The Bundist Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat

By Marvin Eliyahu 

The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat. This may seem like a strange statement, but I argued with Hannah Toff for fifteen hours, she is a very well educated young Woman. As a matter of fact, I am as of now even re-declaring myself a Marxist-Leninist.

The number one reason why we Bundists are credible as Revolutionaries is that ever since Bundism came about it has been correct everywhere that Communist theory had been incorrect. We Bundists have had revolutionary ideas that had never been Marxist or Anarchist, these very ideas are correct and they have been proven correct to this very day.
The number one failing of Bundism is that aside from the revolutionary ideas that no Communist had ever even conceived of, Bundism has never developed a full theory, we have traditionally taken from Anarchism and Trotskyism in order to compensate for this.
Trotskyism is false, Leon Trotsky is a proven liar, he in particular lied in his writings on the issue of Lenin's so-called Testament, originally he had told the papers that Eastman had lied then some years later endorsed the very same statements made by Eastman in his writings that he had previously denounced as false. I understand that what I am stating will be rejected by devout Trotskyists so I am going to present you with his criticism of  Max Eastman that he wrote concerning "Lenin's So-Called Testament" on July of 1925 and then I will provide you his statement when he outright lied in September of 1928.

 Written on July 1st of 1925 Source and First Publication: Inprecorr, 3 September, 1925. 

Soon after my return from Sukhum to Moscow, a telegraphic inquiry from Comrade Jackson, editor of the Sunday Worker in London, informed me of the publication of a book, Since Lenin Died , which was used by the bourgeois press to attack our party and the Soviet government. Although my reply to Jackson was published by the press at the time, it will be appropriate to repeat the first part of it here: “Eastman’s book to which you refer is unknown to me. The bourgeois newspapers that quoted it have not reached me. Of course, I deny in advance and most categorically any commentaries directed against the Russian Communist Party.”
In the following part of the telegram I protested against the insinuations alleging that I was turning toward bourgeois democracy and free trade.
I afterwards received the book in question ( Since Lenin Died ) from Comrade Inkpin, secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, who at the same time sent me a letter to the same effect as Comrade Jackson’s telegram. I had no intention of reading Eastman’s book, much less of reacting to it, as I assumed that my telegram to Comrade Jackson, which was published everywhere by the British and foreign press, was entirely sufficient. But party comrades who had read the book expressed the opinion that since the author referred to conversations with me, my silence could be regarded as an indirect support of this book, which is directed entirely against our party. This placed me under the obligation to devote more attention to Eastman’s book, and above all to read it carefully through. On the basis of certain episodes in the inner life of our party, the discussions on democracy in the party and the state regulation of our economy, Eastman arrives at conclusions directed entirely against our party, which are likely, if given credence, to discredit the party as well as the Soviet government.
We shall first deal with a question that is not only of historical importance, but of vital timeliness at the present moment: the Red Army. Eastman asserts that since changes have taken place among its leaders, the Red Army is divided, that it has lost its fighting capacity, etc. I do not know where Eastman got all this information. But its absurdity is obvious. At any rate, we would not advise the imperialist governments to base their calculations on Eastman’s revelations. Besides, he fails to observe that in thus characterizing the Red Army he is reviving the Menshevik myth of the Bonapartist character of our army, its resemblance to a Praetorian guard. For it is plain that an army capable of “splitting” because its leader is changed is neither proletarian nor communist, but Bonapartist and Praetorian. In the course of the book the writer quotes a large number of documents, and refers to episodes which he has heard secondhand or even more indirectly. This little book thus contains a considerable number of obviously erroneous and incorrect assertions. We shall only deal with the more important of these.
Eastman asserts in several places that the Central Committee has “concealed” from the party a large number of documents of extraordinary importance, written by Lenin during the last period of his life. (The documents in question are letters on the national question, the famous “Testament,” etc.) This is pure slander against the Central Committee of our party. Eastman’s words convey the impression that Lenin wrote these letters, which are of an advisory character and deal with the inner-party organization, with the intention of having them published. This is not at all in accordance with the facts.
During his illness, Lenin repeatedly addressed letters and proposals to the leading bodies and congresses of the party. It must be definitely stated that all these letters and suggestions were invariably delivered to their destination and they were all brought to the knowledge of the delegates to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, and have invariably exercised their influence on the decisions of the party. If all of these letters have not been published, it is because their author did not intend them to be published. Comrade Lenin has not left any “Testament”; the character of his relations to the party, and the character of the party itself, preclude the possibility of such a “Testament.” The bourgeois and Menshevik press generally understand under the designation of “Testament” one of Comrade Lenin’s letters (which is so much altered as to be almost unrecognizable) in which he gives the party some organizational advice. The Thirteenth Party Congress devoted the greatest attention to this and to the other letters, and drew the appropriate conclusions. All talk with regard to a concealed or mutilated “Testament” is nothing but a despicable lie, directed against the real will of Comrade Lenin and against the interests of the party created by him.
Eastman’s assertion that the Central Committee was anxious to conceal (that is, not to publish) Comrade Lenin’s article on the Workers and Peasants Inspection is equally untrue. The differences of opinion arising on this subject within the Central Committee - if it is possible to speak of “differences of opinion” at all in this case - were of a purely secondary significance, dealing solely with the question of whether or not the publication of Lenin’s article should be accompanied by a statement from the Central Committee pointing out that there was no occasion to fear a split.
But on this question too a unanimous decision was arrived at in the same session. All the members of the Political and Organization Bureaus of the Central Committee present at the meeting signed a letter addressed to the party organizations containing, among other things, the following passage: “Without entering, in this purely informational letter, into the criticism of the historically possible dangers made at the time by Comrade Lenin in his article, the members of the Political and Organization Bureaus consider it necessary, in order to avoid all possible misunderstandings, to declare unanimously that there is nothing in the inner activity of the Central Committee giving occasion to fear the danger of a split.“
Not only is my signature affixed to this document along with the other signatures, but the text itself was drawn up by me (January 27, 1923).
In view of the fact that this letter, expressing the unanimous opinion of the Central Committee on Comrade Lenin’s proposal with regard to the Workers and Peasants Inspection, also bears the signature of Comrade Kuibyshev, we have here a refutation of Eastman’s assertion that Comrade Kuibyshev was placed at the head of the Workers and Peasants Inspection as an “opponent” of Lenin’s plan of organization.

Eastman’s quotation from the wording of the “Testament” is equally wrong. This was published in the Sotsialistichesky Vestnik and was stolen from the party archives, so to speak, by counterrevolutionists. In reality the wording as published in the Vestnik passed through many hands before its appearance in this paper. It was “freshened up” again and again, and distorted to such an extent that it is absolutely impossible to restore its original meaning. It is possible that the alterations were made by the editorial staff of this paper.
Eastman’s assertions that the Central Committee confiscated my pamphlets and articles in 1923 or 1924, or at any other time or by any other means has prevented their publication, are untrue, and are based on fantastic rumors.
Eastman is again wrong in asserting that Comrade Lenin offered me the post of chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, and of the Council of Labor and Defense. I hear of this for the first time from Eastman’s book.
An attentive perusal of Eastman’s book would doubtless give me the opportunity of pointing out a number of other inaccuracies, errors, and misrepresentations. I do not, however, think that it would be of interest to go further.
The bourgeois press, especially the Menshevik press, makes use of Eastman’s statements, quotes from his reminiscences, in order to emphasize his “close relations,” his “friendship” with me (as my biographer) and by such indirect means attaching an importance to his conclusions which they do not and cannot have. I must therefore devote a few remarks to this matter.
The character of my real relations with Eastman is perhaps best shown by a business letter written by me at a time before there was any thought of Eastman’s book Since Lenin Died . During my stay in Sukhum I received from one of my Moscow friends, a publisher of my books, the manuscript of a book by ... M. Eastman, entitled Leon Trotsky: Portrait of a Youth . My collaborator informed me in his accompanying letter that the manuscript, which had been sent to the State Publishing Office by the writer for the purpose of being published in the Russian language, had made a strange and unusual impression among us on account of the sentimentality permeating it.
I replied as follows in my letter of April 3, 1925: “Even without being familiar with the contents of Eastman’s manuscript, I am perfectly in agreement with you that the publication of the book is inopportune. Although you have been kind enough to send me the manuscript, I cannot read it. I have absolutely no inclination to do so. I readily believe that it does not suit our taste, especially our Russian and communist taste.
“Eastman has been endeavoring for a long time to convince me that it is very difficult to interest the Americans in communism , but that it is possible to interest them in the communists . His arguments have been fairly convincing. For this reason I gave him a certain help, of a limited nature; the letter I sent him shows these limits. (1) I did not know that he had the intention of publishing this book in Russia, or I should probably have advised the State Publishing House at that time not to publish it. I cannot prevent Eastman from publishing this book abroad; he is a “free writer“; for a time he lived in Russia and collected material; at present he is in France, if not in America. Shall I ask him as a personal favor not to publish this book? I am not sufficiently intimate with him to do this. And such a request would hardly be appropriate.“
I repeat that the subject of this letter was a biographical sketch, the story of my youth up to about 1902. But the tone of my letter leaves no room for doubt on the nature of my relations with Eastman, relations which differ in no way from those maintained by me with other foreign communists or “sympathizers” who have turned to me for help in understanding the October Revolution, our party, and the Soviet state - there can be no question of anything more.
Eastman sneers with vulgar aplomb at my “Quixotism” in my relations with the comrades of the Central Committee, of whom I have spoken in friendly terms even in the midst of the most embittered discussion. Eastman seems to think himself called upon to correct my “error,” and he characterizes the leading comrades of our party in a manner which cannot be designated as anything else but slanderous.
We see from the above that Eastman has attempted to erect his construction on completely rotten foundations. He seizes upon isolated incidents occurring within our party in the course of some discussion, in order, by distorting the meaning of the facts and exaggerating the relations in a ridiculous manner, to slander our party and undermine confidence in it. It seems to me, however, that the attentive and thoughtful reader will not require an examination of the assertions made by Eastman and his documents (for which not everyone has the opportunity) but that it suffices to ask: If we assume that the malicious character of our leading party comrades alleged by Eastman is even partly correct, how is it possible that this party should have emerged from long years of illegal struggle? How could it stand at the head of millions of human beings, carry through the greatest revolution in history, and contribute to the formation of revolutionary parties in other countries?
There is no sincere worker who will believe in the picture painted by Eastman. It contains within itself its own refutation. Whatever Eastman’s intentions may be, this botched piece of work is none the less objectively a tool of the counterrevolution, and can only serve the ends of the enemies incarnate of communism and of the revolution.

Note
(1) On May 22, 1925, I sent the following reply to Eastman’s repeated requests: “I shall do my utmost to assist you by means of conscientious information. But I cannot agree to read your manuscript, for this would make me responsible not only for the facts, but for the characterizations and estimates as well. This, of course, is impossible. I am prepared to take responsibility - if only a limited one - for the factual information which I send you in reply to your request. For everything else you alone bear the responsibility.”

This is very interesting, the only thing more interesting is what Leon Trotsky then writes later on in flat out contradiction to what he said previously. I do not claim that Leon Trotsky was helping to undermine Socialism, but at the very same time I can understand why so many believe that. I would like to thank Hannah Toff for opening my eyes to this, she really cares about us not discrediting ourselves.

 Written on September 11th, 1928 First Published: New International, Vol.1 No.4, November 1934. pp.125-126.

I received your inquiry about comrade Max Eastman who is played up from time as a bogie by our press, being almost depicted as a hireling of the bourgeoisie, selling it the state secrets of the USSR. This is a shameless lie. Comrade Max Eastman is an American revolutionist of the John Reed type, a devoted friend of the October revolution. He is a poet, writer, and journalist; he came to the Soviet Republic during the initial difficult years of her existence, learned the Russian language here, and came into intimate contact with our internal life in order to defend better and with greater assurance the Soviet Republic before the national masses of America.
In 1923 Max Eastman sided with the Opposition and openly defended it against political accusations and especially against insinuations and calumnies. I will not here touch upon those theoretical differences which separate comrade Eastman from the Marxists. But Eastman is an absolutely irreproachable revolutionist whose entire conduct is proof of his ideals and political disinterestedness. In this respect he is several heads higher than many of the functionaries who are hounding him. Eastman held to the opinion that the struggle waged by the Opposition was not energetic enough and he inaugurated a campaign abroad on his own accord and risk.
Having no access to the official communist press and desiring at any cost to give the widest possible publicity to Lenin’s Testament, Eastman handed it over to an American bourgeois newspaper. Everyone of us, both before and during the epoch of the Soviet government, has had more than one occasion to resort to foreign bourgeois newspapers in order to give one bit of news or another the wide circulation which we could otherwise not obtain. Lenin on more than one occasion utilized such publicity in the form of interviews given to foreign journalists. One must also add that except for an absolutely insignificant minority, American workers read only the bourgeois press.
Lenin’s Testament is no state or party secret. It is no crime to publish it. On the contrary, it is a crime to keep it hidden from the party and from the working class. Today, the minor and casual remarks of Lenin which he wittingly wrote for his own personal use (for example, notation, on book margins) are being printed by the hundreds, provided these notations can be used even if indirectly against the Opposition. But kept hidden are many hundred articles, speeches, letters, telegrams and notations made by Lenin, in proportion as they apply directly or indirectly against the present leadership, or in favor of the present Opposition. It is difficult to conceive of a ruder and more disloyal handling of the ideological heritage of Lenin. Had the Testament been given timely publication in our party press, it could have been freely reprinted by any in bourgeois newspaper. But inasmuch as the Stalinist censorship had placed a ban on Lenin’s Testament as well as upon hundreds of his other works, Eastman turned to the bourgeois press. There was nothing at all underhand in such a utilization by Eastman of a newspaper for the sake of publicity. Even on the pages of a bourgeois newspaper the Testament of Lenin remains Lenin’s testament.
But, the slanderers say, Eastman “sold” this testament. Yes, the bourgeois paper paid for the material it got. But did Eastman appropriate this payment and use it for his own personal purposes? No. He donated it all to the cause of the French Opposition in order that this same testament of Lenin and other documents shamefully kept hidden from the party and the proletariat may be published. Does this act place the least splotch on Eastman’s reputation? Not the slightest. On the contrary, Eastman’s entire behavior proves that he was motivated exclusively by ideological reasons.
During the time when the Opposition still figured on correcting the party line by strictly internal means without bringing the controversy out in the open, all of us, including myself, were opposed to steps Max Eastman had taken for the defense of the Opposition. In the autumn of 1925 the majority in the Political Bureau foisted upon me a statement concocted by themselves containing a sharp condemnation of Max Eastman. In so far as the entire leading group of the Opposition considered it inadvisable at that time to initiate an open political struggle, and steered toward making a number of concessions it naturally could not initiate and develop the struggle over the private question of Eastman who had acted as I said on his own accord and at his own risk. That is why, upon the decision of the leading group of the Opposition, I signed the statement on Max Eastman foisted upon me by the majority in the Political Bureau with the ultimatum: either sign the statement as written, or enter into an open struggle on this account.
There is no cause to enter here into a discussion whether the general policy of the Opposition in 1925 was correct or no. It is my opinion even now that there were no other ways during this period. In any case, my then statement on Eastman can be understood only as an integral part of our then line toward conciliation and peacemaking. That is how it was interpreted by all those members of the party who were in the least informed or who did some thinking. This statement casts no shadow either personal or political upon comrade Eastman.
To the extent that news has reached me about Eastman for the last year, he remains right now what he has been: a friend of the October revolution and a supporter of the views of the Opposition.

With Bolshevik greetings,
L. Trotsky
Alma-Ata, September 11, 1928.

We in the Bundist Movement consider the past relationship that the old Jewish Labour Bund had to Leon Trotsky and to Trotskyism to be a complete embarrassment to us, and we are frustrated by how much we are finding ourselves agreeing with the positions of Joseph Stalin who by the way hated the Jewish Labour Bund, and the only real reason why Comrade Stalin hated us was because Comrade Lenin hated us otherwise with all of the understanding that Stalin had about National minorities he may have himself been Pro Bund, but it is known that Stalin's very mind was Lenin's mind and that his very mind was crafted by Vladimir Lenin. The Jewish Bundist Diaspora Movement is directly linked back to the old Jewish Labour Bund, we are embarrassed not only by the old Jewish Bund's involvement with Trotskyism but we are embarrassed by how close the old Jewish Bund was with Anarchists of several stripes. We do not attack Trotskyists or Anarchists who wish to work with us, the more sincere any Trotskyist or Anarchist is the better too, but we have become very serious about Theory lately. Yet to make things even more frustrating, every single member of the Bundist Movement agrees with the Permanent Revolution theory by Leon Trotsky, we all see the validity of the Permanent Revolution theory. During the time that I had moved to Lebanon I did not become a citizen, I almost did but I became disillusioned with my community. I became Jewish Ultra-Orthodox in Lebanon, it was the lack of politics in this Jewish Ultra-Orthodox sect that finally disillusioned me from them. When I joined this community of Ultra-Orthodox Jewry I did so knowing that they had a reputation for being even more Anti Zionist than Neturei Karta. I later became a Classical Marxist, yet I was made to feel dirty for having a religion. I could not let go of Socialism, Socialism is the only moral economic position. I started off as a basic Marxist, then I became a Classical Marxist and then I became a basic Leninist. For me at that time and even up till today I would say that every genuine Marxist would have to agree with Lenin, otherwise that Marxist would have to be a First Worldist Eurocentric fraud. Classical Marxists do not follow the logic of Karl Marx nor do they fallow the logic of Marxism to the obvious conclusions. Within Marxism the logical conclusion is Vladimir Lenin. I never decided on Trotsky verses Stalin, instead I went back and forth from Trotskyism to Marxism-Leninism then back to Trotskyism for a while then back to Marxism-Leninism.
Back then Trotskyism seemed like the fusing of Classical Marxism and Leninism, and today I have concluded that I was correct to think so then. From what I saw in Lebanon Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) never could embrace religion, although they had always been mildly tolerant of religion.
I could not ever stay Marxist-Leninist because both Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism) and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (Maoism) to me at that that time represented fettered-Marxism in the same way that Welfare and Protectionism represents fettered-Capitalism. I was a Leninist for only four months I confess. I went Anarchist for two years before washing my hands of Communist theory. To this day it seems that Anarchists do not care about Indigenous Rights. Anarchists have always been very bigoted towards religion of any kind. Anarchists are good at understanding the dangers of Statehood, they are at their best when showing dissent and speaking truth to power, the issue with Anarchists is that they can not bring forward a proper dissolving of the State. The Anarchists reject Nationality because they do not understand what a Nation actually is, Nations existed long before the invention of Nationalism which fuses Nation with State. There have been Anarchists that make a distinction between Nation and State yet Anarchism lacks any realization of how every State is a Country, while on that note not every Country is a State. Marxists of all strands are annoying because they except the Nation-State despite that Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would quite often question this logic, but not enough so we can't be to angry at this. I now find that the further developing of Bundist theory will have to require adopting large parts of Marxism-Leninism to fill in the gaps we find in Bundism, we will not be getting rid of a single part of Bundism rather we are going to include Marxist-Leninist theory into Bundism while rejecting the errors found in all Communist theory. We as Bundists replace the Nationalist disorder of Self-determination with the correction of Auto-determination. And while we reject both Trotskyism and Anarchism we except Leon Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution and we embrace the Syndicalist organizing of Unions as described by Emma Goldman. With no influence from Marxists or Anarchists we Bundists aim for Direct Democracy, we however due to the nature of COINTELPRO will only push for localized Direct Democracy and State-federalized Democratic Centralism to protect the Revolution. Whether we call it Communism, Jamahiriya, or Anarchy the endgame for the World must be Direct Democracy. Everyone of us takes large parts of Maoist Third Worldist theory into play before we reach Permanent Revolution theory. We know with genuine understanding our aims, the basis of both Doikeit and National-Cultural Autonomy are fundamental to Bundism, the concept of Auto-determination is fundamental to Bundism, not one part of Bundism has left us since we started adopting more and more of a Marxist-Leninist theory to add on to the Bundist theory. On the contrary the more Marxist-Leninist theory we adopt, the stronger the fundamentals of Bundism get for all of us. This is also why our biggest problem will be Non-Jewish Marxist-Leninists as both Lenin and Stalin had no genuine knowledge of what the Jewish Labour Bund stood for, but we are confident that the truly non-dogmatic Marxist-Leninists will see things our way as the only reason they would even have to reject us would be blind acceptance to Lenin and Stalin as if these Men could not have errors in their own logic. The Bundist Movement is the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat and we need to continue to correct our historical mistakes too.
We have nothing to fear in this because we consistently get proven correct on all of our fundamentals especially National-Cultural Autonomy. We must except the fact that we are the Vanguard of the Jewish Proletariat or all of the Bundist-sectarians will continue to slander the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox and take up the failing nonviolent strategies which had never been Bundist to begin with, and because of the reasons that I have mentioned this puts Bundism in danger and thus this puts the entire Jewish Nation in danger, only the Jewish Bund can save us.