By Vladimir Medem

Translated from the Yiddish by Josh Price

Introduction

Vladimir Medem (1879-1923) was a central figure in the Bund, a Jewish political party founded in Vilna in 1897. Bundism rested on the principle of doikayt (“here-ness”), which amounted to a defense of the Diaspora as the site for a Jewish future, one directed by the proletariat. Medem was born in Minsk to Jewish parents who had converted to the Lutheran Church, though this lack of religious affiliation did nothing to lessen his growing attachment to the Jewish working class during his university years in Kiev. Despite subsequent periods in jail and exile, Medem became one of the Bund’s chief theoreticians and activists, as reflected in his participation at the Fifth Congress of the Bund in 1903, his considerable literary activity, and his brief leadership of the incarnation of the Bund that emerged in interwar Poland. Medem’s long-standing resistance to Bolshevism and Lenin, coupled with his subsequent estrangement from the Bund’s increasingly communist tendencies (marked by a push to join the Communist International in the early 1920s), precipitated his emigration in 1920 from Warsaw to New York, where he died several years later. Nevertheless, Medem lives on in Bundist memory as a legendary figure of sorts, most conspicuously through Paris’ Medem Library, Europe’s largest cultural center for Yiddish today.

The following translation of Medem’s “Nationalism, Assimilation, and Social Democracy” comes from a collection of Medem’s Yiddish essays entitled Zikhroynes un artiklen: mitn bild un biografye fun oytor [Recollections and articles: with a picture and biography of the author], (Varshe: Farlag Yidish, 1916) 64-79. This 1916 edition, as Medem notes in an introduction to the volume, is a redacted version of his 1906 Bundist pamphlet “Di natsionale frage un di sotsialdemokratye” (“The National Question and Social Democracy”). In what follows, Medem sketches the beginnings of a theory of Jewish cultural autonomy (or, more precisely, proletarian cultural autonomy) that lies somewhere in between the politicized poles of nationalism and assimilation. This was the essence of the doctrine of Medem’s well-known “neutralism,” which helped to define the Bund’s ever-changing political positioning for several decades.

Medem’s polemic is firmly rooted in a specific historical context.  He was a skillful propagandist attempting to assemble an ideological foundation for a political party struggling to define itself, particularly regarding the question of Jewish nationhood. But whether one reads Medem as a new alternative to Zionism or as yet another failed attempt to circumcise Marx, his struggle to construct a secular Jewish identity remains relevant today.

Translation

There are some who conflate the two concepts “nationalism” and “national liberation” – but they are mistaken. Nationalism can take two forms: the form of oppression and the form of the struggle for national liberation. There is a big difference between these two forms, but both are placed under the single concept “nationalism.” And clearly, if we want to grasp the essence of this phenomenon, we need not look at where the two concepts diverge, but where they share something in common. One can be a nationalist oppressor, but from the other side one can struggle for national liberation, without wanting to have anything to do with any nationalism. With this in mind, it is clear that we need not look for the foundations (grund-simonim) of nationalism in political demands themselves: various political programs, which are in fact at odds with each other, can nevertheless have the same demands. It is thus clear that if we want to settle what “nationalism” is, we must take those features that belong to all forms and types of this phenomenon.

It was shown in an article in the Jewish Worker[1] that the root of the national struggle within the capitalistic order “lies in the fact that the bourgeoisie of the ruling nation strives to monopolize the market of the country for its advantage.” For this goal, it is not sufficient merely to mechanically dispose of the aliens from the market through legal and administrative measures; one must further “destroy everything that their national physiognomy creates, and first of all, linguistic variations, which greatly obstruct the free exchange of the goods in the country, insofar as the border tolls between various states permit it.”

The bourgeoisie struggles for markets, and the struggle for the market is transformed into a struggle for nationality. The bourgeoisie of the ruling nation, wanting to guarantee for itself the profits of commerce among customers who belong to other nations, strives with all its might to mix [these other nations] with itself, painting them in its own national color. The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, not able to dominate, must be satisfied with the fact that it protects and strengthens its own market, or, in the language of national struggle, the uniqueness of its own nation. Both the ruling and the oppressed nation attempt to enlarge as much as possible the number of their customers, the number of members of their nationality.

The difference between them is only an external one; just change the regime of this or that nation, just change its politics, and the oppressed nation becomes an oppressor nation.

The nationalist looks for customers – both for material merchandise and spiritual products. The number of customers, however, depends upon the extent and intensity of the national color. And the victory of this national color – this is the ideal of the nationalist. And inasmuch as this national color is expressed in language and culture, the pursuit for markets is transformed into a struggle for the national character of culture. The struggle for merchandise wraps itself in a lofty tallis: defending the national idea. The market-interest compels one to plant and harvest everything that bears the national stamp. A need develops to maintain and strengthen everything that is national, everything that is unique; thereby one protects oneself from alien competitors. Here, national differences play the role of border taxes. The nationalist stresses [his] differences [with these competitors], striving to circumscribe his nation within a tight fence and a unique state-organization. He becomes a heated fanatic of political independence. In the desire of different nations to topple each other, he sees the contents of human history; the struggle for national “spirit” is, for him, the highest sociological law. With regard to this foundational principle of history, all other forms of social struggle are exchanged [for the national one], social dialectics (hipukhim) fade or disappear entirely. The entire world-image (velt-bild) becomes, according to him, a stage where a struggle born of competing national essences is played out. National existence – this is the first and principal task of this man.

Various groups create various forms of ideology. The nationalism of a ruling, strong nation, supported by a powerful army and navy, raises its brazen voice with grandeur, it works with loud – but empty – imperialistic phrases, it clangs its swords, it threatens with armored fists. The trembling nationalism of the petit-bourgeoisie takes on another color. Oppressed and weak, all the while crying against “modern” social relations, shoved out by big capital that attacks it from every side, it loses every basis for living: it shudders, it tosses about, it grabs a hold of the first resource that falls into its hands. Living with the ideals of the past, to which it cannot return, not able to wait for any future deliverance that it cannot understand, its passions are ignited by every adventurist, every swindler. It lets itself be seduced by nationalist dreams, which help to blind it to true, intolerable, frightening social conditions. [This sort of nationalist] is carried away – if he is not a Jew – by the current of anti-Semitism; if he is a Jew, he adds to the oppression and blackness arising from the economically weak and enslaving ghetto-psychology. Enshrouding his class interests in a veil of national demands, he does not even have any strength to struggle for these very demands; he can only fantasize about them. He cannot look life straight in the eyes; he is weak, exhausted, timid, he fears life, he dreams.

He dreams about independence and freedom, he dreams about his own country in which he will create his own culture – his own market. He fills his head with the smog of nationalistic phrases, thereby masking his own weakness and political bankruptcy.

But enough, the colors [of these forms] are distinct, [but] the essence is the same. The essence is – bowing and kneeling before one’s own nationality; national interest and national uniqueness are the foundations of the entire social-political apparatus.

This is nationalism. The ideology of assimilation is, however, exactly the same thing, just… on the left side. The assimilationist proposes the exact same goals, but for an alien nation rather than his own. His national market is too narrow for him – he wants to enter into an alien [market], and create from the alien national “idea” precisely the same idol that the nationalist made from his own. The nationalist strives to put his national stamp on as much as possible, in order that [his nation] should not, God forbid, be confused with an alien one; the assimilationist strives to uproot all of his national symbols in the name of an alien nationality. Both are deeply concerned about the fate of the national physiognomy; both strive to shape the national color; both are involved with national essences, with the national “spirit.” The answers that they give for these proposed questions are distinct. But they pose the questions themselves in the same manner. The same points of departure, the same philosophy, the same ideas, the same measure with which they evaluate political, social, and cultural phenomena. The contents of this measure are: the difference between “mine” and “the other’s.” The assimilationist in regard to the Jews is a nationalist in regard to the Russians or Poles. The assimilator is [thus] a nationalist, but “inside out.”

These are the elements that are characteristic of the politics of the entire bourgeoisie that are shared by the assimilationist and the nationalist aspirations. Their motto – the national interest; the tasks of the nation as a total, indivisible, united community determine their politics.

What ought to be the position of social democracy?

An answer to this can be deduced from the general worldview of social democracy. Its entire system of ideologies and activities emerges from one foundational principle: from the proletarian class struggle. This is not only the main foundation of our entire project; this is also the only foundation.

The proletarian class struggle, the interest of its broad development – this is the scale with which we measure all phenomena of social and political life, all problems which life presents, all institutions that emerge to solve these problems. With this highest criterion we measure all questions, according to it we evaluate them, parse them, place every one in its appropriate position in the general unified Marxist system. With this supreme framework we also approach the national question, we make the national question ancillary, including it within the general chain of our entire system as a separate link.

The nationalist, engrossed in the interests of his market, makes nationalism the highest principle, one that has an absolute worth in his eyes. The assimilationist, who looks out upon alien markets, strives to erase his national form (geshtalt). We, who do not want to have anything to do with chasing after markets, we, to whom the quarrel of the bourgeois groups who tear each other apart is strange, we are detached from the struggle for power over alien nations, we do not bow before the idol of nationalism; we do not make national uniqueness into a religion.  But we do not kneel before assimilation, either. Both the forceful maintenance of the characteristic national symbols and the uprooting of the national spirit – these two goals are alien and irrelevant to us. Our interests and tasks lie in an entirely different area.

What are the tasks and the goals of a nation? Such a question simply does not exist for us, just as those class interests that produced such a question do not exist for us. The questions that we answer are posed entirely differently.

Let’s just understand the issue correctly. What is the national culture, what is the national principle – that idol of bourgeois ideals? Where lies the hidden, mystical national spirit?

A national culture, as a self-contained concept, as a closed circle with fixed contents, does not, generally speaking, exist. That unique mold into which general human contents are poured is national. The contents of national life, which is everywhere its own, take on various colors, various national forms, since [the contents] enter into various groups with various societal relations. These very relations, in which societal tasks are proposed and accomplished, in which societal conflicts take place, in which societal life flows, in which intellectual movements ripen – these very relations place a national stamp upon the culture. The beam of societal life, of social struggle, entering into special milieu, into a group with a designated national color, takes on a definite hue.

Life develops. Relations change. Different ideas converge, and inside, in this knotty and entangled process, lies hidden the body of societal development, or rather the backbone, the mainspring: the class struggle.

We add our forces to this mainspring and transform it as is appropriate for us. The opposing forces drag [the mainspring] in a different direction. We struggle. All the phenomena of life emerge from this struggle. Laws, judgments, reforms are enacted, various spiritual intellectual movements arise, this or that mentality is created; in short, life, in all of its rich and multicolored forms and shapes, unravels.

We take life, which blossomed within the limits of a definite national organism, and compare it with the vision of our national groups. We notice that in certain details they are the same, in others lies a difference; the language is not our own, the psychology is a different one, the relations of societal forces are different, etc.; the body is the same, the outer skin is different.

What meaning does the difference in skin have? Need we worry that this difference exists, that this or that body may become wrapped in various outer skins? Need we worry that such differences may intensify and remain forever?

Of course not – we are not nationalists.

Do we look with disdain upon these differences? Is it important for us that the bodies be wrapped precisely in the same skin? Are we concerned about different national forms melting into the same form?

Of course not – we are not assimilationists.

We carry on the class struggle, turn the mainspring, give the ray [of life] a definite direction. Right here lies our task, right here lies the realm of our goals. We remove everything that prevents us from turning the mainspring according to our desire. From this standpoint we evaluate all phenomena.

In its development, the class struggle takes on various national forms, wraps itself in a unique veil. The ray of life is colored in this or that national color. But this is already outside the boundary of our goals. These are the results of a blind process, upon which we have no influence.

The mistake of the nationalists and assimilationists lies in the fact that they take on these results as goals.

Perhaps history has decreed that the Jews must assimilate with other nations. We, from our side, will not exert any pressures to stop or support this process. We are not involved in this. We are neutral. True, we are against assimilationists, who strive toward assimilation; but we do not turn away from assimilation because we fear it, only because [assimilation] cannot be erected as a task. It can only be a result of societal development.

We are not against assimilation, we are against the pursuit of assimilation.

Perhaps history has desired that a unique Jewish culture should blossom forth. We will not attempt to stop this course; we will also not concern ourselves with its fulfillment. We are not involved in this; we are neutral. True, we are against nationalists who take as their task nothing else but the maintenance of Jewish culture. But we are not against them because we do not want a national culture; rather, we do not regard the inculcation of a national culture as a task. We are not against the national character of culture; we are against nationalistic politics.

We remain neutral towards these questions that are characteristic of the bourgeoisie. In this form we deny the national question, in this form it does not concern us.

But we ask [the question] anew in a different manner. In another sense we are not indifferent. We are indeed involved in the course of life with the most energy and devotion. And in what sense does the national question exist for us?

Whatever course history takes, whatever hopes the historical process gives to the nation – whether it is destined to abandon or reify its unique national form – this process must, in any case, proceed freely. Every opposing force, every oppression, whether direct or indirect, must be eliminated; only the innermost needs of the people’s life should play a role in the formation of cultural forms. Only these innermost needs have the right to argue in a dispute between the “native” and “alien” forms of national life; the war for the life of cultural forms must develop without any obstacles, that war, where the irrelevant cultural forms go to the bottom and give up their place to those which are more relevant to human needs. The people’s organism alone, free from every external pressure, through its own development, must determine its fate.

It would be a big mistake to throw out the wheat along with the chaff, to entirely deny [the legitimacy] of the national question only because we cannot agree with how the bourgeoisie poses this question. It would be a big mistake if the critique of opposing movements blinded us, such that we could not notice, behind these opposing movements, the possibility of posing the national question from our proletarian standpoint; it would be a mistake to claim, that we must dismiss instead of trying to establish [the question] on a proper and solid foundation.

The national question exists for us in another form, in another area, in another manner, and for other tasks.

The struggle for national freedom does not yet mean nationalism, as we said above. It becomes nationalist only from that moment when that unique national stamp, which we characterized above, is placed upon the national movement. But this struggle against national oppression can be free of that bourgeois smell, and then becomes a liberation-struggle, a truly progressive undertaking.

But not only that [this struggle] can – it must be undertaken in this pure form, free from all reactionary elements. The proletariat must introduce it into the framework of its liberation struggle. It is not sufficient for the proletariat to rid itself of bourgeois nationalist movements; it must take the [struggle] in its hands, act according to its [own] way, because its own class interest demands so.

National oppression is not directed specifically against the working-class; it is directed against the entire nation. Relying on its well-off and educated classes, however, [national oppression] places its entire burden upon the working class, who occupies the lowest rung in the societal ladder and feels even more strongly the burdens of the entire nation upon its shoulders.

National oppression suffocates cultural life. The obstacles encountered by the [worker’s] mother tongue and literature have the most injurious effect on the direct interests of the worker. He does not know a foreign language; he does not read a foreign newspaper. His oppressed language and literature is the only window through which he can experience cultural life, develop his consciousness, broaden his enlightenment. This window becomes closed for him; the proletarian becomes cut off from cultural life.

The oppressive government does not recognize his mother tongue. [The government] issues laws and prints orders in a language with which the proletarian is not familiar; judgments are also issued in an unknown language. The same with all the issues that are discussed in the offices of the government. The worker is excluded from political life, he remains outside the political sphere. The government-machine suffocates him and chokes him without mercy, and he is not able to defend himself.

National oppression creates contempt for the oppressed, it makes them inferior, as if they belong to a lowly species of man, [it] implants in them the psychology of a slave, and this is a frightening blow to the development of the class psychology of the self-conscious proletariat.

National oppression – and this is one of its biggest faults – forges together all the parts of the oppressed nation. The natural feeling of resistance creates an alliance between opposing classes.

The “external” enemy triumphs over the “internal” one, national dialectics overshadow class dialectics. Sermons about national unity in the name of a common struggle against a common enemy deafen the cries of the exploited class against its exploiters. Nationalist and chauvinist sentiments blossom and poison the air, filling it with all sorts of reactionary tendencies and instincts. The most adverse conditions are created [to impede] the development of proletarian class-consciousness.

And since there is such distress, we must struggle against it. Since there is such oppression, we must find the means to eliminate it.

We must – however much this is possible under the capitalistic order – save every nation from oppression. We must create guarantees that supply for every nation the complete freedom of cultural development, and that eliminate everything that oppresses and cripples its life.

The question is thus stated, and we find its answer in our program.

---

[1] “Nationality and Assimilation” in the Jewish Worker, Vol. 15. This is Medem’s footnote.