Was Lenin wrong about anti-semitism?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So Lenin's definition of anti-semitism is well know, but I shall repeat it here:

"Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital. Hatred towards the Jews persists only in those countries where slavery to the landowners and capitalists has created abysmal ignorance among the workers and peasants. Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened."

Ok, Lenin is right about the capitalists using anti-semitism as a means of deception. However, after the holocaust, hasn't it become impossible to say that anti-semitism was just "a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate"?

I find it hard to believe that modern anti-semitism as professed in Nazi-Germany was just a remnant of feudalism.
I know this is more meant as a piece of agitational rhetoric during a civil war where many Jews suffered from attacks by both sides.

[Tjis]

Anti-semitism definitely finds its origins in feudal times though. Anti-semitism is not a nazi creation. Instead, anti-semitism was already widely present in post-war Germany, and much of its imagery and mythology was very similar to its feudal origins.

What's different in the case of modern anti-semitism though was that it arose during a time of crisis and nationalist romanticism. At this time, under influence of emerging sciences, who was and wasn't German was increasingly being defined in genetic terms, while romantic nationalism provided the idea that the German people as a whole were like an organism, cooperating for eachother's benefit guided by their volksgeist. As Germany wasn't really doing well at the time, having just lost a war and all, adherents of this volkish nationalism believed there had to be an enemy among the German people who had caused them to lose the war and who were causing all this social unrest now. And of course, jews fit the bill perfectly, being in Germany but not German (according to the volkish definition), and being heavily involved in the international socialist movement. Mirroring the genetic theory of the origin of the German volksgeist, Jews were then portrayed as having their own volksgeist, one that opposed the German people, which, like the German volksgeist, has its origin in genetics.

So the main innovation of modern anti-semitism was to change the root of the jewish evilness from a religious one (being responsible for Christ's crucifixion) to a biological/volkish one (inherited traits incline the jew, and therefore the jewish people as a whole, to evil).
So modern anti-semitism is definitely different. It was updated to fit emerging scientific ideas and romantic ideals at the time and therefore aquired a bunch of new traits not present in old anti-semitism, at times even being in contradiction with it. But it is still very much a continuation of the old.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Good question and I agree with the above. It's much easier for ruling classes to build-on existing antagonisms or to refashion older ones to divide the population, or scapegoat or repress people.

[Comrade #138672]

I think Bordiga explains this fairly well. He also distinguishes between feudalist and capitalist anti-semitism.

And I agree with Jimmie Higgins that capitalist anti-semitism was able to develop out of feudalist anti-semitism, because it is easier to build on already existing antagonisms.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes, but it developed. It was not merely a remnant of feudal-times as Lenin seems to suggest.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think Bordiga explains this fairly well. He also distinguishes between feudalist and capitalist anti-semitism.

And I agree with Jimmie Higgins that capitalist anti-semitism was able to develop out of feudalist anti-semitism, because it is easier to build on already existing antagonisms.

Could you cite or link to Bordiga's explanation?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, but it developed. It was not merely a remnant of feudal-times as Lenin seems to suggest.I don't know for sure, but my impression is that the kind of pogrom-based attacks that Russia and eastern europe saw at that time might have been much more directly linked to older forms of "anti-judiasm". Or, yeah, he could have been wrong and not had a clear sense of how oppression of jews might have been changing and developing in general.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I don't know for sure, but my impression is that the kind of pogrom-based attacks that Russia and eastern europe saw at that time might have been much more directly linked to older forms of "anti-judiasm". Or, yeah, he could have been wrong and not had a clear sense of how oppression of jews might have been changing and developing in general.

Yes, of course. One can clearly see that this was written as some civil-war agitation to the troops that were doing these pogroms.

But my wuestions is more about the broader scope, haa this definition become obsolete?
The way Lenin phrases it, it seems like it was merely a remnant out of feudal times, it later took forms that were, in my opinion, not just remnants of feudal times but took new forms altogether.

[CatsAttack]

What you quoted is Lenin trying out a recording device cause it was new high-tech at the time. It wasn't meant to be a serious examination of the origins and development of anti-semitism. It is an injustice to ask "was Lenin wrong" in such a manner.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, but it developed. It was not merely a remnant of feudal-times as Lenin seems to suggest.

Well, to what extent had "modern" antisemitism already developed, especially in Russia, where old, "feudal" antisemitism was very prevalent until 1917, so that Lenin would have been able to notice it, and theoretically develop a critical distinction between those forms of antisemitism?

Luís Henrique

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Well, to what extent had "modern" antisemitism already developed, especially in Russia, where old, "feudal" antisemitism was very prevalent until 1917, so that Lenin would have been able to notice it, and theoretically develop a critical distinction between those forms of antisemitism?

Luís Henrique

In Russia not so much. Outside of Russia I think it was certainely developing, especially in post-war Germany. One could wonder wether or not Lenin had the time to even research such a topic during a civil war. He obviously had better things to do.

The question is more on wether or not this description of anti-semitism is accurate right now, as I've seen it being cited now and again.

[G4b3n]

The Jews are a scapegoat, they always have been and probably will continue to function as such. This began during medieval times and continues to persist.
The black Death: "The Jews poisoned the wells!"
The Spanish Inquisition: "The Jews are hoarding all of the gold!"
The 30 years war: "The Jews are practicing ritual murder!"
WWI: "The Jews undermined the war effort!"

The Jews *insert fallacious accusation here*

[piet11111]

Yes, but it developed. It was not merely a remnant of feudal-times as Lenin seems to suggest.

Take most religions those are developing relics from feudal times (and some even pre-dating those)

Religion certainly managed to develop itself to accommodate capitalism while previously being a bastion of feudalism.

[Forward Union]

I find it hard to believe that modern anti-semitism as professed in Nazi-Germany was just a remnant of feudalism.
I know this is more meant as a piece of agitational rhetoric during a civil war where many Jews suffered from attacks by both sides.

Nazism is at once both a very simple and a very strange ideology at the same time. It was, unlike other types of Fascism anti-enlightenment, instead of being an enlightenment philosophy, it was a Romantic philosophy and was not based on the values or principals of the enlightenment (This is actually different to Italian Fascism, which was born out of the Socialist tradition). It idealized early tribal culture, mysticism, concepts such as destiny, purity, etc, it was incredibly superstitious and non-scientific and adored many remnant ideals of the Feudal era. It was also essentially Nihilist, it began to welcome it's own destruction in the later days, and Hitler actually attempted to accelerate the obliteration of his own economy in the last month of the war. To give you an example, name any Enlightenment philosophy, be it Liberalism, Conservatism or Communism, you'll find nuances within these tendencies. You never hear statements such as "I think National Socialism is a good idea in theory but Hitler went too far" or "I agree with Nazism but the Holocaust was a terrible mistake" or "I'm a nazi but on the left of the tendency, I think Otto Strasse would have made a better leader". These views just don't exist because it isn't actually a real ideology.

Antisemitism was another aspect of this. If Nazism was the death throw of Romanticist politics then Antisemitism - an overwhelmingly dominant prejudice, fits perfectly.

[Tjis]

... or "I'm a nazi but on the left of the tendency, I think Otto Strasse would have made a better leader". These views just don't exist because it isn't actually a real ideology.

Actually this is a common position among European nazis. Strasserism is very much a real ideology.

[Forward Union]

Actually this is a common position among European nazis. Strasserism is very much a real ideology.

Well how are they going about building Strasserism? You will find some nutters who will say anything, it doesn't mean it is really part of the discourse. I've heard "Communists" argue that Hitler was a good guy or that we should return to the level of wild animals without even language. But these views are not actually part of our tradition. Saying Otto Strasse should have been the leader isn't saying anything because no Nazis said it at the time. Furthermore there's no Nazi analysis of the Vietnam war, or the housing bubble, It's just a Frankenstein of nonsense which can't even tackle the developments in modern science which have by now completely obliterated the pseudo-science of race, purity, or whatever other mystical nonsense they want to come out with.

My point was that as a romantic philosophy, Nazism was exactly a glorification of many Feudal values. So I don't thin Lenin was wrong at all, I just don't think he, or anyone at the time really expected a state to carry out a mechanical extermination of millions of people because of it.

[Geiseric]

Racism against Indians and black people is a remnent of tradition started 400 years ago, however today it takes a different form than outright lynching and mob violence. In Russia, and around eastern Europe as a whole, anti-Semitism is also very much alive along with racism towards muslims, which is a result of secret police being in charge of the ortho church.

[cyu]

By definition, plutocrats are a minority of the society. If you want to ensure you have a plutocracy while putting on the appearance of democratic (or governance) legitimacy, you have to get the masses to support the ruling minority.

In order to gain majority support, they attempt to focus attention on issues where they can win majority support.

If most people are heterosexuals, they attack homosexuals.

If most people are native born, they attack immigrants.

If most people are Hindu or Catholic, they attack those who are not Hindu or Catholic.

Spreading bigotry isn't so much part of their ideology, it is merely a tool they use on the general population to maintain their power.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7020/6668113277_bf653d62cd_z.jpg

[synthesis]

Well how are they going about building Strasserism? You will find some nutters who will say anything, it doesn't mean it is really part of the discourse. I've heard "Communists" argue that Hitler was a good guy or that we should return to the level of wild animals without even language. But these views are not actually part of our tradition. Saying Otto Strasse should have been the leader isn't saying anything because no Nazis said it at the time. Furthermore there's no Nazi analysis of the Vietnam war, or the housing bubble, It's just a Frankenstein of nonsense which can't even tackle the developments in modern science which have by now completely obliterated the pseudo-science of race, purity, or whatever other mystical nonsense they want to come out with.

The important issue is that you are distinguishing Nazism from Italian Fascism on the basis that the latter emerged from the socialist tradition, but in fact this aspect existed in Nazism as well. Before the Night of Long Knives, there really was a substantial subset of Nazis who emphasized the "socialism" part of "National Socialism," and Strasser was their most prominent figure. The Night wiped out the so-called "left-wing" of Nazism and the "right-wing," with the attributes you described, took charge. Modern Strasserites are essentially ideological Nazis who believe they are acting in the best interest of their national proletariat.

Also, when you say that Nazism "idealized early tribal culture [and] mysticism" and that "it was incredibly superstitious and non-scientific," in contrast to Italian Fascism, which is implied to be "based on the values or principals of the enlightenment," you're really drawing too fine of a distinction between the two. Whatever you want to call the historical movements which are radically far-right but also reject traditional conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism - I think "Fascism" is an acceptable umbrella term, but I respect the fact that many people disagree - they are much more similar than you suggest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_mysticism) There is always the dominant aspect of anti-intellectual, superstitious authoritarianism, which romanticizes what is perceived to be the ancient culture of the nation, alongside a tendency towards mysticism and flirtation with pre-Christian (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/202210/fascism/219389/Identification-with-Christianity) paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_abbiamo_bisogno)* - and then there is also an undercurrent of right-wing workerism, which is often a source of internal conflict in those movements.

*Also see: Julius Evola, Amadeo Armentano, Arturo Reghini

[Comrade Jacob]

It came around during Feudal times but the Capitalists and Fascists use it.

[emilianozapata]

yeah, he was spot on because when times are tough the ruling class always refer to divide and rule style tactics to deviate the workers anger away from who is really oppressing them.