Jewish workers [5] ), so that even if the results did indeed merit
no attention, the Bund itself would be partly to blame.

Further,the measure of truth contained in the Bund’s historical
reference does not in the least prove the soundness of its
arguments. The facts which did take place and which the Bund has
in mind speak against it, not for it. These facts are that the
Bund existed and developed—during the five years since the
First Congress—quite separately and independently from the other organisations of the Party. In general, the actual
ties between all Party organisations during this period were
very weak, but the ties between the Bund and the rest of the
Party were not only far weaker than those between the other
organisations, but they kept growing weaker all the time. That
the Bund itself weakened these ties is directly proved by the history of our Party’s organisations abroad. In 1898, the
Bund members abroad belonged to the one common Party organisation; but by 1903 they had left it to form a completely
separate and independent organisation. The separateness and
independence of the Bund is beyond question, as is also the
fact that it has steadily become more pronounced.

Whatfollows from this unquestionable fact? What follows in the
opinion of the Bundists is that one must bow to this fact,
slavishly submit to it, turn it into a principle, into the sole
principle providing a sound basis for the position of the Bund,
and legitimise this principle in tie Rules, which should
recognise the Bund as the sole representative of the Jewish
proletariat in the Party. In our opinion, on the other hand,
such a conclusion is the sheerest opportunism, “tail-ism” [6] of
the worst kind. The conclusion to be drawn from the five years of disunity is not
that this disunity should be legitimised, but that an end should
be put to it once and for all. And will anybody still venture to
deny that it really was disunity? All component parts of the Party developed separately and independently during this
period—are we perhaps to deduce from this the “principle” of federation between Siberia, the
Caucasus, the Urals, the South, and the rest?? The Bundists
themselves say that, as regards organisational unity of its components, the Party virtually did not
exist— and how can what evolved when the Party did not exist be taken as a pattern for the restoration of
organisational unity? No, gentlemen, your reference to the
history of the disunity that gave rise to isolation proves
nothing whatever except that this isolation is abnormal. To
deduce a “principle” of organisation from several years of disorganisation in the Party is to
act like those representatives of the historical school who, as
Marx sarcastically observed, were prepared to defend the knout
on the grounds that it was historical.

Hence,neither the “logical analysis” of autonomy nor the appeals to history can provide even the shadow of a
“principle” justifying the isolation of the
Bund. But the Bund’s third argument, which invokes the idea of a
Jewish nation, is undoubtedly of the nature of a principle. Unfortunately, however, this Zionist idea is
absolutely false and essentially reactionary. “The Jews
have ceased to be a nation, for a nation without a territory is
unthinkable," says one of the most prominent of Marxist
theoreticians, Karl Kautsky (see No. 42 of Iskra and the
separate reprint from it The Kishinev Massacre and the Jewish Question , p. 3). And quite recently, examining the
problem of nationalities in Austria, the same writer endeavoured
to give a scientific definition of the concept nationality and
established two principal criteria of a nationality: language
and territory (Neue Zeit , [7]
1903, No. 2). A French Jew, the radical Alfred Naquet, says practically the same thing,
word for word, in his controversy with the anti-Semites and the

Zionists. [8] “If it pleased Bernard Lazare," he writes of
the well-known Zionist, “to consider himself a citizen of
a separate nation, that is his affair; but I declare that,
although I was born a Jew... I do not recognise Jewish nationality.... I belong to no other nation but the
French.... Are the Jews a nation? Although they were one in the
remote past, my reply is a categorical negative. The concept nation implies certain conditions which do not exist in
this case. A nation must have a territory on which to develop,
and, in our time at least, until a world confederation has
extended this basis, a nation must have a common language. And
the Jews no longer have either a territory or a common language.... Like
myself, Bernard Lazare probably did not know a word of Hebrew,
and would have found it no easy matter, if Zionism had achieved
its purpose, to make himself under stood to his co-racials
[ congénères ] from other parts of the world” (La Petite République , September 24,
1903). “German and French Jews are quite unlike Polish and
Russian
Jews. The characteristic features of the Jews include nothing
that bears the imprint [empreinte] of nationality. If it were permissible to recognise the Jews as a nation, as
Drumont does, it would be an artificial nation. The modern Jew
is a product of the unnatural selection to which his forebears
were subjected for nearly eighteen centuries." All that remains
for the Bundists is to develop the theory of a separate
Russian-Jewish nation, whose language is Yiddish and their
territory the Pale of

Settlement. [9]

Absolutelyuntenable scientifically, [2] the idea that the Jews
form a separate nation is reactionary politically. Irrefutable
practical proof of that is furnished by generally known facts of
recent history and of present-day political realities. All over
Europe, the decline of medievalism and the development of
political liberty went hand in hand with the political emancipation of the Jews, their abandonment of Yiddish for the
language of the people among whom they lived, and, in general,
their undeniable progressive assimilation with the surrounding
population. Are we again to revert to the exceptionalist
theories and pro claim that Russia will be the one exception,
although the Jewish emancipation movement is far broader and
deeper-rooted here, thanks to the awakening of a heroic class- consciousness
among the Jewish proletariat? Can we possibly attribute to chance the
fact that it is the reactionary forces all over Europe, and especially
in Russia, who oppose the assimilation of the Jews and try to
perpetuate their isolation?

Thatis precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to :
assimilation or isolation?—and the idea of a Jewish “nationality” is definitely reactionary not only
when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but
likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the
ideas of Social-Democracy (the Bundists). The idea of a Jewish
nationality runs counter to the interests of the Jewish
proletariat, for it fosters among them, directly or indirectly,
a spirit hostile to assimilation, the spirit of the “ghetto”. “When the National Assembly of
1791 decreed the emancipation of the Jews," writes
Renan, “it was very little concerned with the question of
race.... It is the business of the nineteenth century to abolish
all ‘ghettos’, and I cannot compliment those who seek to restore
them. The Jewish race has rendered the world the greatest
services. Assimilated with the various nations, harmoniously
blended with the various national units, it will render no
lesser services in the future than in the past." And Karl
Kautsky, in particular reference to the Russian Jews, expresses
him self even more vigorously. Hostility towards non-native
sections of the population can only be eliminated “when
the non-native sections of the population cease to be alien and
blend with the general mass of the population. That is the only possible solution of the Jewish problem, and we should support everything that makes for the ending of Jewish isolation." Yet the Bund is resisting this only possible
solution, for it is helping, not to end but to increase and
legitimise Jewish isolation, by propagating the idea of a Jewish
“nation” and a plan of federating Jewish and non-
Jewish proletarians. That is the basic mistake of “Bundism”, which consistent Jewish Social-Democrats
must and will correct. This mistake drives the Bundists to actions
unheard-of in the international Social-Democratic movement, such
as stirring up distrust among Jewish towards non-Jewish
proletarians, fostering suspicion of the latter and disseminating falsehoods about them. Here is proof, taken from
this same pamphlet: “Such an absurdity (as that the organisation of the proletariat of a whole nationality should be
denied representation on the central Party bodies I could be
openly advocated only [mark that! I in regard to the Jewish
proletariat, which, owing to the peculiar historical fortunes
of the Jewish people, still has to fight for equality I!!] in
the world family of the proletariat." We recently came across
just such a trick in a Zionist leaflet, whose authors raved and
fumed against Iskra , purporting to detect in its struggle with the Bund a refusal to recognise the
“equality” of Jew and non-Jew. And now we find the
Bundists repeating the tricks of the Zionists! This is disseminating an outright falsehood, for we have
“advocated” “denying representation” not “only” to the Jews, but also to the Armenians, the
Georgians and so on, and in the case of the Poles, too, we
called for the closest union and fusion of the entire proletariat fighting against the tsarist autocracy. It was not
for nothing that the P.S.P. (Polish Socialist Party) raged and
fulminated against us! To call a fight for the Zionist idea of a Jewish nation, for the federal
principle of Party organisation, a “fight for the equality of the Jews in the world family of the proletariat” is to degrade the struggle from the
plane of ideas and principles to that of suspicion, incitement
and fanning of historically-evolved prejudices. It glaringly
reveals a lack of real ideas and principles as weapons of
struggle.

* * *
Wethus arrive at the conclusion that neither the logical, nor
the historical, nor yet the nationalist arguments of the Bund
will stand criticism. The period of disunity, which aggravated
waverings among the Russian Social-Democrats and the isolation
of the various organisations, had the same effect, to an even
more marked degree, in the case of the Bundists. Instead of
proclaiming war on this historically evolved isolation (further
increased by the general disunity), they elevated it to a
principle, seizing for this purpose on the sophistry that
autonomy is inherently contradictory, and on the Zionist idea of
a Jewish nation.

Only if it frankly and resolutely admits its mistake and sets out to
move towards fusion can the Bund turn away from the false
path it has taken. And we are convinced that the finest adherents of
Social-Democratic ideas among the Jewish proletariat will sooner or
later compel the Bund to turn from the path of isolation to that of
fusion.

---
Notes:
[1]
“Hence, my dear friend, I would advise you to begin with college logic.” [10] — Ed.

[2]
Not only national, but even racial peculiarities are denied to the Jews by modern scientific
investigators, who give prime prominence to the peculiarities of the
history of the Jews. “Do the peculiarities of Jewry spring from its racial character?" Karl Kautsky asks, and replies that
we do not even know with precision what race means. “There is no
need to bring in the concept race, which provides no real answer but
only poses new problems. It is enough to trace the history of the Jews
to ascertain the reasons for their characteristics." And such an
expert in this history as Renan says: “The characteristic
features of the Jews and their manner of life are far more a product
of the social conditions [nécessités sociales] by which they
have been influenced for centuries than a racial distinction
phénome ne de race ].” [11]
— Lenin

[3]
The Arbeiterstimme (Worker’s Voice ) was the
Central Organ of the Bund; it appeared from 1897 to 1905.

[4]
The reference is to the decision of the First Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. that the Bund “is affiliated to the Party as an autonomous
organisation independent only in regard to questions specifically
concerning the Jewish proletariat”. (The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences, and Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee , 1954, Part I, p. 14.)

[10]
Mephistopheles’ injunction to the student in Goethe’s Faust .

[5]
The incident of the Bund’s campaign against the Ekaterinoslav Party
Committee is described in Lenin’s article “Does the Jewish Proletariat
Need an ‘Independent Political Party’?" (present edition, Vol. 6,
pp. 330-35).

[6]
“Tail-ism” (khvostism), “tail-enders"—expressions originally coined by Lenin to
describe the Economists (see Note 59), who denied the leading role of the
Party and the importance of theory in the working-class movement; their
position implied that the Party should trail after the spontaneously
developing movement, follow in the tail of events.

[7]
Neue Zeit (New Times)—the theoretical journal of the German
Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923; edited
until October 1917 by Karl Kautsky and subsequently by Heinrich Cunow. Some
of the works of Marx and Engels were first published in its columns, among
them Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (in No. 18 for
1890-91) and Engels’s “Contribution to the Critique of the Draft
Social-Democratic Programme” (in No. I for 1901-02). While Engels was
alive he constantly helped the editors with suggestions and advice, and not
infrequently criticised them for departures from Marxism. Contributors
included August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring,
Clara Zetkin, G. V. Plekhanov, Paul Lafargue, and other leading figures in
the German and international working-class movement of the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century. Beginning with the latter half of the nineties,
the Neue Zeit made a practice of publishing the writings of the
revisionists, notably Bernstein’s series “Problems of
Socialism”, which inaugurated the revisionists’ campaign against
Marxism. During the First World War it adopted a Centrist, Kautskian
position, in effect supporting the social-chauvinists.

[8]
The quotations are from Alfred Naquet’s article “Drumont
and Bernard Lazare”, published on September 24, 1903, in the Paris
La Petite République , at that time the organ of the French
reformist Socialists. The paper was founded in 1875; its contributors
included Jaurbs, Millerand, and other well-known personalities.

[9]
The Pale of Settlement in tsarist Russia was the territory outside
which Jews were not allowed to live.

[11]
Ernest Renan was a prominent French philologist and historian. The
quotation is from his lecture “Judaism as a Race and as a
Religion”, published in Discours et Conferences par Ernest Renan , Paris, 1887, p. 373.