Jewish left wing Website.

Revol, I agree with you; the strength of your argument is undeniable. Nevertheless, if people feel like organising along lines of some affinity or another & do it in a way that is obviously not about chauvinism or nationalism and which does have something positive to offer surely that is up to them.

Their website is pretty good actually; it has a comedy section (libcom admin please note); it is the work of a pretty eclectic bunch of people whose motive seems to be that it is hard to be Jewish & leftwing in the world today. The origins of the group lead to a focus on Israel/Palestine which others might not give space for.
Also I can see a cultural argument for organising in this way; I don't look forward to a world with only one language; the loss of Yiddish would no doubt be sad & if anyone's going to look after the heritage I suppose secular Jews seem like a reasonable choice.

Of course it would be interesting to see if they would open their membership up to a Palestinian socialist & start calling themselves semitic or Levantine to be inclusive.

certainly, i'm no vanguardist, but the they you refer to is 'asylum seekers' and not 'blacks', and they'd still be foolish not to engage with non-racist non-asylum seeker workers, say as a network of overlapping groups, not some monolithic class organisation.

you posited an either/or dichotomy, i translated it into plain texan

firstly, noone's forcing anything down anyone's throats, secondly, if you don't want a non-exclusive human community, i.e. you are in favour of exclusion, what kind of socialist are you? a national socialist?

where did i say that? people can have whatever identities they want, i just don't think you can base a politics around it and call it socialism - with the exception of say a jewish socialist group to combat leftist antisemitism perhaps.

see revol's reply; raised a catholic, now a flaming anarchist

well exactly, it has a material existence in the same way a nation does - and we've had this conversation and i don't want to derail this thread, so lets not do the whole nationalism + socialism thing here

From the left wing Jewish website:

"Some may assume that as Socialists we may forget certain things about our heritage. We do not and we still know that Eretz Yisrael is extremely important to the Jewish people as the eternal homeland of Am Israel. However we believe there is a huge difference between living in the Land and ruling over it".

There have been various strains of Zionism which shared a similar view, Ahad Ha'am I believe, and Martin Buber. It was a kind of spiritual, libertarian Zionism that wanted to establish a community in Israel but not a state. But it's still Zionism, still a form of nationalism. The words here "Eternal homeland of Am Israel" (the people of Israel) are pretty explicit. It's not a class standpoint at all.

As socialists our heritage is not "Jewish". Certainly the precursors of "modern" communism include the Biblical prophets like Amos who preached against the rich exploiters, or the Essenes, who almost certainy were an influence on Jesus. But our heritage also includes Spartacus and John Ball, Winstanly and Babeuf, who were not very Jewish at all. These figures are part of our heritage because they formulated in the language of their day, and within the limits of their day, the strivings of the exploited.

If the Jewish socialists were really looking at things from a class perspective, they would have to say that as part of the working class our real heritage is the struggle of all the exploited in history; and they would certainly have to argue that we have no "eternal homeland", either in Israel or anywhere else.

Isn't this kind of shit the logical outcome of dividing socialism into various identity politics?

I can just imagine various other Identity groups formulating similar claims.

Australian Socialists,

"We believe that every Australian in the world has the right to turn up their accent to 11, drink way more than they do at home and tell lies about drop bears".

Serge Forward wrote these wise words................."I suspect people are trying hard to read something into the Jewish Socialists that really isn't there; relying on sterile theory to have a go at a group that is expected to be separatist, nationalist, tinged with religion."

This is exactly it.

Making assumptions and judgements without knowing all the facts. Better to ask questions first rather than assumptions which may be false.

Alf and Revol68 continue to make assumptions and think with their emotions.

I live in Jerusalem amongest extremly Right-Wing nationalist people. I joined the Jewish Anarchists/Marxists to try and fight against segrigation (and intence anti-arab rascism) yet now Alf and Revol68 think that the group is pro-segrigatian.

Alf quotes the bit about Am Israel. Unbelievble how irrational that comment you made is. Do you know how unbelievably Libertarian saying....."not ruling over the land of israel" . This is not the UK. Jerusalem is a city where 60-70% vote for Neo-Fascist parties. Yet instead you just focus on the nationalist words and twist it to make it seem as if it is Pro-Segrigation.

And then you said "it is all zionism." WE ARE SAYING SHARING THE LAND FOR EVERYONE! You cant win with some people.

Woops, I meant to reply to that last night. Note that I'm from Aotearoa, not the UK, but our Socialist Worker is affiliated to your SWP and (shock horror) espouses the same horseshit positions, so thats where my thoughts are coming from. Essentially, I agree fully with what that statement espouses, but if you were trying to read the SWP's way of thinking from my earlier comment, you seriously misread my position.

While I believe it is primarily up to those who benefit from oppression (ie - men from sexism, whites from racism) but (at least claim) to disagree with it to fight against that oppression from within the dominant sector, of course that does not mean it is exclusively their responsibility. To say such would delegitimise self defense by those oppressed.

And of course, as has been aluded to in this thread, all oppressed sectors in society also oppress others both within and outside their "identity groups". Their oppression will never make them immune to criticism and struggle against the oppression they enact on others.

Thats for sure. As a former anti-statist (aka cultural) zionist, I once would have agreed with the statement Alf quoted from the Jewish Socialist website. However, as my anarchist politics developed, I soon realised that cultural zionism in many ways is to zionism what the welfare state is to capitalism - trying to make an inherently oppressive force a little "nicer" while ignoring the factors which create that oppression in the first place.

In their last post, Moshehess (the original Moses Hess, of course, was a socialist turned proto-zionist) seems to attempt to defend the Jewish Socialist's clinging to nationalist values by claiming that because they aren't as bad as most Israeli political parties, they're alright.

Moshehess then justifies that by saying that "This is not the UK", a statement which is no doubt correct, but misses the point of internationalism entirely. I'm not antinationalist because the place I live is more liberal than Israel, the USA or wherever....I'm antinationalist because I believe that it is the only way to ensure the liberation of the global working class, which surely must be the goal of all who post on here.

And just a quick point re: identity.

I don't desire a monolithic working class culture. Class consciousness is not exclusive to other identities (although I know some here will disagree).

I think if the aim is to try to get people within any given cultural group to identify primarily with their class than with any artificial differences like race, culture, nationality, religion, etc. then I don't have a problem with it.

I just replied and it seems to have vanished, so if this repeats what I've just said, apologies.

Asher's post was very useful and somewhat echoes my own experience.

Moses: I know Jerusalem pretty well and I know how difficult the atmosphere there is. I am not trying to misrepresent you , merely trying to draw out the weaknesses I see in your argument. But I think there is a basis for discussion because you do want to go beyond statist - i.e. capitalist - solutions.

However, I think Asher is right to say that you are still clinging to nationalism. Not just for the Jews but also for the Palestinians. The solution to the national question does not lie in some liberal "mutual recognition of nationhood" or "national self-determination", but through a profound rupture in which class interests cut through and ultimately abolish national divisions.

so 'being jewish' existed long before 'being working class' (or rather 'being proletariat') ever did? And post revolution would you allow these people to 'be jewish' again if they so wished?

Do you consider moses hess a part of 'our' heritage?

Maybe your having problems following the thread?
I also note you deal with the more comic of my questions, so let me put it another way. What would you think of Catholic or Protestant anarchist groups?

Also it is quite clear that the Jewish Socialists are "soft" nationalists (read their website)who wish to make socialism sit with their nationalism rather than negate it.

I might add that I'm criticising them from a relative position, as within the context they are in, "zionism", they represent a more progressive direction, but ultimately they will come up against the limits of their own nationalism and then either the socialism or the judaism will have to be broke.

that's an important point, we're not saying you're just the same as the statist zionists, Moshehess

Coffeemachine wrote:

so 'being jewish' existed long before 'being working class' (or rather 'being proletariat') ever did? And post revolution would you allow these people to 'be jewish' again if they so wished?

Do you consider moses hess a part of 'our' heritage?

Yes, "being Jewish" existed before the working class because it existed long before capitalism. Originally the Jewish people came from tribal herders and agriculturalists, but if you read your Bible you can discern the transition from the more egalitarian tribe to a class society ruled by priests and kings. The formal Jewish religion is a product of this later stage, and so from the beginning contains elements from different classes.

Will Jews be "allowed" to be Jews after the revolution? There can be absolutely no question of forcible suppression of religion or cultural identity by a victorious revolution.

Is Moses Hess part of our heritage? Yes. He was one of the elements who helped draw Marx towards communism, for one thing. But to revive his mixture of "Zionism" and communism in today's conditions is a very different matter.

I agree with the point made by Revol and endorsed by Joseph. Any real progress will lead to a break between socialism and residual nationalism.

Yeah exactly Alf. For all the arguments against having a Jewish Socialists group, I'm yet to hear a convincing one for it. If Gentiles can join, then why call it a Jewish Socialist group? It just sounds quite confused.

Having said that, there's no point in looking at this in terms of absolutes: one can envisage situations in which organising along sub-class lines would be beneficial. For instance, I'd controversially tag the Panthers as a discussion point on this.

I'd agree with this, except I'd like to explicitly make the difference of their conception of judaism. I'd be clearer, but I'm drunk. Goodnight. Will write more tomorrow.

and yet moses hess is the father of zionism. Do you think there's a contradiction between his communism (that inspired and informed marx's ideas) and his dedication to zionism? The two by your own logic are incompatible, yet they existed within the thoughts, ideas and political will of one person. If there is no conflict within hess should there be a conflict with a jewish socialist or jewish anarchist?

so it also seems the only time we cannot be jewish is during the latter stages of capitalism.

I think introducing definitive polarities and inviting people to gravitate towards one or the other only works a) if you're addressing the politically juvenile or b)on the those who choose not to acknowledge that people (and their politics and their culture and their history and their class) are the sum of their social interaction which is often messy and contradictory but never just a position to be argued at will and defended at leisure.

What exactly is your point? People can have contradictary thoughts and beliefs? Woah your one deep motherfucker!

Next you'll be pointing out that Jefferson pronounced all men equal whilst keeping slaves.

I think it's interesting how the non essentialism of the "jew", the lack of a "home", the cosmopolitanism could be seen to have passed over to the proletariat. Isn't there a case for seeing a large part of the Nazi's anti semitism as an attempt to externalise the essential nothingness of the proletariat onto the "jew". The answer to the jewish question as infact an answer to the proletarian question? The final solution as the final exorcism of the proletariats negation of nationalism?

It should come as not surpise then that the Nazi's struck many deals with those Zionists who sought to expunge this nothingness themselves, to reify "jewishness" into a "nation".

i wouldn't have put you in the bracket of politically juvenile...

you think????

I'm more interested though in seeing you develop an argument rather than just raise silly objections and then fail to bakc them up in any manner. You been at it since you came on the boards and I don't find anymore interesting than the ICC's sermons.

i wouldn't have...

To be pefectly honest i'm asking questions.

is anyone saying that people have to give up their religious identity?

I'm saying that as self avowed socialists they will be forced to come into conflict with this identity.

I'm not exactly arguing for the fucking extermination of them, all i'm doing is questioning their consistency with socialism and it's softness towards nationalism.

Isn't a refusal to take a position, to argue, to criticise the "other" not the ultimate act of supremacy? We take on the view from nowhere, the infinity of relativism, and hence as we assert everyones right to a position but our own we infact place ourselves in a faux transcendental space above the childish squabbles of subjectivities?

That bastard Zizek stole these ideas from my head and put them better.

what people are saying is organising as a jewish socialist is: divisive; a dead end; bullshit; not a basis to organise along. This criticism seems to be based on nothing more than it conflicts with their own particular brand of chosen theory. More importantly, certainly to this discussion, is the fact jewish socialists want to organise seperately. (This seems the biggest sin)

People have concluded this seperateness is taking away from the importance and centrality of class struggle, rather than adding a different dimension to the class struggle. Again they base this on their chosen theorectical approach. Of course when an actual real life example is offered (Rudoplf rocker is the example cited) that doesn't fit the model what are we actually left with?

You are absolutely right as self avowed socialists they will be forced to come into conflict with this identity but it is their problem, and one that they must come to terms with and resolve. It is not your problem because you are not jewish and not my problem because i'm not jewish.

Again the disturbing feature is that we are intent to strip our proletarian of all forms of social and cultural identity other than that of class. This means reducing this fully formed if messy and contradictory social being to a singular expression of idealised class ideology.

if you'd read the thread, you'd know that non-jews were welcome to join the jewish socialist group

yet you concede ...

which thats the main point thats been argued

nice solidarity - we can't suggest things to fellow workers, and socialists to boot, because of their ethnicity. see revol's zizek quote.

tbh coffeemachine it looks like you're just imposing your ideological view that everyone on these boards wants to ideologically impose some hegemonic homogenous class identity, without stopping to check if it relates to the actual arguments in the thread

Revol wrote:

"Isn't a refusal to take a position, to argue, to criticise the "other" not the ultimate act of supremacy? We take on the view from nowhere, the infinity of relativism, and hence as we assert everyones right to a position but our own we infact place ourselves in a faux transcendental space above the childish squabbles of subjectivities?"

Exactly. I'm going to quote this next time someone whines at me for having a position and therefore not wanting to have a dialogue.

I also agree with your response on people holding contradictory opinions. Moses Hess was an early pioneer of communism and we can understand the limitations on his thought; and we can also see how the movement as a whole transcended his confusions even if he didn't personally.

well, the quote is spot on here, but you'd be misquoting it in that context because the whiner wouldn't be saying everyone can have a position except them and thus wouldn't be speaking from a supremacist position - everyone's got positions, some are more open to change (or interaction with the world) than others

And of course it's hardly any. I'd say very confidently that the number of jewish people in non-culture-specific socialist/anarchist groups vastly outnumbers those within them. I'd also guess that most in them are members of other more general organisations as well (which is why I don't think it's much of a problem, as this isn't about separatism).

Also of course some of the people on this thread arguing against the separate groups are jewish, though they haven't mentioned it, which is to be lauded since it plays up to white guilt attitudes like coffeemachine's:

That would appear to be the case...

Also CM as I pointed out earlier, rudolf rocker is not an example in your favour, since he himself wasn't jewish. He organised amongst mostly jewish clothing workers for tactical reasons, as they were hyper-exploited immigrant workers in london.

revol - good points re: catholic or protestant socialist groups. I suppose I see a bit of a difference because as far as I know, most jewish lefty groups basically exist to challenge racism and zionism amongst jews. Doing so on the basis of being jewish means zionists can't say that they're anti-semites (tho of course they do ). I think it would be equivalent to say northern irish groups called "protestants against sectarianism", or "catholics against sectarianism", which I don't think would be a bad thing really...

no John that's not the case. He immersed himself in every aspect of jewish radical culture not because it was practical but because he felt the depth of feeling and passions engrained in the ideas and expressions that resonated from jewish anarchsist tradition. He was first introduced to this traditon in paris and carried over the love affair to london. As i say you really ought to read 'the london years'.

Your right in as much as he wasn't jewish but the fact that he defined himself as a jewish anarchist and organised amongst working class jews was in no way divisive; a dead end; bullshit; no basis to organise, indeed it gave him the skills, knowledge, confidence to develop his anarcho-syndicalist ideas. (Maybe it should be pointed out that the mass strike he organised with jewish tailors was against all sweatshop labour). And as i've already said it was the only time in uk history we could usefully say there was a genuine anarchist movement.

As i've already pointed out rocker was instrumental in the federation of jewish anarchists (an international organisation), the jewish bakers union, two yiddish anarchist papers, he organised demonstrations outside synagogues against religious jews, and was known locally and colloquially as the anarchist rabbi. He was in every sense of the word a jewish anarchist.

The question is did being a jewish anarchist detract from his class struggle?

The situation with today's 'Jewish community' is completely different to what it was in Rocker's day. As others have pointed out, the East End of London at the turn of the century saw a massive influx of Jewish proletarians facing the most awful conditions in housing and at work, with the majority speaking Yiddish rather than English. Whether or not you agree with all of Rocker's political ideas, it certainly made sense to bring out revolutionary literature in Yiddish and there were plenty of opportunities for revolutionaries to involve themselves in the struggles of this sector, although even then there were debates about whether there should be specifically 'Jewish' organisations.

The situation today is not comparable at all: Yiddish is dying, the 'Community' is much more dispersed and much more petty bourgeois in composition. There's very little objective basis for doing specific work towards Jewish workers that is unique to them.