Our Demands

The Bund

1905

Every Nation Must Be Sovereign (Autonomous) with Respect to Its Cultural Life

In a country like Russia where various nations live mixed together, the responsibility of disseminating culture (public education, etc.) must be taken out of the hands of the state and be given to each individual nationality; the nations themselves should provide for their own cultural interests autonomously. Then the state will not be able to give more to one nation than to the others; it will not be able to suppress the culture of certain nations. Parliament, the central government, the local governments, and the governments of certain territories—all of these will concern themselves with the economic, political, social, civic, financial, etc. interests of the population, but they will have nothing to do with the cultural interests. Those will be handled by every nation separately and autonomously. If Parliament discusses1 matters of eliminating taxes or introducing new ones, signing trade agreements with a foreign country, building a railway or a waterway, reforms of the court system or the military, and so forth—in all these areas the struggle can only take place along class interests, not along nationality interests. Bourgeois deputies—whether Russians, Jews, Poles, Armenians, etc.—will look after the interests of the bourgeoisie; social democrats will represent the interests of the proletariat. The same applies to local governments: cleaning and providing lighting for streets, the water supply system, slaughterhouses, hospitals, the safety of citizens (police), and so forth—in these fields the citizens’ interests should be represented according to social class and not nationality. Bourgeois and proletarian citizens, not Jews, Russians, etc. will have different interests in these matters.

But it will be equally problematic if the representation of cultural interests remains in the hands of Parliament. First, the ruling classes of the strong nationalities will suppress the cultures of the weak nationalities, and second, they will blur the class consciousness of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is interested in the development of national culture to some degree, and consequently a national fight will break out in Parliament and in the local governments: the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the weaker nationalities will have to fight together against the bourgeoisie of the stronger nationalities, and the workers will end up in an unfortunate situation where their struggle for education and culture will seem like a national struggle, not a class struggle. This danger will be eliminated if the cultural interests are transferred to each nationality separately; Parliament and the local governments will tend only to political and civic interests. And if each nationality is in charge of its own cultural interests, only then will the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie within the nationalities begin (because the proletariat requires a culture distinct from the culture of the bourgeoisie and wants to spread it differently). Instead of a national struggle in Parliament and in the local governments, we will have class struggle within each nationality. The class consciousness of the proletariat will be sharpened and strengthened.

The Proletariat and National Culture

National culture—these are words that everyone fills with whatever content they like according to the class they belong to and the social ideals they hold. For us Social Democrats, national culture is not something supernatural, not some gift from heaven wrapped in clouds; for us it is not something sacred. The working class has only one ideal: socialism; and social democracy has only one task: to develop the class consciousness of the proletariat. The development of class consciousness goes hand-in-hand with the spiritual-intellectual development of the worker in general. His spiritual-intellectual view becomes clearer and sharper, he develops a strong hunger for knowledge and skills, he wants to understand nature and society, he starts to enjoy literature, music, theater, and the fine arts. We value national culture not because it is national and not because it is culture, not because it distinguishes itself through some unique national features, but because it has a certain cultural content. This content is the same for almost all European nations, but the form differs. It is adjusted to the various natural and social conditions in which each nation lives. We are not saying that the form in which the general culture appears is sacred, that it needs to be conserved, that it should not be altered whatsoever. But we are not saying the opposite, either: that the national form of culture, for instance the Jewish one, is something harmful, that one has to get rid of this form as soon as possible and adopt a different form, the Russian or the Polish one. On the contrary, in our view, thinking that it is possible to assimilate a nation of millions of people that participates in social life energetically is a harmful utopia. Assimilation is possible only for individuals, but for the broad masses this policy is harmful. Though they will not adopt the foreign culture, their own culture will not develop.

We can point to some examples. Consider all of the measures the Russian government has taken in order to assimilate Jews, both amicably and forcibly. They took small children to cantonist schools; they gave privileges to educated Jews; in elementary school, the children study only in Russian and they learn only about Russian life, Russian culture, Russian history, etc. And what is the outcome? Only one out of a hundred is assimilated, only those who went to gymnasium and university, and the broad masses are ignorant because they were not allowed to develop normally, to progress together with their national culture. And there is an even better example: the Little Russians [i.e., Ukrainians]. They are much closer to the Russians than we, Jews, yet they had to assimilate even more. Their assimilation process was the same but even stricter; until last year they were not allowed to publish books in “Little Russian” (and it is still not fully permitted!). The result is the same as for Jews. The great masses of Ukrainians are much more backward than the Ukrainians who live in the Austro-Hungarian Empire [i.e., Galicia] where they have national freedom; only a few individuals, the intelligentsia, managed to assimilate.

Translated by
Vera
Szabó
.

Notes

Let us again reiterate that this applies only to political and civic freedom and equality.

Credits

The Bund, “Unzere foderungen” [Our Demands], Di konstitutsye un unzer program, ed. Algemeynem yidishen arbetersbund (Geneva: Imprimerie israélite, 1905), pp. 59–61.

Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 7.

Engage with this Source

You may also like