We Must Decide!

On the Discussion Whether to Participate in the Kehilah Elections

After long deliberation, I concluded that we would be making a grave mistake if we did not participate in the upcoming kehilah elections. I came to this conclusion because in 1918 I was against involvement in the kehilah and because we all—both opponents and supporters—have a deep, well-founded aversion to and lack of enthusiasm for the kehilah.

But whether we boycott the elections or participate in them is not a matter of principles and political program but a tactical question that cannot be answered once and for all without considering the concrete circumstances of each particular moment.

Turning to the fundamental question, I have to note that I was rather dissatisfied with how the discussion about participation in the elections was conducted both by its opponents and its supporters. Comrades Rafalovich, E. Mus [pseudonym of Emanuel Novogrudski], and other opponents have been wasting too much energy on proving that the kehilah’s leadership is incompetent. And Mr. Khmurner [pseudonym of Yoysef Lestschinsky] occupies himself with a very unrewarding task when he tries to find a dry spot on the entirely wet clothing of the kehilah’s leadership.

I cannot detect even the slightest trace of any kind of positive socialist community work carried out by today’s kehilah leadership.

For every bourgeois party the kehilah is a power position they are trying to exploit both on the Jewish street and in the general political arena. For the bourgeois parties the religious character and religious functions of the kehilah are not a drawback; on the contrary, it is a great advantage because religion is one of the most reliable tools in the hands of the reactionary bourgeoisie to maintain its influence on the Jewish masses, to counteract the natural process of social and political differentiation within Jewish society, and to preserve, as long as possible, so-called “Jewish unity.”

We are interested in achieving exactly the opposite of this. But we are not going to reach our goal by only holding meetings and putting out calls. We have always held to the opinion—and still do so today—that we have to win the sympathies of the broad mass of the working people. Of course, the approximately 90,000 votes we received in the Sejm elections represent a fine achievement in comparison to all other larger election campaigns until now. But it is still not more than a quarter—or a third at best—of what the party of the Jewish proletariat has to and can achieve on the Jewish street.

Clerical reaction poses the greatest danger to us. Because of the Polish reactionary politics of national and religious oppression, clerical reaction among us Jews is even stronger than in Polish society. But in order to combat this danger it is not enough to agitate from outside. The clerical reactionary bourgeoisie turned the institution of the kehilah into a fortress, and we must break it open from within. We must infiltrate deep into the masses organized around the kehilah. We must reveal clericalism’s class character and its hostility to the interests of the people every step of the way. We must break up the ground on which its rule stands. We must block attempts by the reactionary Jewish bourgeoisie to turn the kehilah into its own power position in political life. It will be much easier to do this from within, not standing outside.

We are not going to carry out “organic” work in the kehilah. We are not going to involve ourselves in the kehilah administration. [ . . . ] We are not going to elect rabbis and will not vote budgets for them. We will take advantage of every opportunity to “tear off the shtrayml [Hasidic fur hat]” and reveal the reactionary-clerical face of our seemingly progressive bourgeoisie.

In 1918 the general political prospects were different than now. Back then “the shtrayml” was still hiding in a mouse hole, whereas today it is self-confident and presumptuous. In 1918 we could afford the luxury of boycotting the kehilah elections, whereas today such a boycott would be a grave political mistake. If the political situation were to change radically, no one could force us to remain in the kehilah.