A short history of Zionist and Israeli political Marxism

ABSTRACT

In this article, I argue that despite seemingly intractable disagreements between different Zionist and Israeli political Marxists, they share a common theoretical and political perspective, which cannot simply be summed up as the commitment to a set of universal values. Rather, I argue that common to all Zionist and Israeli political Marxists is a commitment to a particular struggle at their historical moment, only through which universal socialism is claimed to be achievable. I use three examples from different historical periods to demonstrate this thesis. I argue that for Ber Borochov in 1907, the commitment to Zionist immigration and settlement is what enables Jews to participate in a universal socialist revolution; For Moshe Sneh, writing in 1954, only by embracing Israeli patriotism can Israelis work toward socialism; and for Tamar Gozansky in 1986, it is the commitment to Palestinian self-determination that makes possible universal anti-capitalist struggle. Thus, for each of these political Marxisms, universal socialism is only achievable through a commitment to some concrete particular struggle, one that is not expressed in terms of class.

KEYWORDS:

• Zionism
• socialism
• Marxism
• national liberation
• proletariat

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the essay’s two readers for their thoughtful, provocative, and constructive comments. And I am particularly grateful to Orit Rozin, for her patient and tremendously helpful guidance through the revision process, and for her help with locating additional sources.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Gozansky, Hitpathut ha-capitalism be-palestina.

2. For accounts that try to distinguish a “good” socialist tradition from a bad one, one can use the work of Ran Greenstein and Karmit Guy as diametrically opposed examples. For Greenstein, “bad” socialism is the one that adopts particular, national struggles; for Guy, it is the commitment to leadership of the Soviet Union that disqualifies certain socialisms as “bad.” Greenstein, “Class, Nation, and Political Organization”; Guy, Halom va-shever.

3. Moss, The Origins of the French Labor Movement, 1830–1914, 11.

4. I borrow the usage of “problematic” here from Jameson, Valences of the Dialectic, 140, 190.

5. Žižek, On Practice and Contradiction: Mao Tse-Tung, 4–5.

6. Gutwein, “Borochov, ha-borochovism, ve-ha-borochovistim”; Peled, “Ber Borochov: me-hoge de’ot hevrati le-ideolog politi.”

7. Marx, On the Jewish Question.

8. Hess, Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism.

9. Tse-Tung, “On Contradiction.”

10. A good example of such nationalist reading of Borochov is in Matityahu Mintz’s work. See Mintz, Ber Borochov: ha-ma’agal ha-rishon (1900–1906).

11. Borochov, “Poalei tzion–ha-platforma shelanu,” 262.

12. ibid., 234.

13. Žižek, On Practice and Contradiction: Mao Tse-Tung, 4.

14. Borochov, “Poalei tzion–ha-platforma shelanu,” 203–9.

15. See note 9 above.

16. Mintz, Ber Borochov: Ha-ma’agal ha-rishon (1900–1906); Mintz, Zmanim hadashim zmirot hadashot.

17. Gutwein, “Borochov, ha-borochovism, ve-ha-borochovistim.”

18. Ibid., 79.

19. Mintz, Zmanim hadashim zmirot hadashot, 19.

20. Gutwein, “Borochov, ha-borochovism, ve-ha-borochovistim,” 80–82; Mintz, Ber Borochov: ha-ma’agal ha-rishon (1900–1906), 171–82, 273–75.

21. Mintz, Zmanim hadashim zmirot hadashot, 339. My translation.

22. Borochov, “The National Question and the Class Struggle,” 140. Emphasis in the original.

23. Ibid., 157–61.

24. Borochov, “Poalei tzion–ha-platforma shelanu,” 219. It is important to emphasize here that for Borochov, the reason Jews cannot join the class struggle in the countries in which they live is because of their exclusion from the main productive industries. As such, the Jews as a separate nation, that needs its own conditions of production, are produced by capitalist dynamic itself.

25. Ibid., 222–23.

26. Lenin, “To Members of the Politbureau of the C.C., R.C.P.(B.),” April 19, 1920.

27. Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, 146–47.

28. Gutwein, “Borochov, ha-borochovism, ve-ha-borochovistim,” 75–76.

29. Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” 595.

30. Nir, “Towards a Renewal of Israeli Marxism, or Peace as a Vanishing Mediator.”

31. Za’it, Halutzim ba-mavoch ha-politi; Margalit, “Ha-shomer ha-tza’ir”–me-adat ne’urim le-marksizm mahapchani (1913–1936).

32. Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel, 16.

33. Borochov, “Poalei tzion–ha-platforma shelanu,” 219.

34. Greenstein, “Class, Nation, and Political Organization,” 89.

35. Budeiri, The Palestine Communist Party, 1919–1948, 148; Zehavi, Le-hud o be-yahad.

36. Ben Porat, Keitzad na’asta yisrael kapitalistit?, 17, 61.

37. Greenstein, “Class, Nation, and Political Organization”; Locker Biletzki, “Class, Capital and Colonies in India and Palestine/Israel.”

38. Budeiri, The Palestine Communist Party, 1919–1948.

39. Ibid., 42.

40. Budeiri, 115; Dotan, Adumim, 485–509.

41. Lockman, Comrades and Enemies; Bernstein, Constructing Boundaries; Shafir, Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914.

42. Meltzer, “Mavo,” 9–13; and She’altiel, “Mavo,” 8.

43. She’altiel, “Mavo,” 16–18; and Eshel, “Mavo.”

44. Mintz, “Be-re’i akum,” 191. my translation.

45. Avizohar, “Mahalakhav ha-pro-sovieti’im shel moshe sneh be-1949,” 404.

46. Eshel, “Mavo,” 8–9.

47. Sneh, Sikumim ba-she’ela ha-le’umit le’or ha-marksizm-leninizm, 85.

48. Ibid., 85–123.

49. Sand, The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland.

50. Ben Porat, Keitzad na’asta yisrael capitalistit?, 66.

51. Sneh, Sikumim ba-she’ela ha-le’umit le’or ha-marksizm-leninizm, 125. my translation.

52. Ibid., 127–28. my translation.

53. Ibid., 133.

54. Ibid., 148–64.

55. Greenstein, “Class, Nation, and Political Organization,” 90–91; and Zehavi, Lehud o-be-yahad: yehudim ve-aravim be-mismakhei ha-komintern 1919–1948, 251–76.

56. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 12.

57. Sneh, Sikumim ba-she’ela ha-le’umit le’or ha-marksizm-leninizm, 148–49.

58. Žižek, “Postface.”

59. Sneh, Sikumim ba-she’ela ha-le’umit le’or ha-marksizm-leninizm, 151. my translation.

60. Chetrit, Ha-ma’avak ha-mizrahi be-yisrael: bein dikui le-shihrur, bein hizdahut le-alternativa, 140; Erel, Matzpen: ha-matspun ve-ha-fantazya, 139.

61. Erel, Matzpen: ha-matspun ve-ha-fantazya, 184–85.

62. Shenhav and Lev, “‘Al tikri po’el ela panter.’”

63. Gozansky, Lehem avoda; Gozansky, Bein nishul le-nitzul.

64. Krampf, The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism, 200.

65. Krampf, 183; Filc, Popolizm ve-hegemoniya be-yisrael, 63; Shalev, “Have Globalization and Liberalization ‘Normalized’ Israel’s Political Economy?”.

66. Gozansky, Hitpathut ha-capitalism be-palestina, 91–110.

67. Gozansky, Hitpathut ha-capitalism be-palestina, 71. my translation.

68. Gozansky, 74. my translation.

69. Marx and Fredrick, The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition, 50.

70. Lukács, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics.

71. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

72. Gozansky, Hitpathut ha-capitalism be-palestina, 238.

73. Ibid., 233–34.

74. Warwick Research Collective, Combined and Uneven Development: Toward a New Theory of World Literature, 10–12.

75. Gozansky, Hitpathut ha-capitalism be-palestina, 237. my translation; emphasis in the original.

76. Shafir, Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914.

77. Orr and Machover, Shalom, shalom ve-ein shalom.

78. Gozansky, Atzma’ut kalkalit–keitzad?.

79. Flapan, The Birth of Israel; Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949; Shafir, Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914; for a sympathetic overview of the Hew Historians work and post-Zionism more generally, see Silberstein, The Postzionism Debates.

80. Morris, “The New Historiography: Israel Confronts Its Past,” 99.

81. Ibid., 108.

82. Kaminer, The Politics of Protest.

83. Gutwein, “He’arot al ha-yesodot ha-ma’amadi’yim shel ha-kibush”; Bichler and Nitzan, The Global Political Economy of Israel; Krampf, The Israeli Path to Neoliberalism, 219–20.

84. See note 30 above.

85. Gutwein, “He’arot al ha-yesodot ha-ma’amadi’yim shel ha-kibush,” 207.

86. Jameson, The Ideologies of Theory, 309–43; and Žižek, For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor, 179–227.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Oded Nir

Oded Nir is assistant professor of Hebrew at Queens College, City University of New York. His work focuses on the intersection of Marxist theory, and critical theory more generally, and Israeli culture. His 2018 monograph, Signatures of Struggle, is a Marxist history of Israeli literature. He has co-edited two other volumes of essays, one on materialist approaches to Israeli culture, and another on Marxist criticism of Israel/Palestine. His essays have appeared in multiple journals, including Prooftexts, Criticism, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, Mediations and others. Oded is the editor of the peer-reviewed quarterly, CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture.