Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 3bdushakur

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
31
General Discussion / Re: Is communism good or bad?
« on: May 22, 2018, 03:23:19 PM »
@marx was right
@eyyy im walkin here

I had EBT (now called SNAP) when I was homeless...

And I had EBT (SNAP) when I was unemployed.

Technically speaking, I am in the EBT/SNAP financial bracket if I were to still live in NYC.

EBT and SSI offices are for the poor, or unemployed. No one with money goes to these offices.

And most of those people do not use the money in order to get out of that system. They live on it without seeking betterment. Housing in the projects and whatnot.

If any of you here are actually in that position (as I know I have been) then you know it's true, from state to state. I have been in those offices in Upstate NY, NYC (Triboro area), Oakland and San Francisco, CA. They are all the same.

I was homeless for 5 years @marx was right . Have you ever been homeless? I was squatting in NYC, PA and CA. You ever lived in a squat? We were crust punx. Chilled with Anarchists and Communists, Antifa skinheads, street punx, hood niggas, junkies, ex-cons. We were 40oz casualties. Not gonna lie, those times were  a blast. Islam saved my life. I was never priveledged. I grew up in a broken home, divorced parents. To this day, we are still not close to middle class. Everyone lives check to check. With the exception that I live in Egypt now and the USD stretches much farther (thanks to the IMF loan last year that will most likely put Egypt in Israels hands in the future). That's life tho.

32
Good to see we have someone to pick up for Babyshark in terms of posting huge swaths of copy and pasted text and links to videos nobody will click.

Not my objective (and not my problem). As the title states: "References"

I read it (and watch the videos), and posted it. Now I know what you don't, if you decide not to read it. So the jokes on whoever doesn't read.

The difference between me and your resident Christian is that I am Muslim, one. Two, I read and analyze the content. I don't just post ambiguous content or videos with misinformation (as is evident from BabySharks [BS] posts). When I present something, I present it with it's proof and evidence, and the added bonus of clowning on Marx and CumSavorer.

Imagine of all of mankind were as lazy as this, not to read even the tiny ammount that I write or share, then there would be no authors writing books. The issue here is that you people are lazy. Too lazy to read even the tiny ammount of text I posted (or of anything else) and this is why people like BS share faulty and downright erroneous content, because they don't read or verify or investigate, they just pull things from where ever they feel is correct.

You may not care about the thread, or the subject, which is up to you. But writing these things, reading and whatnot are not an issue for me. It isn't a chore and I enjoy it as practice writing for when I sit down to actually write something.

34
General Discussion / Re: anti-capitalism thread
« on: May 21, 2018, 03:12:12 PM »
@marx was right

I almost forgot,

Allah says:
Quote
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allaah has made one of them to excel the other… [4:34]

Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم when he heard that the Persians had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their queen, he said:
Quote
“No people who appoint a woman as their leader will ever prosper.” [al-Bukhaari, 13/53].

If men are the protectors and maintainers of women, and a woman becomes the protector and maintainer of a man, then the man becomes emasculated. A woman seeking to fulfill this role is masculated.

Seeing as how you have no qualms with this, it is safe to say you're not a man in the full sense of the word. You are not capable of responsibilities that bear weight on your shoulders of maintaining a woman or women (like mother, sister(s), wife/wives or daughter(s), or other female family members).

This is why you will never prosper, and hence why you adopted Communism, an impoverished philosophy.

35
General Discussion / Re: anti-capitalism thread
« on: May 21, 2018, 02:52:44 PM »
First female Communist elected in Iraq's holiest city calls for 'social justice'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/female-communist-mp-heart-iraqs-holiest-city-1374412216


I hear reactionary heads exploding


Let's look at some highlights of the article you simply posted because you read the word "communist"

Quote
Iraqis appear to have broken with the political establishment in response to what they see as rampant corruption and incompetence.


As the well known Islamic scholar of the past, Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said in his book Miftah Dar as-Sa'adah:
Quote
Ponder and reflect upon the wisdom of Allah, the Exalted, in making the kings of the servants, their leaders, and their rulers to be as the same species as the actions of the servants. Like for like, if (the people) are good, then (the rulers) will be good, and if (the people) are evil, then (the rulers) will be evil. Rather, it is as if their actions became manifest in the appearance of their rulers and kings. It's like their actions are the reflection of their rulers and kings as face in a mirror towards yourself, like for like, and all that is from the actions of the servants as a result of what their own hands have reaped.


Ibnul Qayyim continues:
Quote
If they (the people) remain righteous, sincere and upright, then [their rulers/leaders/kings] will remain righteous and upright. And if they (the people) become corrupt, unrighteous and turn away (from uprightness), then they (the ruers) too will turn away from uprightness. If there appears plotting and deception among the people, their rulers will [be made to] behave likewise, and if people prevent the rights of Allah from being fulfilled among themselves and become miserly regarding their rights, {if they (the servants) opprsee themselves and others} then their kings and rulers will withhold the rights that they have upon them and will become miserly regarding them [so will their kings and rulers oppress the].


This statement was dicussed in the following clip from a speech by Shaykh Muhammad Sa'eed Raslan (

Ibn Al-Qayyim: Oppressive Rulers are a Manifestation of the actions of people | Dr. Raslan - YouTube)

So in reality what the Iraqis see is nothing but a reflection of themselves looking back. That corruption and incompetence is the flaw of the Iraqi reflected back to them through the leadership of the country.

The article continues:

Quote
But those who did vote overwhelmingly cast their ballot for the Sairoun Alliance, a coalition of supporters of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP), as well as the smaller Iraqi Republican Party.


Interesting and not surprising that the Shi'ah are involved with the Communists. No suprising either that the deceptive Communists would work with the Shi'ah, who maintain Taqiyyah as part of their religious and un-Islamic doctrine. There really is no surprise here. This, without a doubt, implies that Communists support terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as is confirmed world-wide.

Un-Ironically, the predominantly Jewish Communist movement, allies itself with the Jewish Shi'ah sect (Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of Shi'aism; a known Jew) [also, Ironically, both groups feign their hatred for Israel at some point in time]. In Iraq, where DAESH (ISIS) are, who are known to be funded by Israel, are all cohabitating in the same geographical location.

This is what @marx was right actively supports? Anyway, moving on:

Quote
The unity of the religiously conservative Sadrist movement with the ultra-secular ICP seemed baffling to outside observers, but it appears to have created a successful synthesis.


This is only baffling to the people who are ignorant of the roots and history of the Shi'ah. Their alligience is is not surprising at all. But when terms like "religiously conservative" are spewed without elaboration, everyone automatically assumes, "Islam" and the mind goes back to the war against the Russians in Afghanistan, and people believe that this means the Shi'ah are anti-Communist.

A clever way of controlling perspectives from the media, but it only works on the ignorant, like @marx was right who probably thinks the Shi'ah are generically "religiously conservative" Muslims. This is why he thought this was something controversial to post, and assumed we might be as ignorant as he knows he is and react with emotions.

The article continues:

Quote
One of those who appears to best typify the new politics is Suhad al-Khateeb, a communist who won a parliamentary seat for the religious city of Najaf - one of the most important hubs of Shia Islamic theology.


This woman is exactly how she is described in that line. "A communist". Probably a Shi'i Communist at that. It doesn't matter that she is the first female communist elected...(elected for what?). And it doesn't matter if it is in Iraq's "holiest" city, since Shi'aism is an abomination, a disease that spreads masquerading as Islam.

The article continues:

Quote
During the Cold War, communism and Islamism were, for the most part, existential enemies.


Still are. Nothing in Islam validates the rotten Communist philosophy. Islam is not a philosophical movement.

The article continues:

Quote
communism incompatible with Islam


Fact.

The article continues:

Quote
But political alliances between communists and Shia Islamists are not entirely unheard of.


Exactly. Shi'ah "Islamists" (i.e. Terrorists). This is the kind of alliance @marx was right promotes to further his own ideology.

The article continues:

Quote
there were alliances between nationalist-minded Shia families and the communists


Of course, this is the pretext to wage war against Sa'udiyyah (as Iran is currently doing today in Yemen) because of the UK-Backed Hashemite monarchy. This brings us to the reality of this circus. The Shi'ah hate Islam and Sa'udi Arabia, so they seek any excuse to wage war against it. They will allign themselves with contradictory (to Islam) ideologies (because Shi'aism is not Islam), to wage war on Sa'udiyya and Islam.

The article continues:

Quote
Najaf, much like the rest of Iraq, has seethed at the rampant unemployment, corruption and cronyism that has typified the current political class in the country.


Refer to the opening quote from Ibnul Qayyim, and this is the result of the filth of Shi'aism. If you don't know about Shia'ism, then do yourself a favor and do some reading (which you probably don't do @marx was right )

The article continues:

Quote
On 6 May, at the opening of the new Najaf International Stadium in the city, crowds bombarded the prime minister's spokesperson, as he attended the opening event, with cries of "you are all thieves!"


Again, refer to Ibnul Qayyims words above. This is a deep rooted Shi'i projection. Replacing the reality (Shi'a) with the deceptive national identity (Iraqi) serves to obscure the reality of the purpose and agenda that is taking place.

The article continues:

Quote
For Muqtada al-Sadr and his allies, the next step is to form a government, which must be done within 90 days.


To form a government? What they mean is a Shi'a ("Islamic") State. This is what the Communists want to form, just like they did with the establishing of Israel.

The article continues:

Quote
Though Iran has long been influential in the holy Iraqi cities of Karbala and Najaf, there are growing fears that rising tensions between the Islamic Republic and its regional neighbours - particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia - could end up engulfing Iraq.

“There is a conflict between Iran and the US in the region, in Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain,” said Khateeb, “But we, the Iraqis, want our independence back from the US an


How do we know this is a smoke screen and false flag?

Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
Quote
'Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism (nationalism), getting angry for the sake of tribalism (nationalism), then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance).'" [Sunan an-Nasa'i 4115 (saheeh)]


Quote
It was narrated that ‘Utayy ibn Damurah said: One day I saw him – i.e., Ubayy ibn Ka‘b – when a man was boasting in an ignorant manner of his tribal lineage, and he told him to bite that part of his father, and he did not use a metaphor. It was as if the people found that odd, so he said: Do not blame me, for the Prophet of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said to us: “Whoever you see boasting in an ignorant manner of his tribal lineage, then tell him to bite that, and do not use a metaphor.”  Bayaan Mushkil al-Athaar (8/51-54)


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Quote
Hence some of the scholars said that this indicates that it is permissible to bluntly state the name of the private part if there is a need to do so or there is an interest to be served thereby, and this does not come under the heading of obscene speech that is forbidden, as in the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“If you hear someone boasting in an ignorant manner of his tribal lineage, then tell him to bite his father’s male member, and do not use a metaphor.” Narrated by Ahmad. And Ubayy ibn Ka‘b heard a man saying: O So and so, and he said: Bite your father’s penis. Something was said to him about that, and he said: This is what the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) instructed us to do (in the case of such a person). - Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (8/408, 409)


And this is a brief view into the Islamic view on nationalism and nationalists. These people are not doing any of this in the name of Allah or for the religion of Islam. It is mere masquerading to fool people like @marx was right and other ignoramuses. As Allah says:

Quote
They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not! [2:9]


All of this has absolutely nothing to do with Islam or Islamic legislation.

As Allah says:
Quote
And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e. this Quran), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided. [3:103]


And:
Quote
Say: "He has power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, and make you to taste the violence of one another." See how variously We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), so that they may understand. [6:65]


And:
Quote
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. [33:36]


And:
Quote
Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [3:31]


And:
Quote
And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allah has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad)," you (Muhammad) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad) with aversion. [4:61]


@marx was right you only delude yourself. This is what happens when you ignorantly go on the internet and look for anything that you think validates your corrupted ideology. This is what happens when ignorance is controlled by arrogance and you become blind to the inequities to yourself (be it in a forum or a dialogue with yourself).

This also exposes your inner nature, the one you think you can hide from people. But you couldn't even hide it behind a billion proxies. You reveal your true self in the what you communicate (even if it is "just trolling").

Allah says:
Quote
That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated. [3:127]


@marx was right just quit already. There is no point in responding.

36
General Discussion / Re: anti-capitalism thread
« on: May 21, 2018, 01:18:26 PM »
First female Communist elected in Iraq's holiest city calls for 'social justice'
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/female-communist-mp-heart-iraqs-holiest-city-1374412216


I hear reactionary heads exploding


Not surprising seeing as how DAESH (ISIS) also come from Iraq. Two extremist ideologies, one location, trying to spread.

And, she's and SJW.

If you heard heads exploding, you should see a doctor for auditory hallucinations. May be a flaring sympton of your schizophrenia.

37
General Discussion / How Marx turned Muslim
« on: May 20, 2018, 09:25:34 PM »
How Marx turned Muslim

Not ancient, but modern: John Gray argues that Islamist militants have Western roots
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/how-marx-turned-muslim-185940.html

Some years ago -- just over a dozen, to be exact -- there was a good deal of talk about the collision of East and West. In the media and academy, the Cold War was routinely described as a clash between western liberal democracy and something else (Russian despotism, perhaps) that was definitely not western. In fact, the communist system from Lenin to Gorbachev was one of several attempts to turn Russia into a western society that the country had experienced since Peter the Great.

Soviet Marxism did not spring from an Orthodox monastery. It was one of the finest flowers of the European Enlightenment. Equally, the USSR was nothing if not an Enlightenment regime. The Soviet state was the vehicle of a westernising project from start to finish. The Cold War was a family quarrel among western ideologies, in which rival versions of political universalism struggled for hegemony.

Today, we are watching a rerun of that uncomprehending struggle. Of course, much has changed. Unlike communism, political Islam does not purport to be secular. For that reason alone, it is a puzzle for the many who still hold to the atavistic 19th-century faith that secularisation is the wave of the future. But the view that something called "the West" is under attack from an alien enemy is as mistaken now as it was in the Cold War.

Islamic fundamentalism is not an indigenous growth. It is an exotic hybrid, bred from the encounter of sections of the Islamic intelligentsia with radical western ideologies. In A Fury for God, Malise Ruthven shows that Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian executed after imprisonment in 1966 and arguably the most influential ideologue of radical Islam, incorporated many elements derived from European ideology into his thinking. For example, the idea of a revolutionary vanguard of militant believers does not have an Islamic pedigree. It is "a concept imported from Europe, through a lineage that stretches back to the Jacobins, through the Bolsheviks and latter-day Marxist guerrillas such as the Baader-Meinhof gang".

In a brilliantly illuminating and arrestingly readable analysis, Ruthven demonstrates the close affinities between radical Islamist thought and the vanguard of modernist and postmodern thinking in the West. The inspiration for Qutb's thought is not so much the Koran, but the current of western philosophy embodied in thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Qutb's thought -- the blueprint for all subsequent radical Islamist political theology -- is as much a response to 20th-century Europe's experience of "the death of God" as to anything in the Islamic tradition. Qutbism is in no way traditional. Like all fundamentalist ideology, it is unmistakeably modern.

Political Islam emerged partly from an encounter with western thought, but also from revulsion against the regimes founded in Egypt and elsewhere in the aftermath of European colonialism. In Jihad, Gilles Keppel argues al-Qa'ida turned to global terrorism because, like fundamentalist groups in other countries, it has failed to achieve its revolutionary goals on home territory. In a magisterial study of the rise and decline of political Islam, Keppel maintains that Islamist movements have never gained sufficient support to produce a sustainable alternative to democracy. He argues compellingly that the failed Khomeinist revolution in Iran gained much early support from western-educated Marxists "projecting the messianic expectations of communists and Third World Peoples on to revolutionary Shiism".

The aspirations of these westernising radicals were defeated when Khomeini set about constructing a theocratic regime. That regime proved highly repressive, but -- if we credit recent reports of pro-western demonstrations -- it failed to eradicate the yearning for a more pluralist government.

The political failures of radical Islam in Iran and elsewhere leads Keppel to conclude that "the Islamist movement will have much difficulty in reversing its trail of decline". Here he may be optimistic. As he notes in his analysis of the Saudi regime, a major source of Islamist strength comes from the growing numbers of dislocated young men in the Gulf. The Gulf States are rentier economies, dependent on a single depleting resource to sustain exploding populations. Fuelled by an insoluble Malthusian dilemma, Islamist movements may well gain enough momentum to overturn pro-western regimes. The likely outcome is chronic instability for the region.

In the first and last chapters of The Clash of Fundamentalisms, a hastily assembled collection of autobiographical vignettes and commentaries on Islamic themes, Tariq Ali writes that he is not a believer. The veteran leftist need not be taken literally. What he means is that he has rejected Islam for another faith: a rather crude version of Enlightenment humanism.

The Clash of Fundamentalisms is well worth reading, if only because it shows that the harshest critics of fundamentalism are often exponents of a rival fundamentalism. Tariq Ali performs a valuable service by reminding us that Islam was once a tolerant and pluralist religion, more intellectually advanced than anything Christendom had to offer. Ironically, though, he seems to pine not for the complex culture that Islam once animated, but for that monument to Enlightenment fundamentalism, the former Soviet Union.

Here Ali unwittingly testifies to an important truth. A common error of western commentators who seek to interpret Islamism sympathetically is to view it as a form of localised resistance to globalisation. In fact, Islamism is also a universalist political project. Along with neo-liberals and Marxists, Islamists are participants in a dispute about how the world as whole is to be governed. None is ready to entertain the possibility that it should always contain a diversity of regimes. On this point, they differ from "non-western" traditions of thinking in India, China and Japan, which are much more restrained in making universal claims.

In their unshakeable faith that one way of living is best for all humankind, the chief protagonists in the dispute about political Islam belong to a way of thinking that is quintessentially western. As in Cold War times, we are led to believe we are locked in a clash of civilisations: "the West" against the rest. In truth, the ideologues of political Islam are western voices, no less than Marx or Hayek. The struggle with radical Islam is yet another western family quarrel.

38
General Discussion / Re: Is communism good or bad?
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:07:00 PM »
Notice cumsavor doesn’t actually write any responses to anything. The guy is a loser with 0 thinking skills.

0 is too high of a number.

39
General Discussion / Re: izrael=terrorist
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:05:58 PM »
tora you are fucking dumb as shit

I'm surprised at the sort of condescending commentary and self-percieved worth of a person who wasn't able to cope with the body they were born into (it's called detachment from reality...a severe mental disorder).

You are a disgusting reprobate, and your choice of username only emphasizes the abominable lifestyle you lead.

Nothing about an individual who refuses reality, and seeks to alter it, in a state of falsehood, and deception is praise worthy or respectable. Much less your corrupted manner of communicating with others, exposes the fragility of your self-percieved existence.

Your life is based on disorder, which has manifested into a tangible lie and deception.

A hollow and vacuous being, whose only concern is the vain external appearance that rationalizes and justifies a corrupted and mutilated perception.

The worst part is, is that instead of dealing with the mental disorder you have, and actually tackling whatever trauma has led you to undertake that downhill path (as I am informed you are a trangendered individual), you reinforced it outwardly, and expect society to embrace and respect your self-deception. And this is something you do knowingly. In order to mask the truth that lies behind the disfigurment.

People generally hate liars and "fake people", "snakes" and the like, and your kind are at the apex of that pyramid.

So for you to call someone else "dumb as shit" is the most baffling sort of irony.

You talk like a fucking faggot lol.

Of course.

You really do, and as a probable Arab your main problem with me being a tranny is that you prefer succulent pubescent boy ass you child molesting dog of a queer.

Actually, it's quite clear that your people are typically pederasts and this is recorded from PIE to Stonewall to GLAADS history today. Please, do not keep projecting. You probably desired to become a female in order to justify your chasing after younger men. I bet you are the type to adopt a Cambodian boy for "reasons".

You are disgusting because you are the epitome of falsehood and deception. You are an embodied lie, to yourself and the world around you (or an attempt at deception. I am sure you are physically appalling as sin).

Your manner of communication is the biggest indicator of that. A disgusting and hideous online and offline presence.

So, yet again, do not call me by your family names. I know you want to turn tables but it won't work.

You and Marx are tools of guys like Harry Hays.

So make up your mind like you made-up your gender, which one am I? A White man, a Jew, an Arab? What next? Chinese?

You're a faggot.

Again with your family names? Go to bed Jordan, no one cares.

40
Did not read because the OP is a gay Jew.

You didn't read this because you can't. You are an animal, animals don't read.

41
General Discussion / Re: Is communism good or bad?
« on: May 20, 2018, 08:04:10 PM »
@CumSavorer4385

You dense animal.

If it wasn't for that filthy old man you just ridiculed, you would not be the freak you are today.

That old reprobate is Henry "Harry" Hay, the pioneer of the filthy movement you are a part of.

You don't even know the history of your own faggotry. But I'm not surprised.

42
General Discussion / Re: izrael=terrorist
« on: May 20, 2018, 06:31:05 PM »
Refer to the thread
forum.war2.ru/index.php/topic,4107.msg67019/topicseen.html#msg67019

Communists would be to blame as one of the many political parties for the establishment of the Jewish State known as Israel

43
Bibliography: R.L. Braham et al. (eds.), Jews in the Communist World 1945–1962 (1963), a bibliography; I. Shein (ed.), Bibliografye fun Oysgabes... (1963), 13–28; Gesher, 12 (Heb.; 1966), nos. 47–48; G. Aronson et al. (eds.), Russian Jewry 1917–1967 (1969); S.M. Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union (1951); B.Z. Goldberg, The Jewish Problem in the Soviet Union (1961); Yidishe Komunisten vegen der Yidn Frage in Ratenferband, 2 vols. (1958); A. Yarmolinsky, The Jews and Other Minor Nationalities under the Soviets (1928); A. Leon, The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation (1950); A. Bittelman, Program for Survival; the Communist Position on the Jewish Question (1947); E. Collotti, Die Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands 1918–1933 (1961), includes bibliography; L. Poliakov, De l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme (1970); C. Sloves, in: The New Leader (Sep. 14, 1959); H. Levy, Jews and the National Question (1958); M.K. Dziewanowski, The Communist Party of Poland (1959), index, s.v. Bund and Jewish Problem; J. Kovacs, in: JSOS, 8 (1946), 146–70; E.R. Kutas, in: Journal of Central European Affairs (Jan. 1949), 377–89; M. Epstein, The Jew and Communism: The Story of Early Communist Victories and Ultimate Defeats in the Jewish Community, U.S.A. 1919–1941 (1959); S. Zacharias, PPR un Kamf un Boy (1952); idem, Di Komunistishe Bavegung Tsvishn der Yidisher Ar-betendike Befelkerung in Poyln (1954); idem, Menshen fun KPP (1964); R. Garaudy, Toute la vérité (1970); M. Jarblum, Soixante ans de probléme juif dans la théorie et la pratique du bolchévisme (1964); M. Dec- ter, in: Foreign Affairs (Jan. 1963). IN EREẓ ISRAEL: W.Z. Laqueur, Communism and Nationalism in the Middle East (19613), passim; N. List, in: Keshet, 5–9 (1963–67); G.Z. Yisre’eli (Laqueur), MPS–MAKI (Heb. 1953); H. Bazhuza, Ẓ e’adim Rishonim be-Netiv ha-Komunizm ha-Yisre’eli (1956); M.M. Czudnowski and J.M. Landau, The Israeli Com- munist Party and the Elections for the Fifth Knesset 1961 (1965); J.M. Landau, The Arabs in Israel: A Political Study (1969), passim.

44
Soviet Practice (1917–1939)

[Refer to the link]

The World Communist Movement

[Refer to the Link]

IN THE UNITED STATES. In the United States, the Bolshevik Revolution led to factional disputes within the two main left-wing parties in existence in 1917, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party, which had significant Jewish memberships, and also within the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Some of the more moderate Jewish socialist and labor leaders, such as A. Lessin, A. *Cahan, J.B. *Salutzky, B.Z. *Hoffman-Zivion, and H. Rogoff, temporarily sided with the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution, in part because the alternative to Bolshevism was the violently antisemitic “white” counterrevolution, but soon adopted a firm anti-Communist stand. Other Jewish socialists threw their lot in permanently with the Communists. As a result of the first split in the Jewish Socialist Federation, a Jewish Federation of the Communist Party was founded under the leadership of A. Bittelman (October 1919). In 1921 the Jewish Socialist Federation seceded from the Socialist Party and a Jewish federation of the Communist-sponsored “Workers’ Party” came into being (1922). In the same year a Yiddish Communist newspaper, *Freiheit, made its appearance, edited by M. *Olgin and S. Epstein, two former members of the Bund. Certain socialist leaders who were steeped in Jewish culture, such as M. *Vinchevsky and K. *Marmor, also lent their support to Communism, largely because of their belief in the prospects of a national Yiddish culture developing in the Soviet Union. There was also considerable Communist influence in trade unions with large Jewish memberships.

Many of the Yiddish schools founded by the *Workmen’s Circle were transferred to Communist sponsorship, and in 1929 Jewish Communists founded the International Workers’ Order. It is estimated that in the 1920s as much as 15% of the American Communist Party’s membership was Jewish, and the percentage of Jews among the Party leadership was undoubtedly higher. Unemployed or economically marginal Jews, especially in such professions as teaching and social work, and in the fur industry and some sectors of the garment trade, were powerfully attracted by Communist ideals and the widely propagandized achievements of Soviet Russia. Jewish membership fell off slightly as a result of Communist support of the Palestinian Arabs against Jews in the riots of 1929. During the Depression, Communist influence was again on the rise and could claim many sympathizers and “fellow travelers” among the American Jewish academic youth and intelligentsia. A further rise came in the mid-1930s, when the Nazis came to power in Germany and the Soviet Union adopted the Popular Front policy. It was at this time that the Yiddisher Kultur Farband (YIKUF) was founded by Communists in the United States. In the late 1930s the Moscow trials and the acceptance by the American Communist Party of the Soviet-Nazi rapprochement (1939–41) resulted again in a sharp drop in Communist influence among American Jews, which was only partly reversed by the events of World War II. Postwar revelations of Stalinist atrocities and systematic Soviet antisemitism permanently put an end to Communism as a serious force in American Jewish life. Fears that the trial and execution of the Communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage would tempt the anti-Communist right in the United States to adopt a platform of antisemitism proved unfounded. The list of Jews who played a prominent role in the leadership and factional infighting of the American Communist Party from its inception is a long one and includes such figures as Israel *Amter, Max *Bedacht, Benjamin *Gitlow, Jay *Lovestone, Jacob *Stachel, William Weinstone, and Alexander Trachtenberg. Many American Jewish authors and intellectuals, some of whom later publicly recanted, were active in editing Communist publications and spreading party propaganda in the 1920s, 1930s, and even later, among them Michael *Gold, Howard *Fast, and Bertram *Wolfe.

After World War II

Although the newly established Communist regimes of Eastern Europe after World War II followed the Soviet line on the Jewish question and the policy toward Israel, there existed some fundamental differences. Most of them permitted the Jews to establish countrywide frameworks for religious and cultural activities, primarily in Yiddish (see *Poland, *Romania, *Hungary, *Czechoslovakia, and *Bulgaria). But, as a rule, the recognition of the Jews as a national minority was not based upon their obligatory individual registration as members of the Jewish “nationality” on identity documents (as in the Soviet Union), and Jews were able to describe themselves either as Jews or as belonging to the respective majority people; in theory, at least, they had the option of national assimilation. Jewish cultural institutions, whose Soviet counterparts had been liquidated in Stalin’s time, continued to function, as, e.g., Yiddish theaters (in Poland and Romania), the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw, and a similar institute in Budapest. At one period or other, most of these countries permitted large numbers of Jews to migrate to Israel, in spite of the different Soviet policy in this respect.

Communist parties outside the Soviet bloc, including their Jewish sections and Jewish press, reflected the policy of the Soviet Union toward the Jews. In the last years of Stalin’s rule, when every trace of Jewish culture and Jewish institutions had been obliterated in the Soviet Union, they tried to obscure the truth of the situation and even defended the Soviet Union against attacks by Jewish leaders and organizations against the anti-Jewish policy of 1952–53. A radical change occurred after the 20th congress of the Soviet Communist Party in February 1956, when Stalin’s crimes were for the first time revealed in the Soviet Union, although the anti-Jewish element in these crimes continued to be ignored and suppressed. The first shock came with the publication (in the New York Jewish Forward) of news of the judicial murder of 26 outstanding Soviet Jewish writers and poets on Aug. 12, 1952. A great stir was caused in the entire Jewish world by an editorial that appeared in the Warsaw Communist newspaper, Folkshtime, in April 1956 headlined “Our Sorrow and Our Comfort.” The article contained a detailed report of the process by which Jewish culture in the Soviet Union, its bearers, and institutions, had been liquidated, a process that had commenced in the 1930s and had reached its tragic culmination in the last years of Stalin’s life. The article expressed the hope that this process would be reversed and Jewish culture and cultural institutions would enter a period of revival.

A storm of indignation swept the Communist movement in the West, especially among Jewish Communists. In Canada, the veteran Communist leader J.B. Salsberg published a series of articles in the Communist press that contained a report on the meetings of a delegation of the Canadian Communist Party, headed by him, with Khrushchev in Moscow in 1957 at which the Soviet leader’s antisemitic inclinations had been clearly indicated. Salsberg seceded from the Communist Party, and many Jews and non-Jews followed his example. In Britain, another veteran Jewish Communist, Hyman *Levy, published a pamphlet entitled Jews and the National Question (1958), in which he denounced Soviet policy toward the Jews after an extensive visit to the Soviet Union and talks with Soviet leaders. He was promptly expelled from the party. In the United States, Howard Fast left the Communist Party under similar circumstances, stressing the Jewish aspect of his decision in The Naked God (1957); so did several members of the editorial staff of the Daily Worker (which thereupon turned into a weekly). In Latin America, sizable groups of Jews left the party and embarked upon the publication of their own organs (called, e.g., Mir Viln Lebn, “We Want to Live”) expressing their opposition to Soviet policy of forced assimilation of Jews and destruction of Jewish culture and institutions; eventually, most of them joined Zionist Socialist parties.

In non-Jewish Communist publications, such as L’Unità in Italy, and theoretical Communist journals in Britain, Australia, and other countries, the Soviet Union also received severe criticism of its discriminatory policy toward the Jews. In 1963, when Kichko’s antisemitic book was published in Kiev, almost the entire Communist press in the West joined in a sharp protest, and the central committee of the Soviet Communist Party found itself obliged to disassociate itself publicly from the book.

Far-reaching changes also took place after the Six-Day War (1967), when the Soviet Union launched a worldwide campaign against “international Zionism” marked by violently antisemitic overtones. The Communist Party in Israel (see below) split into a pro-Israel and pro-Arab faction (Maki and Rakaḥ , respectively); a similar split, which in most cases did not, however, extend to organizational separation but confined itself to differences of political attitude, also occurred in several Communist parties elsewhere. In New York, the Morning Freiheit adopted a stand akin to that of Maki (which considered that in the Six-Day War Israel defended its freedom and existence), while The Daily World followed the anti-Israel line. In France, L’Humanité took a sharp anti-Israel stand, and reasserted the old Communist call to the Jews to assimilate to their host nations (editorial published on March 26, 1970), while the Naye Prese, the Communist Yiddish daily in Paris, was much more moderate in its attitude toward Israel and continued to affirm the Jewish right to an independent national culture. The “Jewish crisis” in the international Communist camp was further exacerbated by the events that took place in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and even more by the stringent antisemitic policy in Poland from March 1968, which was accompanied by what amounted to the expulsion of veteran Jewish Communists from the country. Adherence to the Communist Party and the affirmation of a positive Judaism of any kind had become mutually exclusive. With the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, Jewish affiliation virtually ended, as only diehards remained associated with the small political groupings that clung to the old ideology under altered names. [Moshe Mishkinsky]

IN EREẓ ISRAEL. A Communist group first appeared in Palestine during 1919, within the extreme left Mifleget Po’alim Soẓialistim (MPS), “Socialist Workers’ Party,” but it soon disintegrated. Under the British Mandate the Communist Party was outlawed. In 1921 the Palestine Communist Party was organized illegally, by a combination of extreme left splinter groups, and affiliated with the Comintern in 1924. Its entire history was a series of internal splits and secessions, as well as conflicts with Zionism and the British authorities. Its course was always clouded by alternating Jewish-Arab cooperation and friction within the Party.
From 1924 onward, on Comintern orders, efforts were made to “Arabize” the Party, the argument being that the country would always remain Arab, since Zionism was at best utopian, and at worst a servant to British imperialism. Jewish leaders were ousted, but attempts made to recruit Arabs proved largely unsuccessful; the richer Arabs were averse to Communism, while others, if at all politically minded, favored Arab nationalism
. Although sympathy with the Russian October Revolution was widespread in the Palestine labor movement, during the 1920s only a splinter group of the *Gedud ha-Avodah broke with Zionism and eventually migrated to the Soviet Union. From 1936 to 1939 the Party openly supported the Arab revolt, including the anti-Jewish terrorism. Still, in 1939 the Party was quite isolated from the Arabs, while its support of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement jolted the remaining Jewish members. From 1939 it operated in separate Jewish and Arab groups.

Further splits occurred over the Soviet Union’s support of a Jewish state in 1948, when some of the Arab members of the party were against the Soviet Union’s vote for partition. After the establishment of the State of Israel, the Party reunited under the name of “Maki” (Miflagah Komunistit Yisre’elit- “Israel Communist Party”). It operated legally, but, as an anti-Zionist party in a Zionist state, its influence was negligible. Its following among Jews rose in the 1950s, when mass immigration caused economic hardship and when a leftist splinter group of *Mapam, led by Moshe *Sneh, joined Maki; but it dwindled again with the prosperity of the 1960s. Although the party always looked for support among Israel’s Arabs, it intensified its appeals to the Arabs in this period. In each election to the Knesset, Maki received greater support, proportionally, from Arabs than from Jews, e.g., in 1961 about half of Maki’s 42,111 votes came from Israel Arabs, who then constituted only a ninth of the population. Some of the Arabs voted Communist in response to Soviet support of Arab nationalism, while, for precisely the same reason, many Jews refrained from supporting the Party. Tensions on this point were the main cause of the rift in Maki, generally on Jewish-Arab lines, which occurred in the summer of 1965. The Arab-led faction formed the New Communist List (Reshimah Komunistit Ḥadashah, or Rakaḥ), with a more extreme anti-government attitude and complete obedience to Moscow.

At first the Soviet Union tended to endorse Maki and Rakaḥ , but after the 1967 Six-Day War it recognized Rakaḥ only. After the split Maki took a line increasingly independent of Moscow in all matters pertaining to Israel-Arab relations, reflecting the fundamental Jewish nationalism of its membership. This became more pronounced after the Six-Day War, when Maki openly criticized Moscow’s anti-Israel attitude and largely endorsed Israel government acts and policy. At its conference in 1968 Maki adopted a program which included not only pro-Israel plans but also, for the first time, a recognition that every Jew, even in a Socialist country, should be allowed to choose among assimilation, Jewish cultural life, or migration to Israel. Some Communist parties abroad, mainly in the West, but also that of Romania, continued to maintain “fraternal” relations with Maki, in spite of Moscow’s denunciations of Maki’s “chauvinism.”

Although membership statistics were not publicized, the party would appear to have had close to 5,000 members in the 1950s and about 3,000 in the early 1960s. In 1961, according to the report of Maki’s congress, 74.3% were Jews and 25.7% Arabs; 83.8% had joined after 1948 and 27% after 1957, an indication of the rapid turnover among the rank and file. The leadership, which had changed often in pre-state days, remained fairly constant from 1948 until the 1965 rift. In the late 1960s the Jewish leaders of Maki were Shemuel Mikunis and Moshe *Sneh, while Meir Wilner and the Arabs Tawfiq Toubi and Emil Habibi headed Rakaḥ . All five were Knesset members at one time or another.

The party always stressed continuous, often strident, propaganda. Many joined the V (Victory) League after June 1941, and later, the various friendship societies with the Soviet Union, several of which were front organizations. The Party’s written propaganda increased before elections, and it maintained a continuous flow of newspapers and periodicals in Hebrew (Kol ha-Am (“Voice of the People”)), Arabic, French, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Yiddish. After the 1965 split, both Communist parties continued publishing in Hebrew and Arabic, with Maki publishing in other languages, to reach new Jewish immigrants. After winning just one seat in the 1969 Knesset elections, Maki was transformed into Moked under Meir *Pa’il in the early 1970s and effectively vanished from the political map. Rakaḥ changed its name to Ḥadash (Ḥazit Demokratitle-Shalomu-le-Shivyon,“Democratic Front for Peace and Equality”) before the 1977 Knesset elections, joined now by Jewish leftists, and was able to maintain a Knesset faction of 3–5 members into the 21st century as a nationalist Arab party, despite the disintegration of the Communist Bloc.

45
Bolshevik Theory (1903–1917)

The Bolshevik attitude to basic questions concerning the Jews was formulated in as early as 1903, with the emergence of the Bolshevik faction during the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party in Brussels and London. The Bolshevik faction (which in 1912–13 became the Bolshevik Party) contained a number of Jews who were active mainly in the field of organization and propaganda (rather than in theory and ideology, as was the case with the Jewish Mensheviks). They included such people as Maxim *Litvinov (Wallach), M. Liadov (Mandelshtam), Grigori Shklovsky, A. Soltz, S. Gusev (Drabkin), Grigori *Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), Lev *Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Rozaliya *Zemliachka (Zalkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Yemeli *Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Serafima Gopner, G. Sokolnikov, I. Piatnitsky, Jacob *Sverdlov, M. Vladimirov, P. Zalutsky, A. Lozovsky, Y. Yaklovlev (Epstein), Lazar *Kaganovich, D. Shvartsman, and Simon *Dimanstein. Their number grew rapidly between the Russian revolutions of February and October 1917, when various groups and individuals joined the Bolsheviks; prominent among the new adherents were *Trotsky, M. Uritsky, M. Volodarsky, J. Steklov, Adolf Joffe, David Riazanov (Goldendach), Yuri *Larin, and Karl *Radek (Sobelsohn). Most of the Jews active in Bolshevik ranks before 1917 were assimilationist intellectuals. Few Jewish workers in Russia belonged to the Bolsheviks, and propaganda material designed to recruit Jewish members was restricted to a single Yiddish pamphlet, a short report on the Third (Bolshevik) Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party (April–May 1905), which contained a special introduction by Lenin addressed “To the Jewish Workers.”

It was, indeed, Lenin, the ideological, political, and organizational leader of Bolshevism, who also determined the party’s policy toward the Jews. In the period 1900–06, Lenin expressed himself on three Jewish topics: antisemitism, Jewish nationalism versus assimilation, and the relationship between the Bund and the Social Democratic Party. From its very beginnings, Russian Marxism under the leadership of Plekhanov had rejected both the anti-Jewish tendencies in Russian populism and the evasive attitude of the Second International toward the struggle against antisemitism (Brus- sels Congress, 1891). On the subject of antisemitism, Lenin’s attitude was at all times consistent; not only did he take a definitive stand against it, but, unlike Plekhanov, he was free of any personal prejudice against Jews and would never indulge in any anti-Jewish remarks, in public or in private. This held true in spite of the many bitter arguments he had with Jewish opponents in the revolutionary movement. Although generally relying on Marx on questions of fundamental importance, Lenin did not resort to Marx’s famous essay “On the Jewish Question” when dealing with Jewish affairs, because of its anti-Jewish implications. He rejected outright any suggestion that the Bolsheviks should ignore anti-Jewish policy and propaganda in czarist Russia, let alone make use of its popular appeal. Lenin regarded the czarist anti-Jewish hate campaign as a diversionary maneuver, an integral part of the demagogic campaign against “the aliens” conducted by henchmen of the czarist regime. He believed that the Jewish worker suffered no less than the Russian under capitalism and the czarist government (Iskra, No. 1, December 1900). Later (1905) he went even further, pointing out that Jewish workers suffered from a special form of discrimination by being deprived of even elementary civil rights. Antisemitism was designed to serve the social interests of the ruling classes, although there were also workers who had been incited. As antisemitism was clearly against the interests of the revolution, the fight against it was an integral part of the struggle against czarism and had to be conducted with “proletarian solidarity and a scientific ideology.” Lenin regarded the pogroms of 1905–06 as part of the campaign against the revolution and called for the creation of a militia and for armed self-defense as the only means of combating the rioters. He also waged a special press campaign against the pogrom in Bialystok. Nevertheless, Lenin lacked a proper appreciation of the intensity of the Russian antisemitic tradition, the complexity of the factors underlying it, and the special role that it played in the political and social life of the country.

The Bolshevik attitude toward the collective identity of the Jews and their future was theoretically part of their general views on the national question. Lenin did not consider nationalism a constructive and stable social factor. His approach to it was conditional and pragmatic, subordinate to the interests of the class struggle. At the beginning of 1903 he voiced the opinion that the Social Democratic Party was not required to provide positive solutions to national problems, such as the granting of independence, federation, or autonomy, except in a few special cases, and that it should confine itself to combating discrimination and russification of the non-Russian nationalities. The vague formula contained in the platform of the Social Democratic Party on the “right of nations to self- determination” was regarded as a mere slogan, designed to facilitate the organizational and political consolidation of the workers in the common fight against czarism and capitalism, irrespective of their national origin. Furthermore, this “right to self-determination” applied to nationalities having a territorial basis and did not refer to the Jews.

Lenin knew little of the history, culture, and life of the Jews. His view on the Jewish problem was of a casual nature and was not derived from any study or analysis of his own; this was one of the reasons for the shifts in his attitude within a single year. In February 1903 (in the article “Does the Jewish Proletariat Need an Independent Political Party?”) he spoke of a Jewish “national culture,” a view predicated upon the recognition of the Jews as a national entity, and said that it could not be foretold whether or not the Jews of Russia would assimilate. But in as early as October of that year (in the article “The Position of the Bund in the Party”) he voiced categorical opposition to the view that the Jews are a nation and expressed the conviction that their assimilation is a desirable and necessary development.

He based himself on a truncated quotation from the writings of Karl Kautsky, the Marxist theoretician, accepting the view that the Jews lack the two characteristics of a nationality: a common territory and a common language (presuming that Yiddish was not a language). The decisive motive behind Lenin’s view, however, was the overriding role of the party in his conception of the political struggle and his determination to base the party on absolute organizational centralism. The Bund’s demand for a federative structure of the party, in which the Bund would be “the sole representative” of the Jewish proletariat, was regarded by Lenin as counter to his revolutionary strategy. Even so, he did not regard this difference with the Bund as closed to compromise. In 1905–06, when the emphasis in the internal struggle raging in the Russian Social Democratic Party passed from matters of organization to tactical questions and the Bund’s stand on certain important points proved to be close to that of the Bolsheviks, Lenin did not hesitate to do everything possible to facilitate the return of the Jewish organization to the party fold (the Bund left the Social Democratic Party in 1903). That the Bund had put even greater stress upon its demand for Jewish cultural autonomy at its sixth convention proved to be no deterrent.

Several leading members of a short-lived non-Leninist group of Bolsheviks, which came into existence in 1908, developed their own approach to Jewish questions. Thus, A. Lunacharsky, in dealing with religion, found that the Bible, and particularly the Prophets, contained revolutionary elements and that there was a link between the Old Testament and the new “Religion of Labor,” the latter being, in his opinion, an essential part of socialism. The existence of the Jewish people and the contribution it had made to humanity were of vital importance (Religiya i Sotsiyalizm, pt. 1, 1908). Maxim *Gorky, in his condemnation of antisemitism, did not confine himself to its economic, social, and legal aspects, and his struggle against it was not motivated by mere utilitarian political considerations. His positive remarks on Zionism, first made in 1902, were reprinted in 1906, at a time when he had already joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks. He acknowledged the contribution of Jewish ethics and regarded “the creative power of the Jewish people” as a force that would be of help in establishing “the Law of Socialism” among mankind. These individ- ual stands on the Jews taken by Lunacharsky and Gorky had a direct bearing on the attitude they were to adopt on Jewish questions, especially on Jewish culture, at a later stage, when the Bolsheviks had already come to power in Russia.

After the 1905 revolution, when there were nationalist stirrings in Russia, Lenin came to appreciate the importance of the national question and its possible use in the struggle against the czarist regime. In addition to the slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination, including separation,” he also recognized the need to make concrete and positive proposals on the solution of national questions, based mainly on the concept of territorial autonomy. Lenin was ready to advocate the creation of autonomous districts based on a homogeneous national (i.e., ethnic and linguistic) composition, even on a minute scale. Such districts, he assumed, would seek to establish contacts of various kinds with members of the same nationality in other parts of Russia, or even in other parts of the world (“Critical Notes on the National Question,” 1913). The pogroms and the *Beilis blood libel led Lenin to conclude that “in recent years the persecution of Jews has reached unprecedented proportions” and that “no other nation in Russia suffers as much oppression and persecution as does the Jewish nationality.”

In a bill on equal rights for nationalities that Lenin drafted for presentation to the Duma by the Bolshevik faction (1914), special emphasis was put on the lack of rights suffered by the Jews. He was not, however, consistent in the terms he employed with reference to the Jews; he frequently spoke of the Jewish “nationality” or “nation” (as for example in the above-mentioned bill) and nearly always in the context of the national question in Russia. In general, he held that “the process of national assimilation as furthered by capitalism is to be regarded as a great historical advance” and that “the proletariat also welcomes the assimilation of nations,” except “when this is based on force or on special privileges.” “Each nation consists of two nations,” and there are “two national cultures” in each national culture, including that of the Jews. He acknowledged the presence of “universal progressive qualities” in Jewish culture, such as that of “internationalism” and “the capacity to absorb the stream of contemporary progressive ideas” (the latter quality manifesting itself in the high percentage of Jews found in democratic and proletarian movements). In view of his general attitude on the Jewish question, the “progressive qualities” that he perceived in Jewish culture were of the kind that implied the impending assimilation of that culture to “international culture.” He did, however, admit that equality of national rights included the right to demand “the hiring of special teachers, at government expense, to teach the Jewish language, Jewish history, etc.” The debate on Jewish nationalism, linked with the question of “national cultural autonomy” as demanded by the Bund, increasingly became a part of the internal party struggle. Lenin held fast to the idea that national cultural autonomy would result in weakening the workers’ movement by dividing it according to the nationality of its members.

Similar views were also expressed by Stalin. In an essay published in 1913 under the title “The National Question and Social Democracy” (later known under the title “Marxism and the National Question”), which had Lenin’s approval and was devoted in large part to the Jews, Stalin gave a dogmatic definition of the concept of nationhood: “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up, manifested in a common culture.” If even a single one of these characteristics is missing, there is no “nation.” On the basis of this definition, Stalin contended that the Jewish communities living in the various countries did not constitute one nation. Although every one of them might be described as possessing a common “national character,” they were to be regarded as “tribes” or “ethnic entities.” When the Pale of Settlement was abolished, the Jews of Russia would assimilate. There was no farming class among them and they existed only as a minority in various areas where the majority population belonged to a different nation. They are therefore to be classified as “national minorities,” serving the nations among which they live as industrialists, merchants, and pro- fessionals, and were bound to assimilate into these nations. It followed that the Bund’s program of “national autonomy” referred to a “nation whose future is denied and whose existence has still to be proven.”

Stalin, of course, also opposed Zionism. Unlike Lenin, he did not even have any modest positive proposals to make on the solution of national and cultural problems concerning the Jews. In accordance with the Bolshevik approach, he did, however, agree that the Marxist stand on national questions was not absolute, but rather “dialectic,” and depended on the specific circumstances of time and place. Another prominent Bolshevik, S. Shaumian, who generally opposed any positive suggestions about the national question, did in fact concede (in 1914) that under certain conditions it might be possible to accept “national cultural autonomy.” Only one leading Bolshevik, Helena Rozmirovich, is known to have favored such a solution at this stage in the history of the Bolshevik Party.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14