Smash Authority


Blog Aggregators: Lebanese | Palestinian | Syrian | Jordanian | Iraqi | Arab | Israeli

 


Zionism's Socialist Dilemma - Part I
Saturday, March 24, 2007

I have been resisting calls to post/publish here the comprehensive comparative paper I wrote on HezbAllah and Hamas, for a number of reasons; chief among them being, I intend to incorporate it into a much longer work, and therefore, until such time as that work is in progress, I would like to keep the lid on the bottle.

Instead, I have decided to tease my readers - especially my Marxist, communist, socialist, etc. ones - with another piece I have written, which deals specifically with Zionism and socialism. Some of you might be familiar with this piece, since I have posted the whole thing before (on my old blog), but I thought this time I would post it in batches, and open up the floor for discussion/debates/critique, if there is sufficient interest in doing so. ;)

Zionism’s Socialist Dilemma:
Nationalism, Colonization, and Class Struggle


Introduction

The Zionist cause is, by nature, a colonialist one, aimed at uprooting the indigenous population with the express purpose of populating the land with Jews, who are declared the rightful owners of the land that they were exiled from 2000 years ago. However extravagant such a claim might be, one cannot ignore the fact that it was largely – though perhaps not completely – successful. Zionism owes its success to many factors, historical, ideological, and material. Given the tremendous impact of Zionism in thought and practice on the Middle East, it is important to understand the aspect of it, namely socialism, which played an important role in the shaping of Jewish society in Palestine and the course of its development in the period preceding the founding of the State of Israel.

Thus, in this context one must necessarily ask the question of whether a synthesis of socialism and nationalism was ever achieved, both in thought and in practice. Also relevant is the question of whether there was an intention to establish an alternative to bourgeois society or if socialist thought was merely a tool for mobilizing the Jewish masses in support of the Zionist cause. This paper aims at examining these questions, with emphasis on the writings of two self-identified socialist-Zionists Nahman Syrkin and Ber Borochov.

The paper begins by setting a brief and general theoretical framework for the discussion of nationalism, a concept dominant in the Zionist cause, ideology, and narrative from its inception and throughout its journey to success. The framework will focus largely on Marx’s and Marxist understanding of and views on nationalism. This would allow for a discussion and counter-critique of the various criticisms directed at Marxist analyses of the national/ist question – including what is widely referred to as the “Jewish Question” – in particular from scholars and thinkers who insist on the prioritization of ethnic and national identities over economic emancipation, class struggle, and identities revolving around the means and modes of production. Such criticisms and arguments are in fact in tune with the arguments of socialist-Zionists, which will be thoroughly examined and critically assessed in light of the Marxist framework in the second section of the paper. The rest of the article will discuss the manner in which the political/nationalist clash impacted the prospects for a genuine (cross-national) class movement and struggle in pre-1948 Palestine.

I - The Theoretical Framework
Critics of Marx and Marxist theory often argue that given that Marx’s analysis and predictions concerning ethnic relations are based on 19th century European dynamics rather than phenomena that became especially prevalent in the 20th century, much of the recent past cannot be explained by his writings. The 20th century pattern of genocide and violent nationalism, they argue, has brought to the forefront concepts and issues largely unexplained by Marx and many of his contemporaries. As such, the exclusive attention accorded to economic development and social change is not enough and Marxism fails the test of the century in its failure to place nationalism on a separate platform. A look at Marx’s views on nationalism will thus be undertaken, with the purpose of establishing whether or not Marxism fails to provide an adequate explanation of the problem of nationalism in general and Jewish nationalism and the application thereof (Zionism) in Palestine in particular.

Marx and Nationalism
Shlomo Avineri argues that of all the phenomena discussed by Marx, nationalism has received the least satisfactory treatment.[1] Marx’s unsystematic treatment of the nationalist question and his two distinct – pre-1848 and post-1848 – analyses of it, have resulted in much confusion and disarray in the socialist movement, creating a gap where a discussion of the most acute social and political forces should have been.

The two analyses differ significantly, albeit overlapping in many of its central aspects. While the pre-1848 analysis will be touched upon, it is the post-1848 analysis that will be taken into consideration in any further discussions of the question, for it was after 1848 that nationalism appeared as a major force on the political and social stage, and it was then that Marx significantly altered his formulation of the national question within the context of class struggle.

In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx argues that the cosmopolitan character that production and consumption have acquired has rendered the national ground on which industries stood practically non-existent.[2] Furthermore,

“[n]ational differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding hitherto.”[3]

The proletarian supremacy and revolution would cause these national differences to vanish further. Indeed, it was this contention that constituted the crux of Marx’s argument in favour of internationalism, and which has been integrated into various socialist movements while discarded by others. The internationalist argument has a significant impact on the discussion of socialist Zionism. The post-1848 paradigm, despite presenting a different explanation, preserved the internationalist undertones. Given that it possesses a broader view of the dynamics of nationalism and class relations, and the fact that nationalism has become a problem that cannot be ignored in any discussion of world politics and international relations, this approach will now be examined and adopted in the future as the paradigm by which socialist Zionism’s approach to Jewish national self-determination is assessed.

The shift in Marx’s formulation of the question of nationalism appeared in terms of the “modern … expression of the bourgeois need for larger markets and territorial consolidation.”[4] The need for larger markets entailed the need for larger economic entities, which would only be possible through the unification of smaller economic units. Despite the auspices under which such unifications are called for, the core concern of the bourgeoisie is purely economic rather than nationalistic/ideological/romantic in nature. As such, nationalism is merely part of the process of capitalist development and industrialization.[5] What followed from this analysis was a strategic position that Marx adopted: support for unification where it would lead to the hastening of the development of capitalism and by extension its demise. More importantly, the less developed areas (which also lack bourgeoisie) would have to be integrated into more developed ones, with the purpose of developing an industrial society in the former.

Marx’s attitudes on the question of nationalism, as Avineri puts it, “left the socialist movement an ambiguous heritage, in so far as it relied on Marx as a guide to its policies towards the national question.”[6] The existence of two analyses of the national question have resulted in difficulties formulating a coherent theory of nationalism and a socialist policy towards this complex and rapidly intensifying phenomenon. Given that nationalism – contrary to what Marx predicted in the first analysis – has managed to steal the front seat of world politics and international relations, it is the second analysis that can provide an explanation and a guide for the formulation of socialist policy. In this context, the Middle East presents socialists with a complex environment to deal with. On one side is traditional Arab society, and on the other, modern Jewish colonialism. The fundamental clash between traditional modes of production and industrialized, bourgeois society is further complicated by a strong sense of nationalism that pervades all aspects of both societies. Indeed, a central theme in the arguments of many socialist Zionists who defend the colonization of Palestine and advocate the expansion of such colonial projects, is the contention that the colonization of Palestinian Arab society would set the stage for the development of modern forces in the region, setting in motion the wheels necessary for the demise of capitalism and the victory of socialism and proletarian revolution.[7] Yet such an argument is fallacious, for as Bryan Turner points out Marx did not specifically develop a theory of the economics of colonialism or of the nature of class struggle in colonial societies.[8] Furthermore, the Zionist enterprise, though being a colonial movement at the onset, rapidly transformed itself into a phenomenon that had as its primary objective the de-population of Palestine of its indigenous Arab population rather than the mere subjection of the local population to Jewish colonial rule. Thus, what socialist Zionists need to grapple with is Jewish nationalism vis-à-vis socialism rather than Jewish colonialism as a means of socialist revolution. A discussion of Marx’s views and suggestions on the “Jewish Question” is appropriate here, for it highlights the problems of Jewish existence in Europe, and thus allows for a better understanding of how Zionism has developed in comparison to these suggestions, and to what extent socialist Zionism has filled the gaps where necessary.

Marx and the Jewish Question
Any discussion of Zionism necessitates that due attention be paid to the conditions that have given rise to the Zionist idea and quest for national self-determination. The importance of the “Jewish Question” is emphasized in this paper through a discussion of Marx’s presentation of the problem and his recommendations for resolving it. This presentation was in fact in response to and a review of an attempt by another thinker, Bruno Bauer, who placed the Jewish question within a theological-subjective context.[9] Marx rejected Bauer’s theological and spiritual assessment and his analysis of the problem as part of the dynamics of the relationship between religion and the state, which was prevalent at the time. Instead, he argued for a materialistic analysis of the Jewish problem, which he placed in the context of the Jews’ “economic role … in the financial and trading sectors of the societies in which they lived.”[10] In fact, as Amor sums it up, “the preservation of Jews in history was a result of their historical mode of economic behaviour.”[11] Moreover, the behaviour and values of Jews symbolized and reflected the conditions of bourgeois society. In other words, Marx considered Judaism as a “metaphor for bourgeois society.”[12] He saw in this the assimilation of European bourgeois society into Jewry. Given this reality, Marx advocated the emancipation of Jew and non-Jew alike from the bourgeois way of life, which he then translated to the idea of the emancipation of society from Judaism. In this sense, he was critical of those who advocated merely religious and political emancipation for the Jews rather than total human emancipation. Since the position of Jews in society is determined by the economic/material basis of their existence, any emancipation short of addressing the economic role would fail to resolve the Jewish question. He concludes his review by pointing out that the elimination of the “essence of Judaism”[13] would render the Jew impossible, thereby eliminating the bases for estrangement and alienation. The element most relevant in this text is the distinction Marx places between political and social emancipation, which he discusses at length. Whereas the latter aims at realizing the full potential of human beings, the former merely establishes supposed but not factual equality, “equality” that is determined on the bases of bourgeois rights.[14] As such political emancipation is a limited progress within the framework of the ruling order. Marx’s discussion of bourgeois society as a reflection of Judaism can be further developed in the direction of the economic/class dynamics of the Yishuv and later on Israeli society (especially with regards to the treatment of the Sephardim[15]).

Contextualizing the Framework
The important point to clarify is how this discussion pertains not only to Marx’s understanding of the national question discussed above, but also to the manner in which socialist-Zionists handled the practical aspects of Jewish existence in their ideological and political writings on Jewish revival. The second is straightforward and requires little elaboration: in so far as the socialist Zionists believed in the ideal of Jewish nationhood and self-determination, their views differed significantly on the solution of the Jewish question; yet one can see in the writings of these thinkers, a fundamental agreement with the core argument put forth by Marx, that the peculiar position of Jews is determined by their economic and class position. This point will be elaborated on in the later sections of the paper, where an analysis of the writings of two significantly differing socialist Zionists will be undertaken.

The first, namely Marx’s understanding of nationalism requires a far more complicated analysis. It is necessary to first point out that the Jewish question is discussed in this context only in so far as nationalism was discussed by Marx in relation to bourgeois society. A post-1848 Marxist analysis could have the following implications for the Jewish question:

1) The bourgeois need for larger markets and Marx’s insistence on satisfying these conditions supports his quest for the emancipation of Jews, which he argued could only be achieved by emancipation from bourgeois society. However, in so far as the adoption of larger markets and unified states is a strategic belief, the implications for European Jewry, which did not constitute a large in-gathered mass but was rather dispersed throughout, are significant. In fact, Marx’s advocacy of such a strategy could have negative implications for Jewry, which would suffer from heightened antagonism due to an even fiercer competition brought about by rapid capitalist development.

2) Territorial consolidation and the fact that the Jewish bourgeoisie does not have a territory of its own would greatly enhance the position of the non-Jewish bourgeoisie. In turn, the material undermining of the Jewish middle bourgeoisie and its downward movement to the ranks of the petty bourgeoisie would awaken the need for the enlargement of markets to put an end to Jewish economic isolation. Indeed, as Marx argues, calls for national unification are merely a cover for economic interests.[16]

While these scenarios might not be logically continuous nor in fact a historical reality in the context of the course of development and success of Zionism, they are nevertheless valid theoretical/analytical extensions of Marx’s views on the question of nationalism and the Jewish problem.

II - Zionism's Socialist Dilemma
The conceptual framework brings us to the central issue that this paper aims to deal with: whether there was – at any point – a synthesis of socialism and nationalism in Zionist thought, and if so, how this synthesis has manifested itself in Palestine.[17] By a synthesis of socialism and nationalism is meant the combination of the particularistic aspects of nationalism with the universal values of socialism. However, this is not equivalent to asking the question of whether socialism has had any real impact on Zionism. The latter (including the question of socialism as a mobilizing myth) is a separate question, one that will briefly be touched upon in the final analysis. The emphasis here will be placed on the concept of the nation and its primacy, the relationship between nation and class, and the position of socialism vis-à-vis the nation (i.e. means vs. ends) in socialist-Zionist thinking. Aaron David Gordon, one of the earliest to have formulated a national outlook on which to base the Zionist enterprise, argued that the true enemy of nationalism and Jewish national aspirations was socialism. As such, “if one pairs socialism with nationalism, one is pairing one kind with another, and the pairing cannot be successful.”[18] Others, like Syrkin, Borochov, and ideologists of the labor movement answered the question of synthesis in the affirmative. Yet in so far as Jewish nationalism had developed in the absence of a territorial base, its driving force was necessarily attached to nationalism rather than socialism. The primacy of the nation was the defining characteristic of Zionism in all its forms, for in the subjugation of nationhood to any other entity lay its death. While this might appear to be a straightforward and simple answer to the synthesis question, it is nevertheless important to examine the manner in which Zionism has proposed to deal and has dealt with the challenges of the economic and class position of Jews. It is also worth noting that the answer is not quite simple, for it has been argued that a Jewish socialist revolution can take place only when the Jews are located on an ancestral soil and in control of rather than subjection to the means of production. Indeed, this is the major point that raises the question of the mobilizing myth[19]: has such an argument been promoted with the purpose of setting the stage for a genuine proletarian revolution, or has it merely served as a facade for the achievement of nationalist ends? Moreover, albeit outside the time-frame within which this paper operates, to what extent has socialism – though not a genuine proletarian revolution – become incorporated into the economic and social structure of the Jewish state?[20]

(to be continued)

[1] Shlomo Avineri, “Marxism and Nationalism.” Journal of Contemporary History 26.3/4 (1991), 638.

[2] Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. In Steven M. Cahn, Classics of Moral and Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford UP, 2002), 850.

[3] Ibid., 858.

[4] Avineri, 640.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 643.

[7] Bryan Turner, “Karl Marx and Oriental Colonization.” Journal of Palestine Studies 6.3 (1977), 170.

[8] Ibid., 173.

[9] It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the details of Bruno Bauer’s assertions. For a brief overview of these, see Meir Amor, “State Persecution and Vulnerability: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Violent Ethnocentrism.” Diss. U of Toronto, 1999, 11-17.

[10] Walid Sharif, “Soviet Marxism and Zionism.” Journal of Palestine Studies 6.3 (1977), 79.

[11] Amor, 19. This assertion is summed up in the following quotation: “Judaism continues to exist not in spite of history, but owing to history.” In Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question”, 1844.

[12] Sharif, 79.

[13] Marx, “On the Jewish Question.”

[14] Amor, 30.

[15] For an excellent article on the discrimination and oppressive economic/labour policies against Sephardim in Israel, see Ella Shohat, “Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Victims.” Social Text 19/20 (Autumn 1988), 1-35. Also worth mentioning is the Black Panther movement, which took shape in response to the ethnic and economic discrimination that the Sephardic community encountered in Israel. See Shalom Cohen and Kokhavi Shemesh, “The Origin and Development of the Israeli Black Panther Movement.” MERIP Reports 49 (July 1976), 19-22.

[16] In fact, in the platform of Po’alei Zion party, Ber Borochov predicts exactly such a scenario. The document will be discussed at some length in the second section of this paper. A third implication, which is a continuation of the second, can also be drawn, and has been discussed by Borochov. It is, namely, the idea of the proletarianization of the Jewish bourgeoisie on the new territory. This, too, will be discussed in the second section of the paper.

[17] The second (practical) aspect will be discussed in the third and final section of the paper, which touches on pre-1948 labour relations and party politics (in particular the Palestine Communist Party).

[18] Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel. Trans. David Maisel (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1997), 60. Sternhell’s book provides by far the most comprehensive discussion of the peculiar position of socialism vis-à-vis nationalism in Zionist ideology and practice.

[19] Bringing up the question of mobilizing myth does not necessarily imply that there has been no socialist element in the writings of these thinkers; rather, it aims at analyzing their intentions based on the comparative importance accorded to nationalism and socialism, and the manner in which the relationship between the two has been formulated.

[20] This question deserves a separate study; for an insightful albeit relatively outdated study see Amir Ben-Porat, “Class Structure in Israel: From Statehood to the 1980s.” The British Journal of Sociology 43.2 (June 1992), 225-237. Also relevant are the economic conditions of Sephardim; see Shohat (1998).

Labels: , , ,

posted by Angry Anarchist @ 3/24/2007 01:57:00 PM,

12 Comments:

At March 24, 2007 at 8:07 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

What is Occupation, I have a question....




























....


How much do you get paid?

 
At March 25, 2007 at 7:23 AM, Blogger Frank Partisan said...

I thought it was well written, interesting paper.

 
At March 25, 2007 at 8:46 AM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

I make about $360,000 USD a year

How much do you get paid?

 
At March 25, 2007 at 12:14 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

Renegade Eye, it's not the whole thing, I will post the remaining later... :D

What is Occupation, you get paid $360,000 for Israel advocacy, must be a lucrative business. How do I sign up?




















...

NOT!

 
At March 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM, Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

no i dont make a DIME for Israel advocacy

In fact it COSTS me about 10k a year to advocate for israel....

all those trips to the hill..

hotels

lobbying apts...

I PAY for the right to advocate for israel...

Aint america great?

 
At March 25, 2007 at 4:27 PM, Blogger m.i. said...

what is "occupation" (a "tool" by any other name ((look it up in UK/Aus usage))), so you pay the devil to take your soul? Revolutionary. Stunning.

 
At March 26, 2007 at 9:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey angry - nice work - FYI you should check out asher's blog - another anarchist from oceania [nz] - the anti-zionist blogroll is always worth a trawl.

http://anarchia.wordpress.com/

i took the liberty of emailing him a link to your blog :-)

 
At March 26, 2007 at 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh & what is "occupation",

" "colonial" implies foriegn [i.e. foreign] implanting of something not from it"

good call brother! damn good call!

i can see why they pay you the big bucks.

 
At March 26, 2007 at 7:05 PM, Blogger Angry Anarchist said...

Hey Rosa Sparx, of course, feel free to share my blog link, no problem. :D

I came across Asher's blog a while back (I think through Carnival blog) and haven't had much time to go through it in detail or drop a comment...

I will add it to my blog links though. ;)

MFL :D

اي، هيدا الصهيووني واحد مصطول، ما تردّ عليه لأنو شو ما قلت ما رح يتغيّر شي، المصطول بيبقى مصطول، مثل رفيقنا العزيز بول (التشارمان ماو)... ممممممممممممممممممممممم!!!! اي رفيق، شو كمان؟ كل مرة بتقللي منحكي فيها وقتا شوفِك وما عمنشوفَك.... شو القصة؟ طيب ما تكتبلي رد طويل عريض لأنو بفضل رفيقنا بول المصطول ما عاد عندي الوقت تأعمل شي، ولا حتى اقرأ المقالات ولا حتى لخص مقالات للبارود (أحسن واحد بيناتن يعني... مع انّو اوقات بحس بدّي اقتله، بس مش للدرجة التي وصلنا انا وبول المصطول)....

يللا بدّك شي؟ منشوفك ... بيوم من الأيام... يعني صار فينا نأخد منّك رانديفو؟؟
:D

 
At March 27, 2007 at 10:50 AM, Blogger MarxistFromLebanon said...

"M, thanks I have one...", interesting what life is to you.

"MFL, do you fault the arab's nationalistic selves creating 21 nations too? or do you just reserve your anger towards Israel?"

Arab Nationalism rose for your history during the Ottoman's inforced of Turkish Nationalism in the early 20th Century. In case of Palestine, after the WWI was over, it was not revived till 1936, as a reaction to Zionist nationalism. I hate arab nationalism, but again your illogical sense of knowing history amuses me on how you pick bits rather than a whole thing.


"and MFL, today 649/650th of the middle east is JEW free and israel is 25% arab, with more arabs living in israel than at anytime in history." Are you sure? According to the British, in 1919, 91% of Palestine (and I mean historic Palestine) was Arab with the Jewish ration expanding from 7% to 9% due to Zionist importations within the last year. Expulsions occured, and stop trying to justify them.

"how is that possible when today in the west bank HUNDREDS of NEW palestinan settlements have been created? and more arabs are in israel today living as citizens than ever have lived in that land."

West Bank? I agree that Palestinian leadership is corrupt, but what is happening today as a reaction to the past. Arabs are treated as B citizens, because again they are not Jews (reminds us of another racist ideology, Nazis). Again, you can never justify the expulsions which sent the whole region due to Zionist racism into this current instability and turmoil



"If the Jews had acted like the arabs from arab lands we would have no refugee problem, but since the jews BEGGED ARABS to stay, and MANY DID i do not see your point. Do you read all of morris's works or just those "parts" that you agree with?" Nope These two books which were his latest, who agreed about the Grand Master Plan. So check it out, the Jews did not beg, they played on double standards. After expelling Arabs from 1920-1948, suddenly they want arabs to stay. WOW, you kill people then tell them to stay put while sending waves of terror, that is your Morris what shed light on.


"MFL, you cannot insult me, I just look at the arab world and then at israel, compare the nobel prizes, the gdp, the standards of freedoms for all citizens and even if israel aint perfect the arab world is SO IMPERFECT it is impossible to be insulted by a "marxist from lebanon""

Yup, you were, you just replied to me in a Nazi like, and yes, keep feeling proud specially Israel lives on a lifeline support called US fundings... cheers, you are not even geniune, my "Supreme" Nazi ala Jewish version friend. Personally, don't you feel weird (again never answered my question) that everything was fine till the Zionists came).

have a great day, enjoy the rose colored glasses you have shoved into your eyes...

(You sure? You just proved to me you are a CNN victim, who lives in a world of his own).

 
At April 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM, Blogger MarxistFromLebanon said...

BTW, just now I read the whole thing (disagree with some points, and you beat me to the post (sort of working on Zionism, but from a different perspective),

"Instead, I have decided to tease my readers - especially my Marxist, communist, socialist, etc. ones -"

Great Effort, no wonder you have been lazy outside the blogsphere :P

There is one of them who is your buddy ;)

 
At May 25, 2007 at 12:37 PM, Blogger Sewage Print said...

very good piece.. in fact made me wish u'd publish the Hamas - Hezbollah paper.
weird how u have great appeal when you write as u do here... and then u became dogmatic and insulting when u argue something elementary!
:-O
i still insist on expressing my like of your work, and my appetite for more. RESPECT

 

Post a Comment

<< Home