The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-01-17

of the first anniversary Of the death
of Nikola Lenin, the DAILY WORK
ER win publish material keeping
alive in the minds of the workers
the memory of our great Commun-
list leader. Starting today, and con-
tinuing thru next week, until it is
finished, the DAILY WORKER will
publish Schachno Epstein's very in
forming and inspiring article, Len
in AS | Saw Him" Comrade Ep-
stein is the editor Of the Jewish
Communist daily, the Freiheit.
IN the Jewish social democratic
"Bund," Lenin had very few adj
herents. All the "Bundists" knew
that he was a strong personality with
an iron will But they hated him; they
simply feared him, considering him a
demagogue, a savage fanaticist and
sectarian.
The cause of this hatred is under
stood. Lenin did not think very much
of the "Bund." He did not deny the
great significance of the "Bund" for
the development of Russian social
democracy; he also gave it due cred
it for its organizationaI ability. But
he could not digest its contradictory
dualism, its desire to be friendly TO
the Bolsheviks and mensheviks at the
same time. On the other hand, Len
in fcresaw danger for the class strlig-
gle in the separatist tendencies Of the
''Bund" and in its nationalistic aspira-
tions.
In this respect Lenin was in perfect
agreement with Piechanov, who had
exactly the same attitude to the
"Bund." Lenin was, however, more
practical than Plechanoy in that he
used to utilize the inconsistent con-
dition Of the "Bund" in the fractional
conflict for his personal bend. PIE
chanov, naturally, used to do the same
thing but not as ably as Lenin.
1t is a known fact that Lenin, just
as well as Plechanov, was bitter OPP
ponent of the "Bund's" national pro-
gram, Of the so-called "national-cul-
tural autonomy" He has not criti-
cised its program as sharply as PIE
chapov, however.
Why?
Lenin, the practical man. who has
always borne in mind one thing: to
win over for himself majority in
the Russian social democracy. has,
with his mild criticism, always left an
open door to win over to his camp
the "Bund."
At the London congress of the Rus
sian social democratic workers party.
Lenin was even ready to yield to the
"Bund's" national cultural autono-
my" so as to win its votes.
Then, at the time Of the London
congress, the "Bund" ceased to play
the role of the advanced guards of
the Russian social democracy. 1t was
soon after the first Russian revolution
of 1905 that the Russian working
class, the workers of the great Rus
sian centers, of Petrograd and Mos
COW, came to the front; they pushed
forward the revolution and its final
success depended very little upon the
Jewish proletariat. From that time on,
the "Bund," as an Independent and
separate party, was really going down
hill. 1t has even lost it's former
weighty significance in the fractional
conflicts OF the social democracy gen.
orally.
If am not mistaken, Lenin made
his last attempt to win over the
"Bund" at the London congress. The
gulf" between Bolshevism and the
"Bund" has grown wider and wider.
The relationship between the "Bund"
and menshevism on the contrary grew
closer and closer. Plechanov, who
had first called the Bundists incense
-quential zionists." became friendlier
to them; he has forgiven the Bund a