hertz - the bund's nationality program and its critics [yivo 1969]

8/13/2019 Hertz - The Bund's Nationality Program and Its Critics [YIVO 1969]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hertz-the-bunds-nationality-program-and-its-critics-yivo-1969 1/8



54 JACOB S. H E R T Z

This is a crystal-clear statement, but thoroughly naive. There

can be no internationalism without nationalities. Two decades

afterward this same Vilna became the center of an awakening Jew

ish working class and a rising Jewish revolutionary labor move

ment, whiph established internationalism on entirely different

bases. If socialism means the abolition of injustice and the estab

lishment of equality then these boons are not merely for individ

uals, but also for the historically developed groupings of mankind,

called nations.

A number of causes underlay this change. Among the most

important were: the growth of industry, crafts and trade in Russia;

the rising secularization of Jewish life; the ascendancy of the Marx

ist point of view among the revolutionary elements. The last meant

an end of the orientation to the peasant as the instrument of the

coming revolution. He was replaced by the worker, in consonance

with Plekhanov's famous dictum: the revolution in Russia will win

as a workers movement or—not win at all. Some of the Jewish

secular intelligentsia already active in the revolutionary movementdrew from the new, Marxist orientation the following conclusion:.

If it is to be the workers who will bring victory, then we have them

also among the Jews. There is no need to go into the villages or

outside the Pale of Settlement. In several large cities and factory

centers a movement of Jewish workers sprang up. This movement

set the tasks of the revolutionaries and the socialists in a different

light. It never occurred to the Jewish workers to say, as that Vilna

correspondent had said: "We are Russiansl"

Addresses delivered by Jewish workers in Vilna on May 1, 1892,

contained such utterances as: "Let us fight like heroes Q T our

nation and mankind." Another said: "We Jews need not be

ashamed of belonging to the so-called disgraced Jewish race. The

history of the Jews . . . has also its pages of glory. There has neverbeen a nation in the world that underwent martyrdom with such

steadfastness as the Jewish. Let us—the young generation—follow in

the footsteps of our forefathers and manifest our perseverance in

the fight for the liberation of mankind."®Three years later, in the same city and on a similar occasion,

Julius Martov-Zederbaum addressed a group of agitators. His words

bore the approval of the leadership of the movement. He said:'\

2 Pervoe maia 1892. Chetyre rechi evreiskikh rabochikh (Geneva 189S).

T H E B U N D ' S N A T I O N A L I T Y P ROG RAM 55

"We have to state openly and clearly that the aim of the Jewish

Social Democrats consists in the founding of a special Jewish work

ers organization, which should be the leader and teacher of the

Jewish proletariat in -its struggle for economic, civic and political

liberation." He continued to say that the awakening in a people

of "the striving for liberation from civic inequality is one of thetasks of a socialist party. . . . The national indifference of the Jew

ish masses is a hindrance in the awakening of their class conscious

ness. Our task should be to arouse them from both their national

and class indifEerence. . ..We have to endow our movement with a

definite Jewish character, in the surety that thereby we shall not

cease participating in the worldwide movement in general and in

the Russian in particular."^

At the founding convention of the Jewish Labor Bund on

October 7-9, 1897, Arkady Kremer, one of die top leaders of the

Jewish Social Democratic movement, adduced also several Jewsh

motives for the necessity of a united Jewish workers organization

in the country. He said: "We have to stress constantly the demand

for civic equality for the Jews The time is coming when a general Russian workers party will be founded. The Jewish proletariat

will certainly occupy a given place. But being divided into sepa

rate groups it will not be able to enter that party. *

Ostensibly, at the very inception of the Jewish Labor Bund

there was the understanding that the Jewish workers have to form

an organized unit and fight for equality of rights as Jews and that

they have to be united in one social democratic party with the pro

letariat of the country, but as an autonomous collective. The same

line of thought was also accepted at the founding convention of

the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party on March 13-15, 1898.

The convention recognized the Jewish Labor Bund as an autono

mous organization, independent in matters Jewish, for the defenseof Jewish interests can be undertaken only by a Jewish organiza-

tion free to act at discretion, without interference of the general

party.® On the other hand, the Polish Socialist Party refused to rec

ognize the Jewish labor movement and declared war on the Jewish

3 Di naye epokhe in der yidisher arbayter-bavegung (Geneva).4 Di arbayter shtime no. 6. Oct. 17, 1897 (Ulegal periodical of the Bund).6 Op. cit. nos. 9-10, July 1898. The article Unzere tsiln was reprinted

in no. 11.



56 JACOB S. H E R T Z

Labor Bund immediately after its founding. The Polish Socialist

Party argued that the Jewish proletariat could have no other tasks

than those in common with the proletariat of the country in which

it resided. The second socialist party active in Polish territory, the

Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania

(S.D.K.P.L.) had a friendly attitude toward the Jewish LaborBund.®

Some Bundists arrived at the conviction« that the Jewish Labor

Bund had to formulate and present a national' program in con

sonance with the specific conditions and needs of the Jews in the

Russian empire. This was the standpoint of the Foreign Committee

of the organization. An editorial comment on Khayim Zhitlowsky's

article in Der yidisher arbayter stated: "We are adamant in our

view, that like all nations the Jewish nation too has to have equal

political, economic and national rights.'"^

This was published in March 1899. The problem of national

rights and of a national program for minority people was new to

the international socialist movement and to Marxian theory and

subject to division of opinion. It was also a novelty among the

Jews. The orthodox and the assimilationists were opposed to the

presentation of Jewish national demands; they were content with

the demand of religious freedom. National rights smacked of na

tional secularism, which they opposed. The Zionists, on the other

hand, were not in favor of national demands in the Diaspora lands.

Within the ranks, of the Jewish Labor Bund there were some

doubts on this question. The matter was placed on the agenda of

the third convention in December 1899. It was resolved to con

tinue the discussion among the membership at large and thus pave

the way for a resolution at the following convention.

At the fourth convention of the Jewish Labor Bupd on May

24-28, 1901, the problem was discussed at length and a resolution

adopted, containing among others the following points: "In the

spirit of the Social Democratic program, the oppression of one

class by another, of the citizenry by the state, of one nationality by

another, or the dominance of one language over arjother is in

conceivable." Russia, where there live "various nationalities, should

become a federation of nationalities with full national autonomy

9 Przeglqd socjaldemokratyczny no. 1, March 1902 (Zurich).Der yidisher arbayter no. 6, Mardi 1899.


for each, regardless of the territory it occupies. . . . The concept

'nationality' should also apply to the Jewish people." The con

vention owned that under the current circumstances it was prema

ture to present the demand for national autonomy for the Jews.

For the time being it would fight for the annulment of the spe

cial laws against the Jews and "protest the oppression of the Jewish nation."« The Jewish Labor Bund first presented the demand

for national-cultural autonomy for the Jews in 1904.

In pressing the demand for national autonomy, the Jewi^

Labor Bund set out from the assimiption that a people with a his

tory and a culture carries within itself the title to existence and

to national rights. These are part of the basic human rights. With

out national rights there is no full civic equality; no normal nat

ural development of a people. The Bundists were convinced that

this was the proper social-democratic answer to the national prob

lem. Socialism was considered as the fairest social order; how then

could socialists tolerate national oppression or the denial of na

tional rights to certain categories of nations? The Bundist spokes

men Vladimir Kosovsky, Vladimir Medem, Mark Liber and others

motivated the national program of the Jewish Labor Bund from

a socialist standpoint. In an address on the Bundist national pro

gram, delivered in New York on December 17, 1906, Mark Liber

declared with justifiable pride: "We were the first to give an an

swer to the general national problem and to the Jewish problem

in Russia in full consonance with the class standpoint of. social

democracy."®

Medem has pointed out that "social democracy »dfialt less with

the national problem than with any other important political prob

lem....n the social democratic literature are reflected concepts

and moods current in the bourgeois world, which penetrate the

camp of the proletariat owing to its weak theoretical defenses.io

. ..National oppression is directed not especially against the work-

lem....n the social democratic literature are reflected concepts

the owner classes and the educated, it crushes with its full weight

the working class, which occupies the lowest rung of the social lad-

8 Di geshikhte fun bund (New York 1960), vol. I, p. 180.9 Forverts January 4, 1907 (New York).10 Vladimir Medem (New York 1943), p. 173.



58 J ACOB S. HER TZ

der and which feels on its back more powerfully the blows dealtto the entire nation.""

The Bund's position met with sharp opposition in the ranks

of the socialist parties. The opposition to the Jewish Labor Bund's

stand on the national problem may be divided into three cate

gories: a grouping with a so-called internationalist argumentation,a grouping with its own national aspirations, a trend that recog

nized the principle of national rights for minority nations, butnot for Jews.

Although the founding convention of the Russian Social Dem-

ocratic Workers Party, as stated above, had recognized the Jewish

Labor Bund as an autonomous organization in matters Jewish,

when the latter at its fourth convention formulated the need for

national autonomy some Russian Social Democrats launched a

sharp attack. However, not all in the Russian party were against

the Bundist stand, and some of those who opposed it in the first

years later changed their minds. The Rabochaia Mysl organ of

the St. Petersburg committee of the Russian Social Democratic

Workers Party, which appeared surreptitiously in Russia, warmly

endorsed the demand for "full national equality" for all nations

in Russia. Reporting on the Jewish Labor Bund's resolution at

its fourth convention, the paper said: "Let each nation speak in

its mother tongue, perfect its literature and art, open its own

schools and develop all its spiritual forces in the form that is most

convenient for it. . . . All workers regardless of religious affiliation

should fight for this equality, not only the workers of the oppressed

nations. The latter, the greater sufferers, will naturally fight moreeneiçetically."i2

Entirely different was the attitude of the Russian social demo

cratic organs published abroad. The Association of Russian Social

Democrats Abroad and its organ Rabochee Delo had a very posi

tive attitude to the Jewish IL»abor Bund and held up its activity

as a model for other organizations. It also supported the autonomy

of the Bund in the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party. Boris

Krichevsky, the editor and one of the two representatives of the

Russian Social Democratic Workers Party in the bureau of the So

cialist International, in his article on the fourth convention of the

11 Op. cit. p. 191.12 Rabochaia Mysl no. 13, Dec. 1901; no. 14, Jan. 1902. ^


Jewish Labor Bund united in solidarity with the Bundist formu

lations and resolutions on political and tactical matters. He was

even in accord with the resolution for national equality and against

national oppression, but opposed national autonomy for the Jews

for, in his opinion, they were merely a religious grouping and not

a nationality. ®At that time (1901) the Rabochaia Mysl and Rabochee

Delo expressed the views of the majority of Social Democrats.

The former represented the economistic trend, stressing the role

of the workers and their economic struggle and the latter at

tempted to establish a balance between the econonlic and the

political tasks of the social democratic labor movement. In op

position to these two was the group centered about the Iskra

and Zaria which was then in the minority and aspiring to attain

the hegemony over the party. This group came out with a spirited

attack on the Bundist resolution, branding it as nationalism. Iskra

wrote: "The fourth convention of the Jewish Labor Bund is the

harbinger of the rise of nationalism in the Jewish social democ

racy of Western Russia and Poland."" Zaria wrote: "Essentially

the Jews have no national culture (not counting religion and in

conjunction with it some customs). . . . The Jews lost their na

tional culture a long time ago and now they are suffering unbear

ably because the autocratic regime denies them access to Russian

culture." ®

The opposition of the Iskra group, including the elite of the

Russian social democracy, was predicated upon two major motives:

a nihilistic-assimilatory attitude to the Jewish problem and, sec

ondly, this problem was linked in this case with a side issue. The

Iskra group launched a sharp fight for the control of the Social

Democratic Party and the institution of a strictly centralistic and

totalitarian leadership brooking no autonomist tendencies. The at

tack on the Jewish Labor Bund was therefore in two directions:

rejection of its national program and the reduction of its auton

omy in the party to a minimum. Both issues were inherently con

nected. Hypercentralism must be victorious both in the national

ities policy and in the structure and spirit of the party. The Rus-

IS Rabochee Delo nos. 11-12, Feb. 23, 1902, p. 119.14 Iskra no. 7, Aug. 1901.15 Zaria no. 4, A ug. 1902, part II, pp. 47-50.



60 J ACOB S. HER TZ

sian Social Democratic Workers Party did accept the principle of

the right of self-determination of peoples. However, when the Jew

ish workers deteçmined and stated what they wanted for them-

^àelves and for their people the Iskra group wàs categorically against

them.

Similarly, the Polish Socialist Party was unfriendly to the na

tional program of the Jewish Labor Bund. It insisted that the Jew

ish workers could .have no other demands than the Polish and

denied their right to a special organization. In reply the Bundist

organ stated:» "The Jewish proletariat is not only 'part' of the Pol

ish-Lithuanian one, but like the proletariat of every nation an in

dependent part of the world proletariat. . . . The Jewish prole

tariat ehcounters in its clajs struggle obstacles unknown to the

proletariat of other nations. These obstacles it must remove by it

self. Thus the Jewish proletariat has its own task and immediate

historical objectives. To realize these it must form a separate rev

olutionary organization, an independent revolutionary force."i8

The other Polish socialist party, the Social Democracy of the

Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania at its second convention in No

vember 1901 adopted a resolution stating in part that: ... l

though the cbnvention does not see the Jewish problem eye to eye

with the Jewish Labor Bund, it nevertheless regards it as an in

dependent fraternal organization."^''

In 1903 the Jewish Labor Bund withdrew from the Russian

Social Democratiç Workers Party because of the above issues. In

1906, upon being granted a number of conditions assming its in

tegrity and autonomy, the Jewish Labor Bund reentered the party.

The Stockholm convention of the party (1906) went on record that

"the Jewish Labor Bund entered into the composition of the Rus

sian Social Democratic Workers Party as a social democratic oit

ganization of the Jewish proletariat, which is not confined in itsactivity to regional frames." The discussion of the national pro'

gram of the Jewish Labor Bund was postponed to the next con

vention. The chairman declared that in the interim the Jewish

Labor Bund häd the right to maintain its program of national-

cultural autonomy. At thè i;ext party convention in London, on

May 13-June 1, 1907, there was a point on the agenda: the na

is Di arbayter shtime no. 30, Oct. 1902.17 See n. 6.

T H E B U N D ' S N A T I O N A L I T Y P ROG RAM 6L

tional problem. At the request of the Bundist delegation and,oth

ers the point was tabled for lack of previous preparatory discus

sion.

In 1912 the Bolsheviks brought about an official split in the

party. Thereafter the other parts of the party consolidated anew

and called a conference in Vienna in August 1912. Prior to the

conference the social democratic party orgaidzations in Caucasia

adopted a resolution calling for national-cultural autonomy. The

Vienna conference declared that national-cultural autonomy was

not in contradiction to the party prc^am.

After the second Russian révolution all revolutionary parties,

except the Bolsheviks, were in favor of national-cultural auton

omy. A special commission of the All-Russian Convention of Work?,

ers and Soldiers Councils meeting in June? 1917 prepared a reso-

lutioni The Bundist leader Mark Liber presented and motivated

the resolution in the name of the commission. Part of the accepted

resolution was for a broad political autonomy for the regions that

were ethnically or socio-economically different and assures in the sta

tutes the rights of the national minorities through the création of

special local and federal representational organs. The party rep

resentatives clarified this to mean national-cultural autonomy. The

representative of the Bolsheviks voiced his group's opposition to

national-cultural autonomy for the minorities and declared their

determination to vote against it. The convention accepted the res

olution, and the central organ of the Jewish Labor Bund saw in

this acceptance an indication of the evolution of Russian democ-

racy.i®

In the beginning of September 1917 the unification conven

tion of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (Mensheyiks,

parties of national minorities and other social democratic groups,

except the Bolsheviks) took place. The resolution adopted almostunanimously read in part: "The rights of the national minorities

should be guaranteed by a state law based on the principle oí

national-cultural autonomy."^®

The Bolsheviks continued in their opposition to national-cul

tural autonomy for minorities in general ànd for the Jews in par

ticular. Their spokesman, Lenin, took an assimilatory stand, re

is Weinreich, M., in Di arbayter shtitne. Do. 25, July 12, 1917 (Petrograd).» Di arbayter shtime nos. 40-41, Sept. 16, 1917.



62 J ACOB S . HER TZ

fusing to recognize the Jews as a nationality and sharply opposing

the movement for Jewish national culture. In a polemic with the

Jewish Labor Bund, he wrote: "The idea of Jewish 'nationality'

bears a pronounced reactionary character not only among its con

sistent adherents (the Zionists), but also among those who attempt

to couple it with ideas of social democracy (the Bundists). Theidea...s in conflict with the interest of the Jewish proletariat,

creating in its midst directly and indirectly a mood hostile to as

similation, a 'ghetto' mood."

Ten years later, in a reply to the Bundist leaders Vladimir

Medem and Libman Hersch, Lenin wrote: "Jewish national cul

ture is the siegan of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of

our enemies. . . . The Jews in Galida and Russia are not a na

tion, but a caste. . . . Whoever sets forth directly or indirectly the

slogan of Jewish 'national culture' (his best intentions notwith

standing) is an enemy of the proletariat, an adherent of the old

remains in the Judaic caste, an aid of the rabbis and the bour

geoisie."^

A change took place among the Polish socialists. In 1905 a

number of local Polish Socialist Party and Jewish Labor Bund or

ganizations arrived at a coexistence. Occasionally even an isolated

voice in favor of the Bundist national program was heard. In

1903-1904 Kazimierz Kelles-Kraus, noted writer and theoretician

of the Polish Socialist Party, came out in support of the Bundist

position and in favor of Jewish national-cultural autonomy. After

the split in the Polish Socialist Party there was a rapprochement

between the left wing of the party and the Jewish Labor Bund.

Officially, the left wing of the Polish Socialist Party did not

accept the demand for national-cultural autonomy. However, it

supported a number of Jewish demands that were in the spirit

and character of that autonomy. Simultaneously, the relations be tween the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lith

uania and the Jewish Labor Bund deteriorated. The former fought

against most of the demands of the Jewish population and even

opposed the Jewish workers at a time when Polish workers re

fused their admittance into the large factories.

20 Iskra Oct. 22, 1903, no. 51; Prosveshchenie nos. 10-12, Öct.-Dec. 1913(St. Petersburg); Lenin, N., Selected Works (Moscow 1927), vol. VIII, part I.


Similarly, the Jewish socialist labor movement in Galida had

to fight for the right to an autonomous organization and national-

cultural autonomy, both with the Polish Social Democratic Party

and with the general Social Democratic Party of Austria.

The Jewish sodalist labor movement in Galida began in the

1890's. The Galidan Sodai Democratic Party forthwith dedaredits opposition to a Jewish labor organization, with one important

ideological concession. At the first party convention in 1892 its

leader, Ignacy Daszynski, rejected the theory of assimilation of the

Jews. He said: Let us consider them as any other nation, i.e. let

us give them the same rights.^^ In 1897, in consonance with the

reorganization of the Austriiui party on federative bases, the Ga

lidan party changed to the Polish Social Democratic Party of Ga

lida and Silesia (P.P.S.D.). Simultaneously, Polish patriotic and

nationalist sentiment gained the ascendancy in the party and it

began to view with favor Jewish assimilation. However, several

organizations of Jewish workers of an educational and trade union

character, linked to the party from before, had already been estab

lished.

In the ranks of the Jewish members of the P.P.S.D., becauseof ideolc^cal and practical organizational considerations, there

began a demand for autonomy within the framework of the party,

which was categorically rejected. After several years' struggle the

Jewish Sodai Democratic Party, based on the same ideological

foundations as the Jewish Labor Bund in Russia, was founded in

Galida in 1905. Among those actively fighting against autonomy

for Jewish workers and opposing the new party were a number of

Jews. One of their prindpal spokesmen. Dr. Herman Diamand, at

a conference of delegates of Jewish workers assodations, motivated

his opposition to autonomy thus: "There are no spedai Jewish

traits worth conserving. All retention of Jewish uniqueness is dele

terious. We have to assume new forms and not flinch at the difiS-

culties encountered in Polish sodety. We must bend every effort

to eliminate all manifestations of uniqueness."^2

Intensifying its fight against the Jewish Sodai Democratic

Party, the Polish Sodai Democratic Party founded under its aegis

21 Naprzód May 15, 1892 (Cracow), dted from H. Grosman, Der bundhm

in galitsyen (Cracow 1907) .22 Shulman, V., 25 yor, Naye Folkstsaytung Apr. SO , 1930 (Warsaw).



64 J ACOB S. H E R T Z

a Jewish section named The Jewishi Social Democracy in Galicia.

Soon the leaders of the Polish party became convinced that their

fight against the Jewish party was hopeless and in 1911 they gave

it up altogether, permitting their Jewish members to join the Jew

ish Social Democratic Party. At the Jewish socialist unification con

vention in 1911 Daszynski said: "You have a separate autonomous

party^ you can decide as you please.''^»

However, there was no true peace between the two parties—

the, Pçlish and the Jewish. The Polish party was far from recog

nizing the attitude of the Jewish Social Democratic Party. Simi

larly, the Jewish party did not obtain the recognition of the gen

eral Aiiçtrian Social Democratic Party. Although established on na

tional federative bases, with respect to the Jews the Austrian party

assumed an assimilatory standpoint, regarded with disdain the Yid

dish language and denied the principle of national rights for Jews

^nd the rights of Jewish workers to an autonomous organization

within the framework of the federative party.

The convention of the Austrian Social Democratic Party in

Brno in 1899 accepted the principle of national autonomy for mi.norities.independent of territory. But the Pohsh Social Democratic

Party fought the Jewish socialist organization under pretext that

only territorial minorities were entitled to national autonomy.

Now Otto Bauer, Austrjian socialist theoretician, in his work Die

Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie attempted to ground

the denial of Jewish autonomy on different bases. He raised the

question whether "the needs of the Jewish workers call for na

tional self-administration," to which he gave a negative answer. In

the Middle^Ages, he said, "The Jqws had undoubtedly been a na

tion," but in the capitalist society they ceased to be a nation and

are becoming integrated in the nations in whose midst they live.

He said: "To the extent that the Jews in Europe are still a na

tion, they have the character of an ahistorical nation." Althoughhe added that "in Eastern Europe there still are . . millions of

unassimilated Jews belonging mostly to the lowest strata. This Jew

ish petty citizenry and workers. . form today the Jewish nation."

Otto Bauer here gave the meaning of "historical" and "ahis

torical" a slight twist. It is not past performance that determines

23 Kissman, J., Di yidishe sotsyal-demokratishe bav^ung in galitsye unbukovine, Di geshikhte fun bund (New York 1966), vol. Ill, p. 438.

* f u

T H E BUND'S N A T I O N A L I T Y PR O GR A M 65

the "historicality" of a nation, but'the prospects for the future.

And here capitalist development brought about an alienation of

the Jewish intellectuals and the wealthy from Jewish life thus ren

dering the once historical into an ahistorical nation whose language

and culture are in a state of utter neglect. Bauer admitted the rise

of the national cultural renascence in which the Jewish workersplayed a great role, but he had no faith in this development.

Not only did Bauer ignore the expressed will of the awakened

Jewish masses, he also denied their needs. He called upon them

to abandon their national-cultural characteristics. He minimized

the need for the use of Yiddish in public offices and courts. He

appealed to Jewish workers to refrain from the demand for Jew

ish schools, but to enroll their children in German, Polish or

Ukrainian schools. He was alarmed at the thought of Jewish chil

dren in their own schools with Yiddish as the language of instruc

tion What spirit will prevail in these schools? "The children of

the Jewish workers will be imbued with the spirit of bygone days,"

he feared, "with a medieval view of the world, and the life habits

of the Jewish tavern keeper." And Bauer called upon the Jewishworkers in general to adjust in manners and culture to the "Chris

tian" workers.^*

In an article against national-cultural autonomy, Lenin sarcas

tically and correctly criticized Bauer's inconsistency and vacilla

tion, pointing to his attitude toward the Jews. He said that Bauer

had "excluded from the plan of extraterritorial autonomy of na

tions the sole extraterritorial nation.''^®

Thus a breach was made in the socialist principle of the right

of self-determination of nations. The denial of national rights to

Jews meant in effect a curtailment of their civil rights. Jewish so

cialists demanded national rights in the name of humane life needs.

Bauer and others opposed this demand in the name of hypotheti

cal development tendencies. Curiously, Bauer defined nation as

a cormnunity of character derived from a community of fate. He

said explicitly: "Thç historical in us is the national in us."^« By

this definition the Jews are certainly a nationality. Yet in dealing

li

f:

24 Bauer, Otto, Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie (Vienna1907) , pp. 318-331.

25 Lenin, op. cit. p. 133.28 Bauer, op. cit. pp. 95-120.



66 J ACOB S. HER TZ

with the Jewish problem he applied not his own definition but

other standards in order to deny them recognition as a nationality.

•

In December 1906, Gregory Gershuni, the leader of the Rus

sian Socialist-Revolutionaries, addresseda gathering of several thou

sand Jews in New York in Yiddish. He said that the task of theRussian Jewish revolutionaries was to work among the Russian

peasants in the villages. "The Jews are ready for the revolution,"

he argued, "they know how to shed their blood for freedom. This

I don't have to teach them. Therefore I have gone over to the

Christians to teach them how to fight for their freedom.''^^ Let

us recall an earlier generation of Russian Jewish revolutionaries.

They argued the necessity of going into the villages for among the

Jewish masses there was no receptivity for revolutionary propa

ganda. ¡

Conceivably, one part of the non-Jewish socialist leaders would

not have opposed the national demands of the Jewish working

class and the other would not have opposed them so vigorously

had they not had the support of some Jewish socialists. The latter

served to justify the hesitation of many socialists. Medem pointed

this out as early as 1906. Among the reasons for the, antagonistic

attitude of the Russian social democracy to the Bundist stand on

the national problem he saw "the assimilationist tendencies in

Jewry itself He said: "The argument between the Jewish La

bor Bund and the Russian party is in a considerable measure an

expression of the internal struggle among the various' trends in

Jewry. One of these trends is represented by the Jewish Labor

Bund, another—an assimilationist—appears under the sign of the

Russian Sodal Democratic Workers Party. . . . This is an infamai

Jewish affair. And so long as it will not be liquidated one way or

another our difference with the party cannot be conclusively set-

tled."28 The same applied to the Polish and Austrian socialist par

ties.

At the second convention of the Russian Social Democratic

Workers Party in 1903, at which the conflict over the rights to an

autonomous Jewish organization reached its climax, Martov-Zeder-

27 Forverts Dec. 15. 18, 23, 1906.28 Nashe Slovo no. 3, July 6, 1906 (Vilna). ^

T H E BUND'S N A T I O N A L I T Y P ROG RAM 67

baum presented the resolution opposing this right. The resolution

bore the si^ature of 12 delegates—all Jews. Leon Trotsky deemed

it necessary to call attention to the fact that Jews introduced the

resolution opposing a national organization of Jewish workers

within the framework of the general Social Democratic Party. Mark

Liber branded "Trotslcy's remark as vulgar tactlessness.^»Medem was right. It was primarily an internal Jewish affair.

It was a continuation of the conflict in various forms and guises

throughout Jewish history between the strivings for survival and

the tendencies to dissolution. In other forms, the same problem

exists today.

2» Aronson, G., Di natsyonale un organizatsyonele frage, Di geshikhte

fun bund (New York 1962), vol. 11, p. 510.

hertz - the bund's nationality program and its critics [yivo 1969]

Documents