ALLIANCE (MARXIST-LENINIST)
Number 30, Oct 1998
MARX, LENIN & STALIN ON
ZIONISM
Part Two: Stalin And
Lenin=s Views on The Jewish Question
And the Bund; & The Early History of the Bund.
Background
- The Position of Russian Jewry
In 1791, Tsarina or Empress Catherine
II created what was to become known as the Pale Of Settlement. This restricted
Jewish residence to either territories annexed from Poland along the Russian
Western border, or to territories seized from Turkey along the shores of
the Black Sea. Later other annexed territories were added. (See Map below
from web site ABeyond the Pale@).
The same type of restrictions noted briefly above, on Jews in Germany,
prevailed both here and Poland itself.
ThePale:http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
Perhaps the worst anti-Semitism in Europe was in these
parts.
Tsar Alexander II=s
reign saw at least the legal and theoretical emancipation of the serfs
in 1861. It marked some hopes on the part of Russian Jews for major change
in their living circumstances. In fact there were some improvements with
Jews being able to live outside the Pale of Settlement:
AOn the
first anniversary of Alexander's coronation the hated Cantonist system
is repealed. Bit by bit, small groups of Jews considered Auseful@
are allowed to settle outside the Pale: merchants, medical doctors and
artisans. The Jewish communities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Odessa grow
rapidly, and Jews start to participate in the intellectual and cultural
life. The industrial development of the 1860s, following the disastrous
Crimean War creates opportunities for a small group of Jewish entrepreneurs,
particularly in banking and the export trade, in mining and in the construction
of railroads.@
(Web: Beyond The
Pale:
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
But this was short lived, and the Polish
Uprising of 1863, led to an anti-Semitic wave again. After Tsar Alexander
II was assassinated by Narodniks, in 1881 the following repression
was associated with pogroms aimed at Ablaming@
the Jews for the social unrest, and to divert social criticism. The Tsarist
authorities used the Jewish question as a means of Adividing
and ruling@:
ABeginning
in Elizabetgrad, a wave of pogroms spread throughout the southwestern regions,
more than 200 in 1881 alone. The authorities.. (often) showed sympathy
for the pogromists. An official investigation confirmed: the plunderers
were convinced that the attacks were sanctioned by the Czar himself. The
same investigation blamed AJewish
exploitation@ as the cause for
the pogroms.@
Web Site : (Web: Beyond ThePale:
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
Severe restrictions and persecution
under the so called ATemporary
Laws@ of May 1882 lasted until
1917:
AThe area
of the Pale of Settlement was reduced by 10 percent. Jews were once more
prohibited from living in villages, to buy or rent property outside their
prescribed residences, denied jobs in the civil service and forbidden to
trade on Sundays and Christian holidays..... In 1887, the number of Jewish
students entering secondary schools in the Pale was restricted to 10 percent.
As in some towns Jews constituted 50 to 70 percent of the population, many
high school classes remained half empty. In 1891 a degree was passed that
the Jews of Moscow, who had settled in the city since 1865, were to be
expelled. Within a few months about 20,000 people were forced to give up
their homes and livelihood and deported from the already overcrowded Pale.@
(Web: Beyond ThePale: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
Nicholas II, succeeded Alexander
III in 1894, and was as autocratic. But the reform movement gained strength.
Both workers and students rebelled. Again the tactic of divide and rule
was used in pogroms against Jews. At the same time the anti-Japanese war
was launched. The pogroms were directly financed and supported by the vicious
reactionary Minister of the Interior Viacheslav Plehve. For example,
a pogrom in Kishinev in 1903, led to forty-five people=s
murders, and 1,300 homes and shops were plundered. The rioters were protected:
AFor his
anti-Semitic agitation, the editor of the local newspaper, Bessarabets,
had received funds from..Viacheslav Plehve. When the perpetrators of the
Kishinev pogroms received only very light sentences, it became clear that
pogroms had become an instrument of government policy, and Jews began to
form self-defence units.@
(Web: Beyond ThePale: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
After the defeat of Russia by the Japanese,
the pogroms intensified, led by the rabid ultra-reactionary Black Hundreds:
AThe Black
Hundreds now openly declared the extermination of the Jews as their program.
But the worst orgy of violence broke out after the Czar was forced to grant
a constitution in October 1905. Mainly organized by the monarchist Union
of Russian People, and with the cooperation of local government officials,
pogroms were staged in more than 300 towns and cities, leaving almost a
thousand people dead and many thousands wounded.@
(Web: Beyond The Pale http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
)
But by end 19th Century, the Jewish
population was over 5 million. Assimilation did occur and Jews took part
in the political movements, including the Narodniki:
AThe early
Jewish revolutionaries among the Narodniki saw themselves as Russians fighting
for the right of the Russian people, and believed that the Jewish problem
would be solved through assimilation after the liberation of the masses.@(Web:
Beyond ThePale: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
But more Jews were convinced of the
need for a separate Jewish workers movement. In 1897, the Jewish labor
movement Algemeyner Yiddisher Arbeter Bund was founded in Vilna,
and argued for "national and cultural autonomy' but not for a territorial
separation:
"The Bund advocated national and cultural autonomy
for the Jews, but not in the territorial sense; it argued for a middle
course between assimilation and a territorial solution. The Bund also developed
trade union activities and formed self-defence organizations against pogrom
violence. In 1905, it had about 33,000 members. "
(Web: Beyond The Pale: http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/32.html
It is this central question of a seperate
territory that distinguished the Bundists from the Zionists. Of
course the Bund was more orientated to the workers movement and socialism
also. So much so, that even the avowedly Zionist organisation formed in
Russia adopted a socialist tone:
AMany Jews
no longer saw any point in the struggle for emancipation within Russian
society and turn after the publication of Herzl's ADer
Judenstaat@ in 1836 to Zionism
instead. The largest Zionist party, Poalei Zion (AWorkers
of Zion@), founded in 1906,
was Marxist in orientation and defined the establishment of a socialist-Jewish
autonomous state in Palestine as its ultimate goal.@
Web Site : ABeyond
The Pale@; Ibid; p.39
Even more Jews left Russia, rather
than enter the political movement, going mainly to America and Western
Europe: ABetween 1881 and 1914,
more than 2 million Jews left Russia.@
Web Site : ABeyond The
Pale@; Ibid; p.39) . In March
1917, the revolution moves on and the Czarist regime is toppled. This was
greeted:
AWith joy
among the Jewish community@.
The Provisional Government, as one of its first acts, abolished all limitations
based on religion or nationality. For the first time in their history,
the Jews of Russia were free to organize and express themselves. Synagogues
and schools are opened, publications appeared in Hebrew and Yiddish, and
political and cultural life flourishes.... The ADeclaration
of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia@
recognized the right to both religious and national autonomy@.
Web Site : ABeyond
The Pale@; Ibid; p.40
The separation of Church and State,
was decreed by both the Zionists and the religious minded Jews. This edict,
introduced in January 1918, was coupled with the active organisation of
Jewish Bolshevik sections in the party termed Yevsektsii. All this:
AResulted
in the confiscation of religious properties and the prohibition of religious
instruction in schools....the Yevsektsii conducted a systematic campaign
against all aspects of Judaism and Jewish life. Its first decision was
the dissolution of the kehilla, the Jewish community administration, which
served as the main instrument of Jewish religious and cultural life.@
Web Site : ABeyond
The Pale@; Ibid; p40
After the Bolshevik Revolution, the
Civil War against White counter-revolutionaries had a major focus in the
Ukraine, where 60 percent of Russian Jews lived. The pogroms of the White
led armies were only fought off by the Bolsheviks. That left the Jewish
population at the end of the Civil War depleted, but with gratitude to
the Bolsheviks:
Stalin
was asked by Lenin, in 1923, to write a work to define the Bolshevik response
to the national question. This became the famous classic AMarxism
And The National Question@. What
did Stalin consider as the definition of a ANation?@
Stalin held that nationality was not dependent upon religion, nor upon
a racial mixture. The famous succinct definition given by Stalin is that
:
"A nation is a historically
constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common
language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested
in a common culture."
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
307.
Stalin pointed
out, that under conditions of a national oppression, the workers suffer
more than the bourgeoisie. One of the examples he uses to demonstrate this
are the Jewish workers. This might in fact, imply that Stalin views Jews
as a Anation@.
He states :
"Restriction of freedom of movement,
disfranchisement, repression of language, closing of schools, and other
forms of persecution affect the workers no less, if not more, than the
bourgeoisie. Such a state of affairs can only serve to retard the free
development of the intellectual forces of the proletariat of subject nations.
One cannot speak seriously of a full development of the intellectual faculties
of the Tartar or Jewish worker if he is not allowed to use his native language
at meetings and lectures, and if his schools are closed down.@
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question"; p.304.
OR: via:
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Stalin/MNQ12.html
Stalin
therefore argued that the National Liberation struggle was a key issue
for the workers movement. But the national liberation struggle must also
be supported for another reason. Because the national struggle is diversionary
for the real interests of the working class. It obscures and diverts from
the real workers struggle - for socialism :
"The policy of nationalist
persecution is dangerous to the cause of the proletariat .. It diverts
the attention of large strata from social questions, questions of the class
struggle, to national questions, questions Acommon@
to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And this creates a favourable soil
for lying propaganda about Aharmony
of interests@, for glossing over
the class interests of the proletariat and for the intellectual enslavement
of the workers. This creates a serious obstacle to the cause of using the
workers of all nationalities@.
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
320-21
And linked to
this, moreover, >nationalism=
encourages a policy of >divide
and rule=, allowing a ruling
class to split workers apart, again diverting from the main struggle -
the class struggle:
"The >system=
of oppression (leads) to a >system>
of inciting nations against each other to a >system=
of massacres and pogroms.. Of course the latter system is not everywhere
and always possible, but where it is possible - in the absence of elementary
civil rights - it frequently assumes horrifying proportions and threatens
to drown the cause of unity of the workers in blood and tears. The Caucasus
and the South Russia furnish numerous examples. ADivide
and rule@- such is the purpose
of the policy of incitement. And where such policy succeeds, it is a tremendous
evil for the proletariat and a serious obstacle to the cause of uniting
the workers of all the nationalities in the state."
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
321
In
part, the work "Marxism and the National Question", was written in order
to refute the shallow reasoning of the Austrian revisionist Marxist,
Otto Bauer.
Otto Bauer had proposed a programme of so-called
ACultural-national
autonomy@
for groups of workers of one national background
within a single state. Stalin explained what the programme actually meant
:
"Let us now examine the essence
of the programme itself. What is the national programme of the Austrian
social-democrats? It is expressed into words: Cultural-national autonomy.
This means firstly that autonomy would be granted let us say, not to Bohemia
or Poland, which are inhabited mainly by Czechs and Poles, but to Czechs
and Poles generally, irrespective of territory, no matter what part of
Austria they inhabit. That is why this autonomy is called national and
not territorial. It means secondly that the Czechs, Poles, Germans and
so on, scattered over various parts of Austria, taken personally as individuals
are to be organized into integral nations, and are as such to form part
of the Austrian state. In this way Austria would represent not a union
of autonomous nationalities, but a union of autonomous nationalities, constituted
irrespective of territory."
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
331-332
The fact that
Otto Bauer was a >socialist=
leader, made such theories especially dangerous for the working class,
as they dressed up bourgeois ideology in a more palatable dress, to >mask
it=. This made it more likely
for the workers movements to be fooled into adopting the theories:
"There is no need to mention
the kind of Asocialist principle
of nationality@ glorified by
Bauer.... True such nationalism is not so transparent, for it is skillfully
masked by socialist phrases, but it is all the more harmful to the proletariat
for that reason... But this does not exhaust the harm caused by national
autonomy; it prepares the ground not only for the segregation of nations,
but also for breaking up the united labour movements. The idea of national
autonomy creates the psychological conditions for the division of the united
workers= party into separate
parties built on national lines. The break-up of the party is followed
by the break-up of the trade unions and complete segregation is the result.
In this way, the united class movement is broken up into separate national
rivulets".
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
342-343.
In specific reference
to the Jews, Stalin explains that Otto Bauer, despite his praise for >cultural
autonomy= in general, is against
autonomy for the Jews. Why? In part on the basis of the historical background
of assimilation:
"In brief the Jewish Nation
is coming to an end, and hence there is nobody to demand national autonomy
for. The Jews are being assimilated. This view of the fate of the Jews
as a nation is not a new one. It was expressed by Marx as early as the
forties, in reference chiefly to the German Jews."
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.344
Stalin does not
disagree with Otto Bauer=s view
that the Jews cannot be preserved as a nation. But Stalin does question
Bauer=s grounds for rejecting,
Bauer=s own >cultural
autonomy=, to the Jews. After
all points out Stalin, while Bauer allows Pole, Germans etc this mythical
>cultural autonomy@,
he denies it to the Jews! But Stalin says, he does so on partial grounds.
The reason Bauer offers is AThat
the Jews have no closed territory or settlement@.
Stalin says : @This explanation
in the main a correct one, does not however express the whole truth@.
We may ask what is this Awhole
truth@? Stalin goes on to raise
the issue of the absence of a national market:
"The fact of the matter is
that there is no large and stable stratum connected with the land, which
would naturally rivet the nation together, serving not only as its framework
But also as a @national market@.
Of the five or six million Russian Jews only 3-4% are employed in trade
industry, in urban institutions and in general are town dwellers; moreover
they are spread all over Russia and do not constitute a majority in a single
gubernia."
J.V.Stalin AWorks=
Moscow; 1956; Vol 2; AMarxism
and the National Question@; p.
345
In conclusion,
Stalin in AMarxism
And The National Question@ thought
there was no stable geographical territory within which a Jewish nation
could feasibly be Ariveted@
together. These views certainly influenced Stalin, or at least were indistinguishable
on the whole from those of Stalin.
Lenin=s
Remarks On The National Question: On Jews And The Bund
How
did Lenin regard the Jewish minority, some of who saw themselves as a nation?
Jews certainly wanted liberation from oppressions, and this wish frequently
took the form of National aspirations. This was the explicit view of the
socialists of the Jewish ABund@.
The Bund is discussed in more detail below. Lenin first discusses the Jews
in a more general vein, in ACritical
Remarks on the National Question@,
written in 1913.
Here he states
that the Jews were not a separate nation. He acknowledges that racist reactionary
behaviour forms them into an >unhappy,
downtrodden and disfranchised caste=.
But rather than separation, Lenin argued that assimilation was the best
progressive step:
"It is the Jewish nationalists
in Russia in general and the Bundists in particular who vociferate most
about Russian orthodox Marxists- being Aassimilators@.
And yet ..out of the ten and a half million Jews all over the word, about
half that number live in the civilised world, where conditions favouring
Aassimilation@
are strongest, whereas the unhappy downtrodden disfranchised Jews in Russia
and Galicia who are crushed under the heel of the
Purishkeviches
(NB: Lenin uses APurishkevich@,
derived from the landowner monarchist, Vladimir Mitrofanovich
Purishkevich; who founded the reactionary >Black
Hundreds= in 1905 period to ward
off revolution (Both Russian and Polish)…. live where conditions
for Aassimilation@
least
prevail, where there is most segregation and
even a APale of Settlement@,
a Anumerous
clausus@
and other charming features of the Purishkevich
regime. The Jews in the civilised world are not a nation, they have in
the main become assimilated, say Karl Kautsky and Otto Bauer. The Jews
in Galicia and in Russia are not a nation; unfortunately (through no fault
of their own but through that of the Purishkeviches) they are still a caste
here.. "
Lenin ACritical
Remarks National Question@ In
ALenin On USA@;
p. 87; or Collected Works; Vols 20; pp 28-30, and 37;
OR:
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Lenin/CRNQ13.html
The
Bund argued for Acultural
autonomy@ and a separate
educational system. But Lenin replied that assimilation can work, even
under capitalism he argued, pointing to the process at work in the USA:
"A rough idea of the scale
which the general process of assimilation is assuming under the present
conditions of advanced capitalism may be obtained from the immigration
statistics of the United States of America.. The 1900 census in the USA
recorded over 10,000,000 foreigners. New York state.. grinds down national
distinctions."
Lenin ACritical
Remarks National Question@ In
ALenin On USA@;
p. 87; or: Collected Works; Vols 20; p.28-37;
Lenin
concludes that the plans for a non-assimilation is reactionary, and negatively
compares it to the introduction of Aseparate@
school systems in the South of the USA:
"In practice the plan for Aextra-territoriality@
or @cultural national@
autonomy could mean only one thing: the division of educational affairs
according to nationality re the introduction of national curia in school
affairs.. How utterly reactionary it is even from the standpoint of democracy
let alone from that of the proletarian class struggle for socialism.. A
single instance and a single scheme for the Anationalisation@
of the school system will make this point abundantly clear. In the USA
the division of the States into Northern and Southern, holds to this day
in all departments of life: the former possess the greatest traditions
of freedom and of struggle against the slaveowners; the latter possess
the greatest traditions of slave ownership, survivals of persecution of
the Negroes, who are economically oppressed and culturally backward (44%
of Negroes are illiterate and 6% of whites), and so forth. In the Northern
states Negro children attend the same schools as white children do. In
the South there are separate Anational@,
or racial, whichever you please, schools for Negro children. I think this
is the sole instance of actual Anationalisation@
of schools.. In Eastern Europe there exists a country where things like
the Beilis case are still possible, and Jews are condemned by the Purishkeviches
to a condition worse than that of the Negroes. In that country a scheme
for nationalisation Jewish schools was recently mooted in the Ministry.
Happily this reactionary utopia is no more likely to realised than the
utopia of the Austrian petty bourgeois.@
Lenin ACritical
Remarks on the National Question@;
Ibid; p. 88-89.
(Note: Beilis Case: An infamous case
where a Jew was framed and brutally put to death for crimes he had not
committed.)
Related to the
issue of whether the Jews formed a nation, was the concept of a multi-national
state. In
his later polemics of 1914, with Rosa
Luxemburg, Lenin
wrote "The Right Of Nations To Self-Determination". Here Lenin firmly
upholds the rights of nations to self determination, against Luxemburg=s
hesitations. But in this work, Lenin holds that the "typical normal" capitalist
state is one inhabited by a single nation:
"The tendency of every national
movement is towards the formation of national states, under which.. requirements
of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors
drive towards this goals and, therefore for the whole of Western Europe,
nay, for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and
normal for the capitalist period.@
Lenin; ARight
Of Nations Self Determination@;
Selected Works; Vol 1; Moscow; 1977; p.569; C W 20; p393;
OR
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Lenin/RNSD14.html
Departures
from this are unusual. Lenin goes on to cite the then Marxist, Karl
Kautsky, who
agreed that multi-national states are formed in territories where the state
structure remains "abnormal or underdeveloped" in relation to the needs
of capitalist society:
"States of mixed national composition
(known as multi-national states, as distinct from national states) are
"always those whose internal constitution has for some reason remained
abnormal or underdeveloped (backward)". Needless to say, Kautsky speaks
of abnormality exclusively in the sense of lack of conformity with what
is best adapted to the requirements of a developing capitalism."
Lenin;ARight
Of Nations to Self Determination@;
Ibid; p. 569.
Elsewhere Lenin continues to be
hostile to any chauvinism, on the part of the Jewish representatives. This
naturally came to a head with the Bund.
THE BUND AND EARLY ZIONISM
The
term Zionism, actually dates from the late 1890's and was supposedly coined
by Nathan
Birnbaum. But
many authorities accept that it was only made into a popular term by Theodore
Herzl.
AThe
term Zionism was first used publicly by Nathan Birnbaum at a discussion
meting in Vienna .. 23 January 1892. The history of political Zionism begins
with the publication of Theodore Herzl=s
>Judenstaat=
four years later at the first Zionist Congress... Before the word Zionism
became generally accepted, the term Palestinofilvsto (Hibat Zion) was widely
used in Russia. @
Preface; Walter Lacquer; >A
History of Zionism=; New York;
1976; p. xiii
Theodore Herzl
was a first a lawyer, and then a journalist and playwright. He believed
that the idea of the Jewish state was a historical necessity, that was
essential in order to overcome anti-Semitism. He considered both the Argentine
and Palestine as potential places where the Jews of the world could find
a haven from persecution. Herzl always maintained that he had not made
a new discovery, but that he had simply resurrected an old solution- that
of a Jewish State:
"Der Judenstaat (The Jewish
State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question@
was written in 1896.. (In it - Ed) Herzl disclaimed having made any sensational
new discovery. On the contrary.. AThe
idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one. It is the
restoration of the Jewish state.. I have discovered neither the Jewish
situation as it has crystallized in history, nor the means to remedy it."
Walter Lacquer; >A
History of Zionism=; New York;
1976; p. 86
So convinced
was Herzl that a separate state existence was the only solution for the
Jews, that he came to a secret agreement with Plevhe - the notorious
Tsarist Home minister who had sponsored pogroms in Russia (See above) to
encourage Jews to leave Russia for Palestine. This was simply the first
of many later Aaccomodations@
of Zionists with rabid anti-Semites.
The
First Zionist Congress
was held in Basle Switzerland on 29 August
1897. (Walter Lacquer; >A History
of Zionism=; New York; 1976;
p. 103).
Most Marxists
agree that the growth of Zionism, reflected the intense anti-Semitism persecution
that the Jewish people, workers especially, suffered. A Trotskyite Jew,
the Belgian Abraham
Leon, wrote
a useful study of the Jewish Question. According to Leon, Zionism was a
response to the worst racism, expressed in the anti-Jewish pogroms:
"Zionism was born in the light
of the incendiary fire of the Russian pogroms of 1882 and in the tumult
of the Dreyfus Affair.. In Russia the association of the ALovers
of Zion@ were founded. Leo
Pinsker wrote AAuto-emancipation@
in which he called for a return to Palestine as the sole possible solution
of the Jewish question.. In Paris Baron Rothschild, who like all
the Jewish magnates viewed with very little favour the mass arrival of
Jewish immigrants in the Western countries, became interested in Jewish
colonization in the Palestine... A short while later.. Theodore Herzl saw
anti-Semitic demonstrations at Paris provoked by the Dreyfus Affair.@
Abraham Leon, AThe
Jewish Question-A Marxist Interpretation@;
New York; 1970; pp.244-245.
In Russia there
were several Jewish ideological movements. The first Zionist movements
were led by
David Gordon and Perz Smolenskin. But
these were superseded by various >socialist
currents= within the Zionist
stream. One sprung out of the ALovers
of Zion@
movement mentioned above by Leon, and was
called AWorkers
of Zion@ (Poalei-Zion)
which formed in 1906 from groups in Minsk
and in Southern Russia. They were led by Ber
Borochov, who:
AAffirmed
that Jewish immigration would flow to Israel by a process of natural attraction.
The Zionist revolution would be carried out by the Jewish proletariat through
class struggle.@
Benjamin Pinkus: AThe
Jews of the Soviet Union@; Cambridge;
1988; p.41
But these various
currents, were in general eclipsed by the
Bund (Or the General Workers' Union of
Lithuania, Poland and Russia). This
was the most important Jewish workers socialist party and was established
in 1897. It stood for the autonomous organisation of Jewish workers. It
was a section of the general Russian Social-Democrats until it formulated
its policy for a so called >cultural
autonomy@. This
took place at Bialystok in May 1901. This step led to its membership being
torn in two, but it nonetheless between the years 1903-1905, had some 30,000
members. But by 1916 it had declined, only to jump up in numbers by the
time of December 1917. (Benjamin Pinkus: AThe
Jews of the Soviet Union@; Cambridge;
1988; p.43).
It took a social-chauvinist stand during World War I and during the Civil
War supported the counter-revolutionary forces. It finally dissolved itself
in 1921.
Stalin
explained why the Bund was more or less, obliged
to take up the position of the cultural autonomy in the way it did. By
its Sixth Congress (1905), the >national
programme@ on the grounds of
national autonomy was enshrined. Stalin argued that it was made inevitable
by two factors.
The first was the organizational
refusal to join with the larger international tide of Russian Social Democracy
(ie Marxism-Bolshevism) as it grew:
"The first circumstance is
the existence of the Bund as an organisation of Jewish and only Jewish
Social Democratic workers. Even before 1897 the Social-Democratic groups
active among the Jewish workers set themselves the aim of creating a Aspecial
Jewish workers= organisations@.
They founded such an organisation in 1897, by uniting to form the Bund.
That was at a time when the Russian Social Democracy as an integral body
virtually did not yet exist. The Bund steadily grew and spread, and stood
out more vividly against the bleak days of Russian social democracy.. Then
came the 1900's. A mass labour movement came into being. Polish Social
Democracy grew and drew the Jewish workers into the mass struggle. Russian
social democracy grew and attracted the Bund workers. Lacking a territorial
basis, the national framework of the Bund became too restrictive. The Bund
was faced with the problem of either merging with the general international
tide, or of upholding its independent existence as an extra-territorial
organisation. The Bund chose the latter course. Thus grew up the Atheory@
that the Bund is Athe sole representative
of the Jewish proletariat@. But
to justify this strange Atheory@
in any simple way became impossible... The Bund seized on >Cultural
-national autonomy@.
Stalin; "Marxism & The National
Question": Ibid; p.346-347;
The second
factor was the >peculiar=
and isolated position of the Jews:
AThe
second circumstance is the peculiar position of the Jews as separate national
minorities within compact majorities of other nationalities in integral
regions. We have already said that this position is undermining the existence
of the Jews as a nation and puts them on the road to assimilation. But
this is an objective process. Subjectively in the minds of the Jews, it
provokes a reaction and gives rise to the demand for a guarantee of the
rights of a national minority, for a guarantee against assimilation.. The
Bund could not avoid being in favor of a Aguarantee@..
it could not but accept national autonomy. For if the Bund could seize
upon any autonomy at all, it could only be national autonomy, ie. Cultural
national autonomy for the Jews since the Jews have no definite integral
territory.@
Ibid; p.347.
Stalin asked
pointedly:
"Can "institutions guarantee
a nation >complete freedom of
cultural development"? Can a Diet for cultural affairs guarantee a nation
against nationalist persecution? The Bund believes it can. But history
proves the contrary."
Ibid; p.349
Stalin=s
central point is that the absence of democracy ensures >no
guarantees= for >freedom
of cultural development=. Stalin
goes on to cite the cases of Russian Poland and Finland. He then pointed
out that the Bund=s splitting
tendencies of the workers movements were exposed, by its further actions.
These included the clauses whereby the Bund placed emphasis on the Jewish
language above all others:
"But it becomes still more
harmful when it is thrust upon a Anation@
whose existence and future are open to doubt. In such cases the advocates
of national autonomy are obliged to protect and preserve all the peculiar
features of the Anation@,
the bad as well as the good, just for the sake of Asaving
the nation@ from assimilation,
just for the sake of Apreserving
A it. That the Bund should take
this dangerous path was inevitable. And it did take it. We are referring
to the resolutions of recent conferences of the Bund on the question of
the ASabbath,@
AYiddish@,
etc. Social democracy strives to secure for all nations the right
to use their own language. But that does not satisfy the Bund; it demands
that Athe rights of the Jewish
language@ be championed with
Aexceptional persistence@
and the Bund itself in the elections to the 4th Duma declared that it would
give Apreference to those of
them (ie electors) who undertake to defend the rights of Jewish language.@
Not the general right of all nations to use their own language, but the
particular right of the Jewish language, Yiddish!.. But in what way then
does the Bund differ from the bourgeois nationalists?@
Ibid; p.352-353
Stalin now exposed
the Bund=s passage into a chauvinist
position, one that was anti-internationalist and anti-proletarian:
"It is not surprising that
the effect of this state of affairs upon the workers is to weaken their
sense of solidarity and to demoralize them; and the latter process is also
penetrating the Bund. We are referring to the increasing collisions between
Jewish and Polish workers in connection with unemployment. Here is the
kind of speech that was made on this subject at the 9th Conference of the
Bund: AWe regard the Polish workers,
who are ousting us, as pogromists, as scabs, we do not support their strikes,
we break them.@
Ibid; p.358-359.
Lenin
made clear in several subsequent articles
that he agreed with Stalin. For example, in "Does the Jewish Proletariat
Need an AIndependent political
party?", in 1903, Lenin expresses caustic surprise as to a recent violation
by the Bund. Despite polemics with the Bund, where the Bund asserted its=
wish to remain part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP),
the Bund was now proclaiming itself as an independent political party:
"The Jewish proletariat had
formed itself into an independent political party, the Bund. We did not
know this before. This is something new. Hitherto the Bund has been a constituent
part of the RSDLP.. It is true that at the 4th Congress of Bund, the Bund
decided to change its name.. On the other hand when Iskra polemicised with
the decision of the Bund=s 4th
Congress, the Bund itself stated very definitely that it only wanted to
secure the acceptance of its wishes and decisions by the RSDLP; in other
words it flatly and categorically acknowledged that until the RSDLP adopted
new Rules and settled new forms of attitude towards the Bund, the latter
would remain a section of the RSDLP.. But now... this is something new."
Lenin V.I: "Does the Jewish
proletariat Need an independent political party?"; Iskra 1903; In Collected
Works; Moscow; 1985; Vol 6; p. 328-329.
Lenin goes on
to describe how the Bund has attacked the Jewish AEkaterinoslav
Committee@
- which had adopted an internationalist position
already. The Bund=s attack was
on the question of where does anti-Semitism arise from? The Ekaterinoslav
committee had argued that the roots of anti-Semitism were international,
and that it found Aadherents
among the bourgeois and not among the working class sections of the population@(Lenin
Ibid; p. 331).
But the Bund
had chastised the Ekaterinoslav committee for this, arguing that anti-Semitism
has "Struck roots in the mass of the workers." Lenin denied the Bund=s
view linking anti-Semitism with the bourgeois interests:
"The link that undoubtedly
exists between anti-Semitism and the interests of the bourgeois, and not
of the working class sections of the population. If they had given it a
little more thought 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 still quite ignorant, take
part in a pogrom.. We must not weaken the force of our offensive by breaking
up into numerous independent political parties."
Lenin Ibid; p. 331-332.
He elsewhere
repeated again that the way forward was assimilation, and not separation:
"Can we possibly attribute
to chance the fact that it is the reactionary forces all over Europe and
especially Russia who pose the assimilation of the Jew and try to perpetuate
their isolation? That is precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to:
assimilation or isolation?_ and the idea of a Jewish Anationalist@
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, the spirit of the >ghetto=."
Lenin: "Position of the Bund
in the Party"; Collected Works; Vol 7; Moscow; 1986 p.101;
Should Workers Always Support
A National Status ?
We
argued earlier, that Stalin=s
central position regarding Jewish claims of nationhood, was that democratic
rights and freedom from oppressions were the key demands that needed to
be won - and not "nationhood". The position, of Lenin and Stalin,
was always that Nations - if a national status did in fact exist (By definitions
provided by Stalin) - should have the full Right to Self Determination.
"The right of self-determination
means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the
right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to
enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete
secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights."
Stalin; Ibid; p.321.
But even if there
is a nation, NOT
all claims to nationhood are strategically
defensible from the workers perspective. For example the Marxist-Leninist
will not necessarily support all claims to nationhood if they obstruct
the working peoples. For instance, the resurrection of the influence of
the >beys and mullahs=,
in Transcaucasia, would not have been in the best interests of the >toiling
strata. The best answer for the workers and toilers, depends upon the precise
historical situation. It must be carefully found by looking at the precise
facts:
"A nation has the right to
arrange its life on autonomous lines. It even the has the right to secede.
But this does not mean that it should do so under all circumstances, that
autonomy or separation, will everywhere and always be advantageous for
a nation; ie. For its majority, ie for the toiling strata. The Transcacausian
Tartars as a nation may assemble , let us say, in their Diet and succumbed
to the influence of their beys and mullahs, decide to restore the old order
of things and to secede from the state. According to the meaning of the
clause on self-determination they are fully entitled to do so. But will
this be in the interest of the toiling strata of the Tartar nation? Can
Marxists look on indifferently when the beys and mullahs assume the leadership
of the masses in the solution of the national question?.. Should not Marxists
come forward with a definite plan for the solution of the question, a plan
which would be most advantageous for the Tartar masses?.. But what solution
would be most compatible with the interests of the toiling masses? Autonomy,
federation or separation? All these are problems the solution of which
will depend on the concrete historical conditions in which the given nation
finds itself.. Conditions like everything else change, and a decision which
is correct at one particular time may prove to be entirely unsuitable at
another."
Stalin; Ibid; p.324
Stalin was clear
upon the rights of minorities and the national question. For example, where
there is one geographical region with different minorities, or >proto-nations=,
living side by side. This is a special type of national problem. Such situations
are still frequent. In Stalin=s
day, in Europe, this situation existed in Transcaucasia. As a precondition
to solve the problems of these areas, Stalin insisted that:
"The complete democratisation
of the country is the basis and condition for the solution of the national
question.@
Stalin; Ibid; p.373.
But, Stalin recognised
that there was a possibility that independence and secession was
>necessary=
for some parts. He then considered the possibility that for some parts
>regional
autonomy=
was preferable. This was so he argued, for
"The Jews in Poland, the Letts in Lithuania, the Russians in the Caucasus,
the Poles in the Ukraine and so on...@.
This was
for two reasons;
Firstly,
because it disposed of a >fiction
bereft of territory=; and,
Secondly,
it did not divide people by nation:
"The only correct solution is
regional autonomy, autonomy for such crystallised units as Poland, Lithuania,
the Ukraine, the Caucasus etc. The advantage of regional autonomy consists
first of all in the fact that it does not deal with a fiction bereft of
territory, but with a definite population inhabiting a definite territory.
Next it does not divide people according to nations, it does not strengthen
national barriers; on the contrary it breaks down these barriers and unites
the population in such a manner as to open the way for division of a different
kind, division according to classes.. Of course, not one of these regions
constitutes a compact homogeneous nation, for each is interspersed with
national minorities. Such are the Jews in Poland, the Letts in Lithuania,
the Russians in the Caucasus, the Poles in the Ukraine, and so on. It may
be feared therefore that the minorities will be oppressed by the national
majorities. But there will be grounds for fear only if the old order continues
to prevail in the country. Give the country complete democracy and all
grounds for fear will vanish."
Stalin; Ibid; p.376.
Again - the key
issue for Stalin, was that definite, visible, meaningful and clear democratic
rights (for instance to use its own language etc). should be granted. So
strongly did he feel about this, that he repeats it. He argues that without
it an =artificial union=
means nothing; and that with it the perceived need for >national
union= disappear. He identifies
what is it that Aagitates@
a national minority as discrimination of language, liberty of conscience
-@religious liberty@,
self regulated schooling etc:
"What the minorities want is
not an artificial union but real rights in the localities they inhabit.
What can such a union give them without complete democratisation? On the
other hand, what need is there for a national union when there is complete
democratisation? What is that particularly agitates a national minority?
A minority is discontented not because there is not national union but
because it does not enjoy the right to use its native language. Permit
it to use its native language and the discontent will pass of itself. A
minority is discontented not because there is no artificial union but because
it does not possess it own schools. Give it its own schools and all grounds
for discontent will disappear.. A minority is discontented not because
there is not national union, but because it does not enjoy liberty of conscience
(religious liberty), liberty of movement, etc. Give it those liberties
and it will cease to be discontented. Thus equal rights of nation in all
forms (language, schools, etc) is an essential element in the solution
of the national question.. Complete democratisation of the country is required."
Stalin; Ibid; p.375-377
Stalin=s
view, regarding the formation of multi-national
states, was
the basis for Lenin=s viewpoint
that echoed Kautsky (See Lenin above). This was that
the formation of multi-national states,
is a "special method" of the formation of states, and
one which takes place in territories where certain conditions hold,
that are more common in the East.
These conditions are:
1) Where more than one pre-nation
(or nascent nationality) exists;
2) Where capitalism has not
yet been eliminated; and
3) Where capitalism is feebly
developed but is more developed in one of the pre-nations concerned than
in the other (or others):
"Whereas in the West (of Europe-ed)
nations developed into states, in the East multi-national states were formed..
This special mode of formation of states could take place only where feudalism
has not yet been eliminated, where capitalism was feebly developed, where
the
nationalities which had been
forced into the background had not
not been able to consolidate
themselves economically into integral nations".
Stalin Ibid; p.314.
Again,
even in this context of the multi-national state, Stalin used the example
of Transcaucasia. Stalin favoured Democratisation and Regional Autonomy
- equating with national status - within a larger federation.
In summary the views of Lenin
and Stalin on Zionism were:
1. The Jews did not form a nation;
2. The Jewish workers were the
most oppressed section of the Jewish peoples, all of whom were discriminated
against and maltreated;
3. The solution to their woes
was assimilation; and ultimately socialism;
4. But their legitimate feelings
of oppression should be directly addressed by immediate granting of full
democratic rights, including language rights etc;
5. The Bund and other Zionist
organisation which tried to pull workers away from affiliations with the
internationalist workers movement, were objectively fomenting a counter-revolutionary
division.
BACK To Part One: Marx
On Jewry
GO TO PART
3 OF THIS ARTICLE on Birobidzhan through
to Second World War; Atomic Bomb Diplomacy:
GO TO Table
of Contents ALLIANCE Number 30