The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 17, 1925, Page 5

ae : “The idea becomes ° power when it pene- trates the masses.” —Karl Marx. January SPECIAL MAGAZINE SUPPLEMENT THE DAILY ‘WORKER. 17, 1925. Lenin As I Saw Him - Editor’s Note.—During this period of the first anniversary of the death of Nikola Lenin, the DAILY WORK- Ek Wal publish material keeping alive in the minds of the workers the memory of our great Commun- ist 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 I Saw Him.” Comrade Ep- stein is the editor of the Jewish Communist daily, the Freiheit. oolre 1. N the Jewish social democratic “Bund,” Lenin had very few ad- 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 socjal “democracy; he also gave it due cred-} it for its organizational ability. But he could not digest. its contradictory dualism, its desire to be friendly io the Bolsheviks and mensheviks at the same time. “ On the other hand, Len- in foresaw danger for the class strug- gle in the separatist tendencies of the - “Bund” and in its nationalistic aspira- - tions. oe In this respect Lenin was in perfect agreement with Plechanov, who had exactly the same attitude to the “Bund.” practical than Plechanovy im that he used to utilize the inconsistent con- - dition of the “Bund” in the faqtional conflict for his personal bend. Ple- chanov, naturally, used to do the same thing but not as ably as Lenin. It is a known fact that Lenin, just as well as Plechanov, was a bitter op- 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 Ple- chanov, however. Why? Lenin, the practical man, who has always borne in mind one thing: to win over for himself a 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. It 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, thé “Bund,” as an independent and separate party, was really going down hill, It has even lost its former weighty significance in the factional conflicts of the social democracy gen- If I am not mistaken, Lenin made his last attempt to win over the “Bund” at the London congress. The “cult” between Bolshevism and the d” has’ grown wider and wider. The relationship between the “Bund” and menshevism on the contrary grew closer and closer. Plechanoy, who had first called the Bundists “inconse- _-quential Zionists,” became friendlier to them; he has forgiven the Bund a . ee e8 Lenin was, however, more’ good many of the former “gins” be- cause he found in it a supporter of and a friend to menshevism; he did not even mind the “national cultural autonomy,” which was principally not more than a petit bourgeois demand, as it is now proven, at the present reality, when “democracy” is every- where victorious. Comrades are telling that at the London congress Lenin has tried, in private conversations, to argue with the Bundists thus: Well, I am ready chanov was strongly in favor of such a democracy. Now-the question aris- es: Why was Plechanov so bitterly opposed to the Bund’s program of “‘na- tional cultural autonomy”? This is, then, one of his inconsistencies in the conception of revolutionary develop- ments. Recently I have had the occasion to get at the logical explanation of it; and Plechanoy's opposition to the “na- tional cultural autonomy” he express- ed not the: Marxian principle, but his NIKOLAI LENIN to grant you “cultural autonomy.” , | wish to be frank with you; I need your votes, but do you not understand that in a bourgeois society, even in the most democratic, there can be no national freedom, even in the cultural sense? This frankness Plenchanoy did not possess; Plechanovy was cunning, trickish. In the attitude of both Len- in and Plechanov toward the nationa! program of the Bund one could clear-| ly differentiate their views on the de- velopment of the revolution, Lenin Russian patriotism, his aspiration to assimilate all national culture into one great Russian culture. Lenin was nev- er a patriot in this sense; he was nev- er for compulsory assimilation, and when he did oppose the national pro- gram of the Bund, it was from a pure- ly Marxian estimate of the revolution- ary development. The comrades of the Bund did not seem to like Lenin’s frankness at the London congress. “A demogogue is always a demogogue!” they kept on saying, and the majority of them nev- had no faith whatsoever in the bour-|er imagined Lenin but as one who is geois democracy even then’when Ple-' capable, in. the interests of his fac- SECOND SECTION This magazine supple ment will appear every Saturday in The Daily Worker. By Schachno Epstein tion, of his fixed idea, to even betray his own father. This is probably the reason why many leaders of the Bund have so energetically in 1917 circulat- ed the rumor that Lenin is a German spy; they have explainea It psycholo- gically: it is easily believable of a “maniac” of the Lenin type, he will justify any means that lead to the at- tainment of his goal. . . . ss *+ 6 N a comparatively short time after the London congress, I was des- tined to be a political emigrant. Those comrades in whose minds those times are still fresh, can easily imagine with what thirst I threw myself on the varoius discussions and writings of the leaders of the Russian socialist movement outside of Russia, I had then the occasion to hear Plechanov speak at Geneva. The im- pression of his readings and lectures was colossal; his satire, his brilliancy of speech, his thoro knowledge, his ability to polemise enchanted me. At Plechanov's lectures the audi- ence did not feel at home, The .peo- ple did not breathe freely. Evensthe appearan«e of Plechanoy gave the im- pression that he looks down to his audience, that he is fully conscious of his importance, that he is far. above _ those around him. He was always dressed like an aristocrat in a black frock, high stiff collar and a beautiful necktie hanging down. his snow white shirt; a gold ring on his finger, a menocie in his hand, his hair properly combed—all this was very often in disharmony with the poorly clad emi- grants who made up his audience, Another thing one could notice. When one dared to express his opin- ion in a debate, he did it with such fright as one who is undergoing an examination. This was the case not* only with the ordinary rank and file but even with some of the prominent leaders of the movement. I remember, once in Geneva,the now famous leader of the Russian Com- munists, Alexandra Kolontai was de- livering a lecture on the woman ques- tion. The lecture was brilliant in content and form. In the middle of the lecture Plechanov appeared. Alex- andra Kolontai seeing him, got con- fused and could not finish her specch: the brilliancy was lost, the enthusiasm gone so did he frighten ner. Usually, these things were ascrib- ed to the great respect people had for Plechanov’s great personality, to the fact that everybody felt small in his presence, fearing not ‘to prove ignor- ant in his eyes, The strange impression Plechanov’s open forum made on me became stranger still when I had the occasion to be at his house having a personal talk with him. st The entire atmosphere in the house smelled with “bourgeois culture.” The comfort which prevailed there was out of place for one who imagined Ple- chanoy the revolutionist, who should also be different in his private life, not the ordinary bourgeois life—it was the comfort of a simple, bourgeois self-sufficiency, full of aristocratic snobbish “bon-tone.” Such was Ple- chanov’s behavior.” One almost heard him say: Beware, dear fellow, that you stand before Plechanoy himself, realize, then, the honor it gives you and be weak-kneed. . . My knees did really tremble. And when I came out of the house my proletariat consciousness revyoited, Where, then, is the example that the socialist leader and thinker must set for others by his own way of living? I was then too naive to understand that one may be a great socialist thinker, a revolutionist in theory, and a quite ordinary citizen with all bour- (Continued on page 8)