Marxist Zionism

[Marko]

Ber Borochov's conclusions:

Marxism has analyzed the class struggle correctly, but there is no similar analysis of the national question, which is complex and shrouded in mystery.

Jews can only join the class struggle when they have eliminated the restricting conditions on their creative forces that are imposed by the national struggle.

In order to eliminate these restrictions, Jews must have territorial autonomy and a state. This was "territorialism" in the Borochovian and socialist Zionist sense.

Jews are the forerunners of capitalism, but as capitalism develops, competition for jobs forces the Jews to migrate to other countries. This is a "stychic" process - that is, blind, mechanistic and impersonal.

Palestine (or the land of Israel) is the only place from which Jews will not be evicted by the stychic process. It is therefore the final destination of Jewish immigration.

The role of the Zionist organization must be to order and direct the immigration that is produced by the stychic process.

Poalei Tziyon party supports Palestine as the national territory of the Jews because it is the only logical choice, and not necessarily because of historical or cultural associations. It is the only country from which Jews would not be evicted by the stychic process.

Zionist aims can be fulfilled only by the Jewish proletariat.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Poalei_Tziyon_1906.htm

[Marko]

An archive of Borochov's writings:

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/borochov/

[chimx]

The role of the Zionist organization must be to order and direct the immigration

And it is precisely this that the Zionists failed at doing. Immigration was so excessive that it destroyed the Palestinian economy, which is why Arabs became so opposed to immigration in the first place.

For decades prior to the Zionists fucking up, socialist Zionists had lived relatively peacefully with the indigenous population, but as there came an increased need for emigrating due to anti-Semitism, Zionists placed the Jewish communities need over the broader economic needs of the region.

The result was a justifiable hostility to Palestine's newcomers, and a number of unjust wars that have left Palestinians and other Arabs in poverty.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:16 am

The role of the Zionist organization must be to order and direct the immigration

And it is precisely this that the Zionists failed at doing. Immigration was so excessive that it destroyed the Palestinian economy, which is why Arabs became so opposed to immigration in the first place.

For decades prior to the Zionists fucking up, socialist Zionists had lived relatively peacefully with the indigenous population, but as there came an increased need for emigrating due to anti-Semitism, Zionists placed the Jewish communities need over the broader economic needs of the region.

The result was a justifiable hostility to Palestine's newcomers, and a number of unjust wars that have left Palestinians and other Arabs in poverty.
No, large migration to Israel was necessary to the development of the Jewish people towards socialism. And that could not happen if the wages for Jewish labourers were at Arab level.

And the opponents of that migration effectively supported conditions which forced the Jewish people to stay in Europe and become victims of persecution and genocide. Small inequalities between nations are better than a genocide.

[Revolution Until Victory]

typical bullshit you would expect form the "marxist-leninst" Marko lunatic.

nothing justifies colonialism.

no such thing as Marxist Zionist.

that's as believable as "anti-imperialist colonizer".

[Genosse Kotze]

Yeah really marko. You aren't making friends very well.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Genosse [email protected] 02, 2007 06:11 am
Yeah really marko. You aren't making friends very well.
Please read Borochov's "Our Platform" and tell me what is your disagreement with him.

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/borochov/platform1.html
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/borochov/platform2.html

[Faux Real]

Yeah, and thank goodness the Europeans killed off the Native Americans and stole their land to make way for capitalism. Anything standing in our way to achieve a higher societal state justifies disenfranchising the original inhabitants from their native homes and lifestyles.
[/sarcasm]

There's no reason Marxism would justify dividing the proletariat along religious or ethnic lines. Marxist Zionism is an oxymoron.

[chimx]

No, large migration to Israel was necessary to the development of the Jewish people towards socialism. And that could not happen if the wages for Jewish labourers were at Arab level.

Then you are advocating the exploitation and perpetuation of Arab poverty and exploitation. I would add that large scale Jewish emigration didn't begin until after World War I, after socialist Zionism was on the decline. See: this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65690).


And the opponents of that migration effectively supported conditions which forced the Jewish people to stay in Europe and become victims of persecution and genocide. Small inequalities between nations are better than a genocide.

To blame Arabs (and no doubt some Zionists) for Jewish deaths in the holocaust due to their opposition to Arab exploitation is not only illogical, it is racist. You do not belong on a Leftist forum.

[Marko]

Then you are advocating the exploitation and perpetuation of Arab poverty and exploitation. I would add that large scale Jewish emigration didn't begin until after World War I, after socialist Zionism was on the decline
I was speaking historically but now the social and political conditions for the equality of Arab and Jewish laborers exist. I support full equality to Israel's Arab citizens.

Your last argument is idiotic as correlation does not imply causation.



To blame Arabs (and no doubt some Zionists) for Jewish deaths in the holocaust due to their opposition to Arab exploitation is not only illogical, it is racist. You do not belong on a Leftist forum.

Bullshit. I blame Hitler, other Nazis and their sympathizers for the Holocaust.

One of the main reasons Hitler chose the policy of Holocaust was the agreement with the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, however. The Grand Mufti convinced Hitler that Jews should not be allowed to immigrate to Palestine.

Consequently in Hitler's anti-Semitic mind the only option was to kill all Jews because Arab opposition removed the possibility of allowing them to immigrate to Palestine.

And I do not blame "all Arabs" for the Holocaust or modern terrorism. I blame Arab Nazis and Islamofascists like Hamas.

[Cheung Mo]

Any position that assumes the existence of the Mesopotamian Sky Fairy and the supremacy of a particular sect that follows it is inherently anti-Marxist in that any Marxist critique of reality makes the existence of any supernatural deity impossible. A theist can be a socialist; a theist cannot be a Marxist.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 08:20 am
Any position that assumes the existence of the Mesopotamian Sky Fairy and the supremacy of a particular sect that follows it is inherently anti-Marxist in that any Marxist critique of reality makes the existence of any supernatural deity impossible. A theist can be a socialist; a theist cannot be a Marxist.
Zionism isn't related to belief in any supernatural entity.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marko+August 01, 2007 11:25 pm--> (Marko @ August 01, 2007 11:25 pm)
Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 08:20 am
Any position that assumes the existence of the Mesopotamian Sky Fairy and the supremacy of a particular sect that follows it is inherently anti-Marxist in that any Marxist critique of reality makes the existence of any supernatural deity impossible. A theist can be a socialist; a theist cannot be a Marxist.
Zionism isn't related to belief in any supernatural entity. [/b]
Zionism is a movement that believes the land of Israel was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable.

[Marko]

Originally posted by rev0lt+August 02, 2007 08:47 am--> (rev0lt @ August 02, 2007 08:47 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:25 pm

Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 08:20 am
Any position that assumes the existence of the Mesopotamian Sky Fairy and the supremacy of a particular sect that follows it is inherently anti-Marxist in that any Marxist critique of reality makes the existence of any supernatural deity impossible. A theist can be a socialist; a theist cannot be a Marxist.
Zionism isn't related to belief in any supernatural entity.
Zionism is a movement that believes the land of Israel was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable. [/b]
Many nations have folk legends which tell that God gave them a distinct identity. This doesn't mean that the existence of these nations somehow depends of religion.

Anyway, because Marxist Zionists don't claim that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews because of God's decree your point is irrelevant. The Marxists have other reasons to defend Israel's right to exist such as the concept of national self-determination.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marko+--> (Marko)Many nations have folk legends which tell that God gave them a distinct identity. This doesn't mean that the existence of these nations somehow depends of religion.[/b]
Then Zionism wouldn't have any "credible" justification to fall back on.

Marko
Anyway, because Marxist Zionists don't claim that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews because of God's decree your point is irrelevant. The Marxists have other reasons to defend Israel's right to exist such as the concept of national self-determination.
Israel didn't have to exist, they could have lived together among the Arabs peacefully, they had for the last 16 centuries. It was until the displacement and occupation, along with the creation of the Israeli state which made Arabs third class citizens that should not have existed.

Anyway, Socialism cannot exist solely in one country. The Soviet Union tried and failed. Marxism in practice must be international to succeed.

[Marko]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:11 am
Israel didn't have to exist, they could have lived together among the Arabs peacefully, they had for the last 16 centuries.
:rolleyes:
The majority of Jews were second-class citizens and victims of European anti-Semitism for the last 16 centuries.

Didn't European and American Jews have a right to escape that anti-Semitism?

Didn't they have a right to move to Palestine, found a Jewish state and live with the Palestinians peacefully like other Jews had done for the last 16 centuries.

Unfortunately certain non-Jewish scumbags provoked violence. An example was the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.

According to a testimony given in the Nuremberg court:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

It should also be noted that he was leading the Palestinians in the 1947-1948 civil war. According to the Mufti it was a holy war to kill all Jews.

[Revolution Until Victory]

The Marxists have other reasons to defend Israel's right to exist such as the concept of national self-determination.

Marko, Please Please spare us all your stupidity.

1. those who are zionists and claim to be Marxist are NOT marxist. They are as leftist as those who claimed to be "leftist" while supporting French colonization of Algeria. It is an oxymoron. The anti-imperialist colonizers. Yup, make a lot of sense.

2. stop your lies. This got nothing to do with self-determination. I wouldn't call France setting up a French "state' in Nigeria as "self determination". I would call it colonization. National self-determination is granted to everyone. Colonization is off-limits to anyone.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Didn't European and American Jews have a right to escape that anti-Semitism?

Didn't they have a right to move to Palestine, found a Jewish state and live with the Palestinians peacefully like other Jews had done for the last 16 centuries.

yes, they did have a right to escape anti-semetism, but no them, not anyone, got a right to launch a new campaign of opression and colonialism on the justifiaction they are escaping persecution themselves.

No, they don't have a right to set up a "state" (aka, settler-colony) and colonize another people. The Portuegese do not have a right to to move to Angola, found a white "state" (aka colony) and live with the Angolans peacefully like other Portugese had done before. They, and anyone, is welcome to live in Palestine, and any other place, as equals, not as colonizers. Colonization is not accepatlbe, and your disgusting efforts at making it this all nicey nice, innocent experience are laughable.


Unfortunately certain non-Jewish scumbags provoked violence

you can't get enough of your bullshit, can you??
it was the zonist colonizers who provoked all the violence and were treating the Palestinian natives as sub-humans.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marko+August 02, 2007 12:32 am--> (Marko @ August 02, 2007 12:32 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 09:11 am
Israel didn't have to exist, they could have lived together among the Arabs peacefully, they had for the last 16 centuries.
:rolleyes:
The majority of Jews were second-class citizens and victims of European anti-Semitism for the last 16 centuries.

Didn't European and American Jews have a right to escape that anti-Semitism?

Didn't they have a right to move to Palestine, found a Jewish state and live with the Palestinians peacefully like other Jews had done for the last 16 centuries.

Unfortunately certain non-Jewish scumbags provoked violence. An example was the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni.

According to a testimony given in the Nuremberg court:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

It should also be noted that he was leading the Palestinians in the 1947-1948 civil war. According to the Mufti it was a holy war to kill all Jews. [/b]
You said it yourself, European anti-semitism. Why put the burden on someone else for your own problem? Europe and American governments should have stopped institutionalized discrimination against Jews. Putting them into boats and sending them off to a colony was not the solution. At least in historical Palestine, people of all religions were granted protection from persecution based on ethnicity or religion. Try finding that in todays occupied territories.

They didn't 'found' a Jewish state, they stole land and claimed it as their own, with help of Europe and the US.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was reactionary because he saw the process of systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes underway. Though there were certainly 'anti-Jewish scumbags' like him in the midst, most who joined the fight did so in order to try and gain back what was lost, not a 'jihad' against Judaism. Indiscriminate killing of settlers, in their eyes, was self defense from colonizers. Not anti-semitism.

[Marko]

You said it yourself, European anti-semitism. Why put the burden on someone else for your own problem? Europe and American governments should have stopped institutionalized discrimination against Jews. Putting them into boats and sending them off to a colony was not the solution.
Because anti-semitism was not a problem that could be solved in capitalist countries. National differences made it impossible. It is inevitable that the Jews disproportionately become capitalists in these countries. And it is inevitable that other capitalists will envy their success and workers hate those capitalists as exploiters.

Jews can become truly proletarian only in their own country as only there they can do the manual labor themselves.


They didn't 'found' a Jewish state, they stole land and claimed it as their own, with help of Europe and the US.
You forgot the USSR.


Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was reactionary because he saw the process of systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes underway. Though there were certainly 'anti-Jewish scumbags' like him in the midst, most who joined the fight did so in order to try and gain back what was lost, not a 'jihad' against Judaism. Indiscriminate killing of settlers, in their eyes, was self defense from colonizers. Not anti-semitism.
I am sure that all Nazi criminals suffered from some traumatic experiences. I don't think it excuses their actions.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Marko+--> (Marko)Because anti-semitism was not a problem that could be solved in capitalist countries. National differences made it impossible. It is inevitable that the Jews disproportionately become capitalists in these countries. And it is inevitable that other capitalists will envy their success and workers hate those capitalists as exploiters.

Jews can become truly proletarian only in their own country as only there they can do the manual labor themselves.[/b]

By that logic African-American slaves should have all been sent back to Africa. There's no reason liberal 'democracies' couldn't have integrated people of all cultures into their society.


Marko
I am sure that all Nazi criminals suffered from some traumatic experiences. I don't think it excuses their actions.

The Nazi's were never prisoners in their own land. Also, the Zionists have not suffered in any remote sense of what the Palestinian refugees have.

[Marko]

By that logic African-American slaves should have all been sent back to Africa. There's no reason liberal 'democracies' couldn't have integrated people of all cultures into their society.
Nonsense. African-Americans are very proletarian and for that reason supportive of a revolution.

However, how can you prevent Jewish people from performing better at schools, in university entrance tests etc. and consequently becoming the elite of the capitalist society? Because that is what will consistently happen in capitalist societies unless there is anti-Semitic legislation. 39% of American Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish and they are similarly overrepresented as capitalists.

The reason for this phenomenon is the Jewish national character and it has been consistently demonstrated that the inevitable consequence will be anti-Semitism. The status of an individual Jew in a capitalist society will always be worse than that of an otherwise comparable individual of the majority ethnicity.

Also, the Jewish proletariat will be so small that a meaningful amount of Jews cannot be brought into a socialist system. My view is that all peoples should be entitled to the benefits of socialism, not just Gentiles.

The Jewish state is therefore necessary to the Jews as it is their only possible gateway for communism. Only in Israel will there be an appropriate amount of working-class Jews.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:29 am
Yeah, and thank goodness the Europeans killed off the Native Americans and stole their land to make way for capitalism. Anything standing in our way to achieve a higher societal state justifies disenfranchising the original inhabitants from their native homes and lifestyles.
[/sarcasm]

There's no reason Marxism would justify dividing the proletariat along religious or ethnic lines. Marxist Zionism is an oxymoron.
Like national socialism ;)

[RHIZOMES]

:mellow: Does it really matter what the ethnicity of the capitalists are?

[autocritique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:02 am
However, how can you prevent Jewish people from performing better at schools, in university entrance tests etc. and consequently becoming the elite of the capitalist society? Because that is what will consistently happen in capitalist societies unless there is anti-Semitic legislation. 39% of American Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish and they are similarly overrepresented as capitalists.

The reason for this phenomenon is the Jewish national character and it has been consistently demonstrated that the inevitable consequence will be anti-Semitism. The status of an individual Jew in a capitalist society will always be worse than that of an otherwise comparable individual of the majority ethnicity.

Also, the Jewish proletariat will be so small that a meaningful amount of Jews cannot be brought into a socialist system. My view is that all peoples should be entitled to the benefits of socialism, not just Gentiles.

The Jewish state is therefore necessary to the Jews as it is their only possible gateway for communism. Only in Israel will there be an appropriate amount of working-class Jews.
Leaving aside Marko's assumptions regarding an eternal/inherent anti-Semitism (which Marko wrongly attributes to non-Jewish frustration at the supposedly bound-for-success Jewish "national character," and not the chauvinist divide-and-rule strategies of the ruling class);

and leaving aside Marko's claims regarding the supposed lack of a Jewish working class outside of Zionist-occupied Palestine (!!!);

leaving all that aside, Marko seems to believe that by ralling all Jewish people, of all classes, around a common colonial project, and a common Zionist state which can only exist by denying the right of self-determination to the Palestinian people (inherently pitting Jewish workers against Palestinian workers), that Jewish workers can begin to take the first steps towards socialism!

Really now. The real question is: which of these assertions is the most (or least) ridiculous?

[Weapon_of_Transparency]

According to Marx, a religious state is not a true state, but a contradictory state. The only way for a true state to exist is if it completely removed from religion entirely. A Zionist state is inevitably a religious state, and therefore not a true one.

Secondly, if you take a look at the German theocracy in the 1800s, the Christians ruled, but this did not prevent the Jews from openly opposing the Christian state, leading to vicious squabblings between religions and the continuation of extremely stratified society. A Zionist state (i.e. a Jewish state) would lead to the same problem: one class of people eternally suppressing another class of people because the squabblings between religion will never cease.

Why is this? What is the source of this squabbling? Obviously, it is religion itself.

As long as religion exists, human emancipation is impossible and classless society will never occur. Even if the "Marxist" Zionists (being socialists) gave political emancipation to the Muslims, it would be moot, for such political emancipation presupposes the existence of religion. Religion would still exist in political and social life whether the law said it or not.

For classless society to occur people must realize that "man is the supreme being of man" (Marx). The human race must be emancipated from its chains, and this includes religion. No Marxist would disagree with that.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

It'd be weird if both sides get what they want, and Israel is no longer occupied, and it becomes "Israel-Palestine".