Lenin On National Question and Bundists
Collected writings of Lenin on the subject
PDF Download Yandex Archive org Academia Edu
National Question whether it be in general -between countries- or in particular within a nation-state cannot be taken and studied without the question of nationalism -nationalist ideology.
The question of the right of nations to determine their own fate has been taken up extensively by Lenin and Stalin, articles for which has been compiled in the book “Lenin on the Right to Self-Determination” which is summarized in the introduction section. Although the articles touch base with the issue of “nationalist ideology” and contain “warnings” for it, the question has been dealt with in so many articles in connection with other issues. The only directly related to the issue of “nationalism” in specific has been the articles about the “Bundists”.
In most cases the articles related to the right to self-determination concentrated on the `national Liberation movements` and the attitude towards them. Marxist Leninist parties and movements have been the secondary issue except that of Bundizm related articles.
Considering the undeniable fact of “nationalism” in disguise appears in various Marxist Leninist parties and movements which clouds the working class ideology and effectively divides and builds an ethnic wall hindering their unity, it has been imperative to compile the writings and speeches specifically related to “Bundist” since quite some parties and movements give lip service to the theory but act like “Bundists” in deed- especially in Turkey. (My commentary will be based on the developments in Turkey)
Looking at the history of Russia, it is clear that The Bund brought nationalism and separatism into the Russian working-class movement and took an opportunist stand on the most important issues of the socialist movement. Typical Bundist stands are being taken in our days in most issues on the current agenda for example the struggle against the fascist dictatorship or autocracy rather than acting “ as a single and centralised militant organisation with the whole of the proletariat without distinction of language or nationality, “and struggling against the autocracy, against the bourgeoisie as a whole, separation of working class by ethnicity is being promoted not only in theory in some cases, but in practice as a whole. Opportunism, Liberalism and tailism in various degrees influences the theory and practice of parties and organizations and prevails in any stand at any given time or subject; practice is determined not based on the application of theories to the conditions and situations for the benefit of laboring masses and their struggle in mind, but theories have been revised and/or invented to justify the “nationalist” practices. The most important of which is being the separation of working class by ethnicity, in some cases, childishly and illogically fabricating a statistics showing the “working class” of oppressor nation as “minimal” and thus coming to the conclusion that “that portion of working class is irrelevant”, but the “working class” of oppressed nation is relevant and since the current agenda for that nation is “national liberation”, struggle embraces the “whole ethnic group” as an homogenic one – a blunt nationalist view dressed with Marxist Leninist ingredients.
It would be beneficial to go back to the history and see the mirror images of past in present;
“The Bund (The General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia) came into being in 1897 at the founding Congress of Jewish Social-Democratic groups in Vilna. In the main, it comprised semi-proletarian Jewish artisans in the west of Russia. At the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1898, the Bund joined the latter “as an autonomous organisation, independent only in respect of questions affecting the Jewish proletariat specifically”. (The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee, Russ. ed., Moscow 1954, Part 1, p. 14.)
Such an approach that the questions affecting a specific ethnic proletariat requires an autonomous organisation - although not as much in theory but- in practice is widely defended and being carried out- which in Lenin’s point of view is an expression of nationalism and separatism.
“The Bund was an expression of nationalism and separatism in the Russian working-class movement. In April 1901 the Bund’s Fourth Congress decided to alter the organisational ties with the R.S.D.L.P., as established by the latter’s First Congress. In its resolution, the Bund Congress declared that It regarded the R.S.D.L.P. as a federation of national, organisations, and that the Bund should enter the R.S.D.L.P. as a federal section. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. turned down the Bund’s demand that it should be recognised the sole representative of the Jewish proletariat, the Bund left the Party, but rejoined it in 1906 on the basis of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress. From the note Lenin, The Black Hundreds, and the Organisation of an Uprising
We have witnessed similar demands made in different forms and under different disguises with varying revised and fabricated theories, some still reigns within some parties and organisations although most dissolvement, separations and new ones along these lines have been a result for the last 30 years or so.
Within the R.S.D.L.P. the Bund constantly supported the Party’s opportunist wing (the Economists, Mensheviks, and Liquidators), and waged a struggle against Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks. To the latter’s programmatic demand for the right of nations to self-determination the Bund contraposed the demand for autonomy of national culture. While the Stolypin reaction was raging, the Bund took a liquidationist stand, and was active in the formation of the August anti-Party bloc. During the First World War the Bundists held a social-chauvinist stand, and in 1917 they supported the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government and sided with the enemies of the Great October Socialist Revolution. During the foreign military intervention and the Civil War the Bund’s leaders made common cause with the forces of counter-revolution. Meanwhile there was a turn among the Bund’s rank and file for collaboration with the Soviets. In March 1921 the Bund decided to dissolve itself, part of the membership joined the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on the basis of the general rules of admission” , From the note Lenin, The Black Hundreds and the Organisation of an Uprising
As it was an inseparable history of Bolshevism in Russia, it has become an ongoing history of Bolshevism in Turkey. Lets look at the history of Bolshevism in her struggle against the “Bundizm” and its supporter “economism” as a mirror to last 50 years history of Turkey;
“The origin of Bolshevism is inseparably linked with the struggle of what is known as Economism (opportunism which rejected the political struggle of the working class and denied the latter’s leading role) against revolutionary Social-Democracy in 1897–1902. Economism, supported by the Bund, was defeated, and eliminated by the well-known campaign of the old Iskra (Munich, London, and Geneva, 1900–03), which restored the Social-Democratic Party (founded in 1898 but later destroyed by arrests) on the basis of Marxism and revolutionary Social-Democratic principles. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (August 1903), the Iskrists split: the majority stood for the principles and tactics of the old Iskra, while the minority turned to opportunism, and was backed by the one-time enemies of Iskra, the Economists and the Bundists. Hence the terms Bolshevism and Menshevism (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks).
In 1903–04 the struggle was mainly over the Mensheviks’ opportunism in questions of organisation. From the end of 1904 on, tactical differences became the most important. The “plan for the Zemstvo campaign” put forward (Autumn 1904) by the new Iskra, which had deserted to the Mensheviks, took up the defence of the tactics of “not intimidating the liberals”.
The year 1905 saw the tactical differences take final shape (the Bolshevik Congress, Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in London, May 1905, and the Menshevik “conference” held in Geneva at the same time). The Mensheviks strove to adapt working-class tactics to liberalism. The Bolsheviks, however, put forward as the aim of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic revolution: to carry it through to the end and to lead the democratic peasantry despite the treachery of the liberals. The main practical divergencies between the two trends in the autumn of 1905 were over the fact that the Bolsheviks stood for boycotting the Bulygin Duma while the Mensheviks favored participation.
In the spring of 1906, the same thing happened with regard to the Witte Duma. First Duma: the Mensheviks stood for the slogan of a Duma (Cadet) Ministry; the Bolsheviks, for the slogan of a Left (Social-Democratic and Trudovik) Executive Committee that would organise the actual struggle of the masses, etc... At the Stockholm Congress (1906) the Mensheviks won the upper hand, and at the London Congress (1907), the Bolsheviks.
In 1908–09 the Vperyod group (Machism] in philosophy and otzovism, or boycotting the Third Duma, in politics—Bogdanov, Alexinsky, Lunacharsky and others) broke away from the Bolsheviks.
In 1909-11, in fighting against them (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, 1909 ), as well as against the liquidators (Mensheviks who denied the need for an illegal Party), Bolshevism came close to the pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov and others), who had declared a resolute war on liquidationism.” Lenin, On Bolshevism
During late 1970s and up to early 1990s it was not so much different that of Russia in essence against the “nationalists” , or better, against those Marxist Leninists who could not rid themselves off their ethnic subjectivity. Referring back;
“Formally, I think, our attitude to the Bund should be studiously correct (not hitting straight in the teeth), but at the same time icily cold, buttoned up to the neck, and on legitimate grounds we should press hard against the Bund relentlessly and all the time, going right to the end without being afraid. Let them get out, if they want to, but we should not give them the slightest occasion, the shadow of an excuse, for a break. We must, of course, observe the formalities prior to the Congress, but there is no point in showing our cards. You write: Bundist knows we are working for Iskra but keeps silent, although we have no right to do so in the name of the O.C. In my opinion, this should not be done from the O.C. but from each member personally, referring not to the O.C., but to the committees which have recognised Iskra. The result is the same and even much stronger (there are no “agents”), and the formal aspect is irreproachable. Preparing the committees against the Bund is one of the most important tasks of the present moment, and it, too, is fully possible without any violation of form. To: YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA, Private, from Lenin
Opportunism, nationalism, and to some degree social-chauvinism have become the trend and with eclectic, revised theories the root causes of dissolvements, separations and forming ”new ” parties and organisations during 1990s and onward. Referring back;
“The inane idea of the necessity of forming an International of ‘internationalist Social-Democrats’ .., [of] opposition elements picked at random from all the socialist parties .... The International can be restored only from the same elements it has consisted of till now .... A restored International will not be the ‘third’ in succession, as is desired by a handful of sectarians and experts in the business of arranging splits, but the selfsame Second International, which has not died, but has been temporarily paralyzed by a world disaster....”
This is what Mr. V. Kosovsky writes in issue No. 8 of the Bund’s Information Bulletin. We are deeply thankful for the frankness shown by this Bundist, who is not the brightest of the lot. This is not the first time he has defended opportunism with an outspokenness that must be displeasing to the Bund’s diplomatists. This time again, he will be helping the struggle against opportunism, by revealing to the workers how hopelessly far the Bund stands from proletarian socialism. Mr. V. Kosovsky does not see the link between opportunism and social-chauvinism. To discern that link, one must be able to ask oneself the following questions: what are the fundamental ideas in the two currents? How has opportunism developed in Europe during the last few decades? What is the attitude towards social-chauvinism revealed by the opportunist and the revolutionary wing in, a number of European countries, as, for instance, in Russia, Germany, Belgium, France, Britain, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, and Bulgaria? “ Lenin, We Are Thankful For Such Frankness
During 1990s, except few individual voices- some had to leave and chosen to be non-party as a result- , not even one party or movement raised its voice and dared to do so for fear and chosen opportunism.
“Be stricter with the Bund! Be stricter, too, in writing to the Bund and Rabocheye Dyelo abroad, reducing their function to such a minimum that in any case it cannot be of importance.” Lenin, To: P. A. KRASIKOV
As a result while some played at the center and chosen opportunism, others concentrated on “national issue”, helped bourgeoisie in its struggle to divide the working class for the purpose of weakening her and let the “nationalism” reign and cloud the working class conscious with it. Referring back;
“For a long time it has of course been no secret to the Party that a group of liquidators has been trying to call a conference with the assistance of the Bund, which has essentially nothing to do with actual Russian Social-Democratic activity. (For the information of German readers let us add that when we speak about Russian Party work the Bund is not included because its sphere of activity is confined exclusively to the Jewish proletariat. “ Lenin, Reply to Liquidators’ Article in Leipziger Volkszeitung
And “ internationalism“ converted in to “national question” at large rather than “socialist” one in particular. İt is not a coincidence though that the US and EU NGO funds and support have been used for translations and promotions of this “conversion”. (Only to look at the “supporters” stated on their web sites would be sufficient evidence to that fact.) The issue of “socialism “ or “ socialist struggle” was replaced -or at best given lip service- by the “issue of national question” with illusions of “new alternative” to the question and followed by its promotion worldwide. Mainly what promoted was (and is) a caricature of Marxism Leninism ; Bookchin-ism with the dressing of Leninism in an unseen form of practice of eclecticism. Referring back;
Then, about the internationalists. In one of your recent editorials, you enumerated those organisations which, in your opinion, hold an internationalist stand. High on that list is-the Bund. We would like to know what grounds you have to number the Bund among the internationalists. The resolution of its Central Committee does not contain a single definite word on the major problems of socialism. It breathes a most unprincipled eclecticism. The Bund’s organ (Information Bulletin) indubitably adheres to the standpoint of Germanophile chauvinism, or else gives a “synthesis” of French and German chauvinism. It was with good reason that an article by Kosovsky adorned the pages of Die Neue Zeit, a journal which (we hope you agree with us on this) is now among the most disreputable of the so-called “socialist” press organs.” Lenin Letter from the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to The Editors of Nashe Slovo
Some even have gone as far as defending a “federalism” based on “ethnicity” overreaching the existing boundaries of not one country but of four countries. The aim of uniting and building a country on an ethnic basis that overreaches the existing boundaries cannot be defended without sinking into the swamp of chauvinism and nationalism. That cannot be a “progressive” aim but a “reactionary” aim.
“I am very worried that part of the Letts are for cultural-national autonomy, or wavering, for Bundist federalism, or wavering, hesitating to attack the nationalism and separatism of the Bund” Lenin, To: I. E. HERMAN
İt was not, again, a surprise that the Trotskyites were in support of this approach, for the Trots had been the core supplier of “fabricated” theories for the ethnic- ML organizations in their search for theories fitting their anti- ML practice as early as late 1970s. Referring back in regard to both above;
From this alone the German comrades can see how shamelessly the Letts, the Bund, Trotsky, and sundry private “informants” are deceiving them. It is clearly a matter of enabling the same Trotsky, the Bund, the Letts, or the Caucasians to lay hands on the money on behalf of angeblichen “organisations”, whose existence neither the Vorstand nor anyone else can prove or verify. Lenin, To: L. B. KAMENEV
“In Russia, as it happens, all the Jewish bourgeois parties (as well as the Bund, which actually follows in their wake) adopted the programme of “extra-territorial (cultural-national) autonomy”,.. The Bund’s nationalist vacillations were formally and unequivocally condemned long ago by the Second (1903) Congress, which flatly rejected the amendment moved by the Bundist Goldblatt on “the setting up of institutions guaranteeing freedom of development for the nationalities” (a pseudonym for “cultural-national autonomy”).” Lenin, A Contribution to the History of the National Programme in Austria and in Russia
Now we come to the “splits” of parties and organizations especially 1990s forward -with some possible exceptions- purely opportunistic reasons and ethnic subjectivity. The trend was to take advantage of situation where the “bourgeois nationalism” gaining grounds speedily and the “market” was open to grab “followers” , make agreements with bourgeois nationalist movement, and in some cases to “confiscate “ the resources as they split. Referring back;
The Mensheviks at present are stronger than we are; it’s going to be a long and hard fight. The icons abroad[Menshevik leaders] raise a heap of money. I consider it simply indecent for us to raise the question of an agreement with the Bund, etc., after their (and the Lettish) conference with the C.C.[ This refers to a conference of representatives of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P., the Bund, the Lettish S.D.L.P., and the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party held abroad in January 1905] (minutes in Posledniye Izvestia and in Iskra No. 89). It would be idiocy; it would look as if we were thrusting ourselves upon them. We shall be told: we don’t know you, we have already reached agreement with the C.C. It will end in disgrace, believe me! “Lenin, To: S. I. GUSEV, To Nation from Lenin
İn some cases liquidationist practice was so similar yet occasionally upside down to Russian historical experience. The reasons given for the liquidation and-or split varied from practical differences to differences going as far as being ridiculously irrelevant. As one of the comrade from an organization who was involved in discussion summarizes; “they could not come out and indicate the core of reason because they knew well that would be exposing their opportunism, so they have chosen a disputed subject that has no importance for the current tasks but of a subject related to the “communist society” which even Marx and Engels called it would be ridiculous to discuss something related to a communist society at this stage. “ So the purpose of bringing about disputes that are in no way decisive on the current struggle was to find an excuse and justify their liquidationist practice. Referring back Lenin was saying;
Liquidationism is “a deliberately vague, maliciously indefinite catchword”, asserts a leading article in Golos. Maximov asserts that Proletary magnifies and inflates practical differences of opinion with the ultimatumists until they become differences in principle. Poor Golos! So far it has been able to lay the blame for all “malicious invention” on the Bolsheviks, i.e., on its “factional opponents”. Now it is Plekhanov and the Bund that have to. be charged with malicious invention. Is it Plekhanov and the Bundists or is it Golos who “maliciously” prevaricates; which is more likely to be true?
Liquidationism is a deep-seated social phenomenon, indissolubly connected with the counter-revolutionary mood of the liberal bourgeoisie, with disintegration and break up in the democratic petty bourgeoisie. The liberals and petty-bourgeois democrats are trying in thousands of ways to demoralise the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party, to undermine and overthrow it, to clear the way for legal workers’ associations in which they might achieve success. And in a time like this the liquidators are ideologically and organizationally fighting against the most important remainder of the revolution of yesterday, against the most important bulwark of the revolution of tomorrow.” Lenin, Methods of the Liquidators and Party Tasks of the Bolsheviks
Was there a struggle against the opportunism during this period of splits, forming new parties, organizations? Yes, but unfortunately mostly as individual efforts, since almost all existing parties and organizations were going through similar liquidationist practices in different degrees. Following the splits and new formations, opportunists dominated the field with their ethnically subjective theories fitting their practice. It has become the era of opportunism and bourgeois nationalism in where the picture of it was drawn with Marxist Leninist brush. Considering most of the leadership cadres were residing in European countries, the resemblance is quite striking to the Russian history in that aspect.
“In the national question the old Iskra, which in 1901–03 worked on and completed a programme for the R.S.D.L.P. as well as laying the first and fundamental basis of Marxism in the theory and practice of the Russian working-class movement, had to struggle, in the same way as on other questions, against petty-bourgeois opportunism. This opportunism was expressed, first and foremost, in the nationalist tendencies and waverings of the Bund. The old Iskra conducted a stubborn struggle against Bund nationalism, and to forget this is tantamount to becoming a Forgetful John again, and cutting oneself off from the historical and ideological roots of the whole Social-Democratic workers’ movement in Russia.
On the other hand, when the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. was finally adopted at the Second Congress in August 1903, there was a struggle, unrecorded in the Minutes of the Congress because it took place in the Programme Commission, which was visited by almost the entire Congress—a struggle against the clumsy attempts of several Polish Social-Democrats to cast doubts on “the right, of nations to self-determination”, i.e., attempts to deviate towards opportunism and nationalism from a quite different angle.
And today, ten years later, the struggle goes on along those same two basic lines, which shows equally that there is a profound connection between this struggle and all the objective conditions affecting the national question in Russia…
In Russia—as usual—people have been found who have made it their business to enlarge on a little opportunist error and develop it into a system of opportunist policy. In the same way as Bernstein in Germany brought into being the Right Constitutional-Democrats in Russia—Struve, Bulgakov, Tugan & Co.—so Otto Bauer’s “forgetfulness of internationalism” (as the super cautious Kautsky calls it!) gave rise in Russia to the complete acceptance of “cultural national autonomy” by all the Jewish bourgeois parties and a large number of petty-bourgeois trends (the Bund and a conference of Socialist-Revolutionary national parties in 1907). Backward Russia serves, one might say, as an example of how the microbes of West-European opportunism produce whole epidemics on our savage soil.” Lenin, The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.
Opportunism was (and still is) so dominant, widespread, and powerful that neither the large, somewhat chauvinist party nor the petty bourgeois, middle of the road large organization could protect themselves from similar splits. The core reasons of splits have become so apparent on their articles and approaches to daily events for any seeing eyes.
“As for the O.C. (R.S.D.L.P), the conference reaffirms that its main group, which is in Russia, and also its literary representative take the social-patriotic standpoint, and that its weak internationalist wing has neither the strength nor the courage to break with the social-patriots, and that the O.C. Centre takes the pacifist standpoint; the conference considers that the attitude of the Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania to the O.C. can consist exclusively of criticism of its position, promoting its disintegration and separating from the O.C. its internationalist elements grouped around Nashe Slovo, an organ which has done a great deal to elaborate internationalist-revolutionary views in the ranks of the R.S.D.L.P.
“The same applies, in particular, also to the Bund, which is a part of the O.C., for its attitude is an even greater chaotic mixture of social-patriotic and pacifist, Russophile and Germanophile elements.” Lenin, Letter From the Committee of Organisations Abroad to the Sections of the R.S.D.L.P.
All these splits, like in Russian history has shown, was “ to the joy of those nationalist elements (the Bund) .. as the “adaptation of socialism to nationalism.” Lenin, The Split in the Russian Social-Democratic Duma Group İnteresting enough while the Bourgeois Nationalist movement do not demand a secession but compromise with the bourgeoisie of Nation-State to extract privileges for its own bourgeoisie, most of the “Bundists” call for secession from all surrounding countries for a larger feudal supported bourgeois state on ethnic base. Although they quote Lenin for such claim, they hide the core of Lenin’s words; the working class.
The class-conscious workers do not advocate secession. They know the advantages of large states and the amalgamation of large masses of workers. But large states can be democratic only if there is complete equality among the nations; that equality implies the right to secede.” Lenin, More About “Nationalism
As in Turkey, it has been the inevitable practice of the Bundists in history to replace the socialist struggle with nationalist struggle concealing the aim with Marxist Leninist phrases. Some even openly supported the bourgeois idea of “new alternative” (of course to socialism) defended by the Bourgeois Nationalists. “ The liberal” said Lenin, “ is not pleased that the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is regarded as the fundamental question. The liberal strives to ignite and fan the flames of national struggle in order to divert attention from the serious questions of democracy and socialism… Socialism actually does take first place .. It is ridiculous even to compare the struggle of the proletariat for socialism, a world phenomenon, with the struggle of one of the oppressed nations against the reactionary bourgeoisie that oppresses it. “Lenin, Vekhi Contributors and Nationalism
As conclusion, Marxist Leninist have faced two dilemma for the question of right to self-determination; one is the attitude towards the Bourgeois Nationalist Movement the other is the attitude towards Bundist – tacit nationalists with Marxist Leninist mask. For the former the basic principles are clearly stated for the recognition and support; “it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness.” Lenin Cultural national Autonomy - Critical Remarks on the National Question As far as the demand for secession; “The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognizing equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for practicality (to say yes to demand) is in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations . Lenin Practicality on National Question
For the latter, due to its Marxist Leninist mask, it is not easy for the large masses to see their true faces and thus it is not an easy task to expose them since their opportunism directed to and leads to a large followers of their nationalistic views of the same. Mentioning Stalin’s article, Lenin states;
“Koba had time to write a big article on the nationalities problem. Good! We must fight for the truth against the separatists and opportunists of the Bund and among the liquidators.” Lenin, To: L. B. KAMENEV
Liberalism, as it reflects in avoiding criticizing and exposing the “wrongs”, is the worse enemy of Marxism Leninism, and the most dangerous for the socialist struggle. Fighting against opportunism, especially of this kind, cannot be avoided for “subjective” and-or “calculated” reasoning, for that kind of liberalism is the very definition of opportunism. It is a long bumpy road that Marxist Leninist have to go through without fear, without subjectivity in order to clean herself up from every right and left trends, especially from the “nationalist” views.
Whatever level theoretical knowledge a man may have, in the final analysis, what makes him a Marxist-Leninist is that he has freed himself from his ethnic subjectivity.
E.A
