Second Congress of the RSDLP

17 July – 10 August 1903

Resolution Adopted On the Place of the Bund in the Party

Considering:

  • that the closest unity of the Jewish proletariat with the proletariat of those races amidst which it lives is absolutely necessary in the interests of its struggle for political and economic liberation;
  • that only such very close unity guarantees success for the social-democrats in the struggle against all forms of chauvinism and antisemitism; and
  • that such unity in no way rules out independence for the Jewish workers’ movement in all matters concerned with special tasks of agitation among the Jewish population which arise from differences in language and living conditions;

The Second Congress of the RSDLP expresses its profound conviction that restructuring the organisational relations between the Jewish proletariat and the Russian proletariat on federal lines would constitute a substantial obstacle in the way of fuller organisational rapprochement between conscious proletarians of different races, and would inevitably do enormous harm to the interests of the proletariat generally and of the Jewish proletariat of Russia in particular; and, therefore, emphatically rejecting as absolutely inadmissible in principle any possibility of federal relations between the RSDLP and the Bund, as a component section of the party, the Congress resolves that the Bund occupies, within the united RSDLP, the position of an autonomous component, the limits to its autonomy to be defined when the general party rules are elaborated. In view of the above, the Congress, regarding the ‘rules’ proposed by the Bund delegates as a draft for a section of the general party rules, defers discussion of this draft until Point 6 of the agenda, and proceeds to next business.

* * *

Draft Resolution on the Withdrawal of the Bund

Not Submitted to the Congress

The Congress considers the refusal of the Bund delegates to submit to the decision adopted by the majority of the Congress as the Bund’s withdrawal from the RSDLP.

The Congress deeply regrets this step, which, it is convinced, is a major political mistake on the part of the leaders of the ‘Jewish Workers’ Union’, a mistake which must inevitably injure the interests of the Jewish proletariat and working-class movement. The Congress considers that the arguments cited by the Bund delegates in justification of their step amount in practice to entirely unfounded apprehensions and suspicion that the social-democratic convictions of the Russian social-democrats are insincere and inconsistent; in respect of theory they are the result of the unfortunate penetration of nationalism into the social-democratic movement of the Bund.

The Congress voices its desire for, and firm conviction of, the need for complete and closest unity of the Jewish and Russian working-class movement in Russia, unity not only in principle but also in organisation, and resolves to take all measures in order to acquaint the Jewish proletariat in detail both with this resolution of the Congress and with the general attitude of the Russian social-democrats towards every national movement.

* * *

First Speech on the Agenda of the Congress

18 July 1903

I should like to make a remark. It would be wrong, it is claimed, to make the question of the Bund the first item on the agenda, since the reports should be the first item, the programme the second, and the Bund the third. The arguments in favour of this order will not stand criticism. They amount to the presumption that the party as a whole has not yet reached agreement on the programme, and that it is possible that precisely on this question we may part company. I am surprised at that.

It is true that we have not yet adopted a programme, but the surmise that a rupture may take place over the programme is conjectural in the highest degree. No such tendencies have been discernible in the party, at least as far as its literature is concerned, which of late has given the fullest reflection of party opinion. There are both formal and moral reasons for making the question of the Bund the first item on the agenda. Formally, we stand by the Manifesto of 1898, but the Bund has expressed a desire for a radical change in our party’s organisation. Morally, many other organisations have expressed their disagreement with the Bund over this question; that has caused sharp differences leading even to polemics. The Congress therefore cannot begin harmonious work until these differences have been removed. As to the delegates’ reports, it is possible that they may not be heard in pleno [in full] at all. I therefore second the agenda in the order approved by the Organising Committee.

* * *

Speech on the Place of the Bund in the RSDLP

20 July 1903

I shall first deal with Hofman’s[1] speech and his expression “a compact majority”. Comrade Hofman uses these words by way of reproach. In my opinion we should be proud, not ashamed, of the fact that there is a compact majority at the Congress. And we shall be prouder still if our whole party proves to be a compact, a highly compact, 90 per cent, majority. (Applause.) The majority were right in making the position of the Bund in the party the first item on the agenda, and the Bundists at once proved this by submitting their so-called Rules, but in essence proposing federation. Once there are members in the party who propose federation and others who reject it, there could be no other course open but to make the question of the Bund the first item on the agenda. It is no use forcing your favours on anybody, and the internal affairs of the party cannot be discussed until we have firmly and uncompromisingly settled whether or not we want to march together.

The crux of the issue has not always been presented quite correctly in the debate. The point of the matter is that, in the opinion of many party members, federation is harmful and runs counter to the principles of social-democracy as applied to existing Russian conditions. Federation is harmful because it sanctions segregation and alienation, elevates them to a principle, to a law. Complete alienation does indeed prevail among us, and we ought not to sanction it, or cover it with a fig leaf, but combat it and resolutely acknowledge and proclaim the necessity of firmly and unswervingly advancing towards the closest unity. That is why we reject federation in principle, in limine[2] (as the Latin phrase has it); that is why we reject all obligatory partitions that serve to divide us. As it is, there will always be different groupings in the party, groupings of comrades who do not think quite alike on questions of programme, tactics or organisation; but let there be only one division into groups throughout the party, that is, let all like-minded members join in a single group, instead of groups first being formed in one section of the party, separately from the groups in another section of the party, and then having a union not of groups holding different views or different shades of opinion, but of sections of the party, each containing different groups. I repeat, we recognise no obligatory partitions, and that is why we reject federation in principle.

I shall now pass to the question of autonomy. Comrade Liber[3] has said that federation means centralism, while autonomy means decentralism. Can it be that Comrade Liber takes the Congress members for six-year-old children, who may be regaled with such sophistries? Is it not clear that centralism demands the absence of all partitions between the central body and even the most remote and out-of-the-way sections of the party? Our central body will be given the absolute right to communicate directly with every party member. The Bundists would only laugh if someone would propose to them a form of “centralism” within the Bund, under which its Central Committee could not communicate with all the Kovno groups and comrades otherwise than through the Kovno Committee. Incidentally, as regards the committees, Comrade Liber has exclaimed with feeling: “What is the good of talking about the Bund’s autonomy if it is to be an organisation subordinated to one central body? After all, you would not grant autonomy to some Tula Committee!” You are mistaken, Comrade Liber; we will certainly and most decidedly grant autonomy to “some” Tula Committee, too, autonomy in the sense of freedom from petty interference by the central body, although the duty of obeying that body will, of course, remain. I have taken the words “petty interference” from the Bund leaflet, ‘Autonomy or Federation?’ The Bund has advanced this freedom from “petty interference” as a condition, as a demand to the party. The mere fact that it advances such ridiculous demands shows how muddled the Bund is on the question at issue. Does the Bund really think that the party would tolerate the existence of a central body that indulged in “petty” interference in the affairs of any party organisation or group? Is this not, in effect, precisely that “organised distrust” which has already been mentioned at this Congress? Such distrust runs through all the proposals and arguments of the Bundists. Is it not, in fact, the duty of our entire party to fight, for example, for full equality and even for recognition of the right of nations to self-determination? Consequently, if any section of our party failed in this duty, it would unquestionably be liable to condemnation by virtue of our principles; it would unquestionably be liable to correction on the part of the central institutions of the party. And if the neglect of that duty were conscious and deliberate, despite full opportunity to carry out that duty, then that would be treachery.

Further, Comrade Liber has asked us in moving tones how it can be proved that autonomy is able to guarantee to the Jewish workers’ movement that independence which is absolutely essential to it. A strange question, indeed! How can it be proved that one of the several paths suggested is the right one? The only way is to try it and see. My reply to Comrade Liber’s question is: March with us, and we undertake to prove to you in practice that all legitimate demands for independence are gratified in full.

When I hear disputes about the place of the Bund, I always recollect the British miners. They are excellently organised, better than any other workers. And because of that they want to thwart the general demand for an eight-hour day put forward by all proletarians.[4] These miners have the same narrow idea of the unity of the proletariat as our Bundists. Let the sad example of the miners serve as a warning to our comrades of the Bund.

Endnotes

[1] Hofman was the pseudonym of Bundist V Kosovsky.

[2] “At the beginning”, before anything else.

[3] Mikhail Liber was a leader of the Bund and a leading Menshevik.

[4] This refers to the Northumberland and Durham miners who, in the 1880s, secured a seven-hour working day for skilled underground workers – through a deal with the coal-owners – but later for a number of years opposed the legal enactment of an eight-hour working day for all workers in Britain.