The Jewish Workers Bund was among the largest constituents to found the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1898, to which it joined with autonomous structures. Lenin wrote this polemic in the debate over the Bund’s demand for a new ‘federated’ relationship that preceded the R.S.D.L.P.’s 1903 Congress. At that congress, federation was rejected by both Menshevik and Bolshevik delegates. In response, the Bund withdrew from the R.S.D.L.P., and with its 30-40,000 members became the largest single Marxist party in the Russia Empire at the time. However, events would change positions and under the influence of the 1905 Revolution, and the mass pogroms that accompanied it, the Bund would rejoin the R.S.D.L.P. in 1906 and where it would remain. In 1912’s formal split of the R.S.D.L.P., the Bund allied with the Mensheviks, who had come to support federation. History, however, would again intervene to change positions, with the 1917 Revolution, Civil War, and (again) mass pogroms leading a majority of the Bund voting to dissolve into the new Communist Party in 1920. Given this history it should be obvious that this intervention is specific of that debate and historic moment. The translation here comes the 1937 International Publishers edition and differs some from the later translation from the Collected Works.

‘Does the Jewish Proletariat Need An ‘Independent Political Party’’ (1903) by V.I. Lenin from Selected Works. Vol. 2. International Publishers, New York. 1937.

First published in Iskra, No. 34, February 15, 1903.

No. 105 of Posledniye Izvestiya’ (January 28 [15], 1903), the organ of the Foreign Committee of the General Jewish Labour League in Lithuania, Poland and Russia, published an article entitled “Concerning a Certain Manifesto” (viz., the manifesto issued by the Ekaterinoslav Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.), containing the following statement, which is as extraordinary as it is significant and, without exaggeration, is “pregnant with consequences”: “The Jewish proletariat has formed itself [sic!] into an independent [sic!] political party, the Bund.”

We had not known this. This is something new.

Up to now the Bund has been a constituent part of the R.S.D.L.P., and in No. 106 of Posledniye Izvestiya we still (still!) find a statement of the Central Committee of the Bund, bearing the heading “R.S.D.L.P.” It is truce that at its recent Fourth Congress, the Bund decided to change its name (without stating that it would like to hear the opinion of the Russian comrades on the name a section of the R.S.D.L.P. should bear) and to “introduce” new federal relations in the rules of the Russian Party. These relations have now been actually “introduced” by the Foreign Committee of the Bund, if that word can describe the fact that it has retired from the League of Russian Social Democrats Abroad and has concluded a federal treaty with the latter.

On the other hand, when Iskra attacked the decisions of the Fourth Congress, the Bund itself stated very definitely that it only wanted to get its wishes and its decisions accepted by the R.S.D.L.P., in other words, it recognised straightforwardly and categorically that until the R.S.D.L.P. adopted the new rule and until the new form of relations with the Bund were settled, the Bund would remain a section of the R.S.D.L.P.

But now, suddenly, we are told that the Jewish proletariat has already formed itself into an independent political party! We repeat—this is something new.

Equally new is the furious and foolish onslaught of the Foreign Committee of the Bund upon the Ekaterinoslav Committee. We have at last (though unfortunately after much delay) received a copy of this manifesto, and we must say without hesitation that in attacking a manifesto like this, the Bund has undoubtedly taken a serious political step.¹ This step is fully in accord with proclaiming the Bund an independent political party and throws much light on the complexion and behaviour of this new party.

We regret that lack of space prevents us from reprinting the Ekaterinoslav manifesto in full (it would take up about two columns of Iskra),² and we must confine ourselves to remarking that this admirable manifesto excellently explains to the Jewish workers of the city of Ekaterinoslav (we shall presently explain why we have emphasised these words) the Social-Democratic attitude towards Zionism and anti-Semitism. In doing so the manifesto treats the sentiments, moods and desires of the Jewish workers so considerately—with such comradely consideration—that it specially emphasises the necessity of fighting under the banner of the R.S.D.L.P. “even for the preservation and further development of your [the manifesto addresses the Jewish workers] national culture,” “even from the standpoint of purely national interests” (underlined and italicized in the manifesto).

In spite of this the F.C. of the Bund (we were on the point of saying the C.C. of the new party) violently attacks the manifesto for making no mention of the Bund. That is the only crime the manifesto is guilty of, but a crime that is terrible and unpardonable. On the strength of it the Ekaterinoslav Committee is accused of lacking “political acumen.” The Ekaterinoslav comrades are chastised for not “yet having digested the idea of the necessity for a separate organisation [a profound and significant idea!] of the forces [!!] of the Jewish proletariat,” for “still fostering the absurd hope of getting rid of it” (the Bund), for spreading the “no less dangerous fable” (no less dangerous than the Zionist fable) that anti-Semitism is connected with the bourgeois strata and with their interests, and not with those of the working class, That is why the Ekaterinoslav Committee is advised to “abandon the harmful habit of hushing up the independent Jewish labour movement” and to “reconcile itself to the fact of the Bund’s existence.”

Now let us consider whether the Ekaterinoslav Committee has actually committed a crime, and whether it really should have mentioned the Bund. Both questions must be answered in the negative for the simple reason that the manifesto is not addressed to the “Jewish workers” in general (as the F.C.B. falsely stated), but to “the Jewish workers of the city of Ekaterinoslav” (the F.C. of the Bund forgot to quote these last words!). The Bund has no organisation in Ekaterinoslav (besides, in the case of the South of Russia the Fourth Congress of the Bund passed a resolution not to organise separate committees of the Bund in those cities where the Jewish organisations are affiliated to the Party committee and where their needs can be satisfied without their being separated from the committees), Since the Jewish workers in Ekaterinoslav have not been organised under a special committee, it follows that their movement (inseparable from the whole labour movement of that district) is in all respects under the direction of the Ekaterinoslav Committee, which thus directly subordinates them to the R.S.D.L.P. which must call upon them to work for the whole Party, and not for special sections of it. It is clear that in these circumstances the Ekaterinoslav Committee was not obliged to mention the Bund; on the contrary, if it had presumed to advocate “the necessity for a separate organisation of the forces [it would rather and more probably have been an organisation of the impotence^3] of the Jewish proletariat” (which is what the Bundists want), it would have committed a very bad mistake and a direct breach not only of the Party rules, but of the unity of the proletarian class struggle.

Further, the Ekaterinoslav Committee is accused of being insufficiently “orientated” in the question of anti-Semitism. The F.C. of the Bund displays a perfectly childish understanding of great social movements. The Ekaterinoslav manifesto speaks of the international anti-Semitic movement of the last decades and remarks that “from Germany this movement spread to other countries and everywhere found adherents precisely among the bourgeoisie, and not among the working class strata of the population.” “This is a no less dangerous fable” (than the Zionist fable), the F.C.B, shouts out, quite angrily this time. Anti-Semitism “has struck roots in the mass of the workers,” and to prove this the Bund, which is “orientated,” cites two facts: 1) the workers took part in the pogrom in Zhenstokhowo; and 2) the behaviour of 12 (twelve!) Christian workers in Zhitomir who scabbed on the strikers and threatened to “rip up all the Yids.” Very weighty proof, indeed, especially the latter! The editors of Posledniye Izvestiya are so accustomed to operating with great strikes affecting five or ten workers that the action of twelve ignorant workers in Zhitomir is produced as evidence to prove which “strata of the population” are connected with international anti-Semitism. This is, indeed, magnificent! If, instead of flying into a foolish and comic rage at the Ekaterinoslav Committee, the Bundists had pondered over this question and had consulted, let us say, Kautsky’s pamphlet of the social revolution, a Yiddish edition of which they themselves recently published, they would have understood the connection that undoubtedly exists between anti-Semitism and the interests of the bourgeois and not of the working class strata of the population. If they had pondered a little more they might have realised that the social character of anti-Semitism today is not changed by the fact that dozens or even hundreds of unorganised workers, nine-tenths of whom are utterly ignorant, take part in a pogrom.

The Ekaterinoslav Committee attacked (and very rightly attacked) the Zionist fable about anti-Semitism being eternal; by making its angry comment the Bund has only confused the question and planted in the minds of the Jewish workers ideas which will serve to obscure their class consciousness.

From the point of view of the fight carried on by the working class of Russia for political liberty and for socialism, the Bund’s attack on the Ekaterinoslav Committee is the acme of folly. From the point of view of the Bund as “an independent political party,” it becomes intelligible; don’t dare organise “Jewish” workers with “Christian” workers! Don’t dare address the Jewish workers in the name of the R.S.D.L.P. or of its committee directly, “avoiding other departments,” avoiding the Bund, without mentioning the Bund!

And this profoundly regrettable fact is not accidental. From the moment you demanded “federation” instead of autonomy in matters concerning the Jewish proletariat you were compelled to proclaim the Bund an “independent political party” in order to carry out this principle of federation at all costs. But by proclaiming the Bund to be an independent political party you reduce your fundamental error in the question of nationalities to an absurdity in a way which inevitably and necessarily becomes the starting point for a change in the views of the Jewish proletariat and of Jewish Social-Democrats in general. The “autonomy” established under the rules adopted in 1898 gave the Jewish labour movement all it needed: propaganda and agitation in Yiddish, its own literature and congresses, permission to advance special demands in accordance with the common Social-Democratic programme, and the satisfaction of local needs and demands arising out of the peculiarities of Jewish life. On all other things there must be complete fusion with the Russian proletariat, in the interests of the proletariat of Russia as a whole. As for the fear of being “steam-rollered” in the event of such fusion, the very nature of the case makes it groundless, because autonomy will serve as a guarantee against all “steam-rolling” on all specifically Jewish matters, while on all matters relating to the fight against tsarism, the fight against the bourgeoisie of Russia as a whole, we must act as a single and centralised fighting organisation, we must have behind us the whole of the proletariat, without distinction of language or nationality, a proletariat whose unity is cemented by having constantly to solve problems of theory and practice, of tactics and organisation, in common; we must not set up organisations that would march separately, each along its own track, we must not weaken our offensive by breaking up into a number of independent political parties, we must not breed estrangement and isolation and then have to cure, with the aid of those famous “federation” plasters, an artificially inoculated disease.

1. That is, of course, if the F.C. of the Bund expresses the views of the “Bund” as a whole on this question.

2. We intend to reprint, in full, the manifesto and the attack of the F.C. of the Bund, in a pamphlet which we are preparing for the press.

3.It is this task of “organising impotence” that the Bund serves when it uses such a phrase as “our comrades of the Christian working class organisations.” The phrase is as ridiculous as are all its attacks on the Ekaterinoslav Committee, We have no knowledge of any “Christian” working class organisations, The organisations belonging to the R.S.D.L.P. never distinguished their members according to their religion, never asked them about their religion and never will—even when the Bund will in actual fact have “formed itself into an independent political party.”

International Publishers was formed in 1923 for the purpose of translating and disseminating international Marxist texts and headed by Alexander Trachtenberg. It quickly outgrew that mission to be the main book publisher, while Workers Library continued to be the pamphlet publisher of the Communist Party.

PDF of full issue: https://archive.org/download/selected-works-vol.-2/Selected%20Works%20-%20Vol.%202.pdf