A recent article posted on Israpundit by Felix Quigley, “Herzl and Trotsky…We have to go behind the Neo-leftist lies about both” explores anti-Semitism in some circles of the neo-left today and its roots. This brought up a discussion over the inherency of anti-Semitism of collective systems of government in places where Jewish people reside as a minority.
The purpose of this article will be to explore the relationship between collectivist systems of government and anti-Semitism. Being that leftist are proponents of collective societies such as socialist, communist, and social-democracies, It is my intent here to expose the roots of leftist anti-Semitism by showing the correlation between collective authoritarian cultures and anti-Semitism – And this will hold true not only to the leftist but also to the rightist who embrace collectivist mass movements.
To do this we will first consider the persecution of the Jewish people in Diaspora and the systems and ideologies under which they suffered the most. This is not to be directed against either the right or the left but an analytical look at authoritarian and totalitarian systems in general as breading grounds for anti-Semitism – for I would submit that anti-Semitism in the past and on the left today is a result of their ambitions for a collective society and a controlling authoritarian to manage problems.
Whether we look at the atrocities of the Nazis, the pogroms in Russia, or the persecution meted out during the Inquisition, they all hold in common the pursuit of controlled collective societies – and may I add, you cannot even begin a socialist or communist system on a large scale without a powerful controlling authority and a huge bureaucracy to manage it.
But all of this begs the question, why would collective cultures tend to be anti-Semitic?
There are a number of reasons, most of which are based on social, cultural, and religious foundations, for the Jewish people are unique in all three of these categories.
It would be too much to cover all three categories thoroughly here, so I will begin with social issues being that they relate to the anti-Semitism fostered by socialism, fascism, and communism; for the basic ideology embraced by neo-leftists shares a number of common philosophies with these.
First let us understand that social collectivism is based upon at least a perception of equality among the people, excepting its rulers. The emphasis is placed upon the common good of all as one, and to still discontent all members are to be considered equal, even if that means being equally poor.
With this in mind, lets us consider the prosperity of the Jewish people within various cultures throughout the Diaspora and their ability to excel and become predominant in many divers fields such as finance, commerce, politics, science, arts, etc.. This was often true even within authoritarian and totalitarian societies.
The expectation of the masses in these controlled societies was equality. However, the prolific accomplishments of a small minority of people in their midst created a schism, while some felt threatened others were resentful and envious. To explain the achievements of a disproportionate number of successful Jewish people accusations were put forth accusing them of greed, usury, conspiracies, involvement in cabals, etc. Thus, rather than being praised for their contributions to society, Jews were hated.
In these societies the only way to make the Jewish people “equal” was to persecute, oppress them, and deny them the same rights as the majority to “level out the playing field.”
On the other hand, it may be pointed out that whereas the Jewish people have excelled in closed societies, they have much more so in free capitalistic ones. Why then is there less antagonism and anti-Semitism in these free societies where the Jewish people are even more prolific?
The answer lies within the nature of free societies which stress individual freedom above the collective good. There is no expectation in free societies that people will be equal, but it is accepted that some will excel, and so the achievements of the Jewish people are attributed to their personal accomplishments as individuals rather than other nefarious factors. There is still resentment by a segment of society against those that excel but it is applied for the most part across the board and accusations are directed more broadly against the rich, the powerful, or the elites.
Most of the accusations we see directed against the Jew in freer societies often proceed from the left by people that are avid proponents of big federal government, massive social programs, increased regulations, redistribution of wealth, and internationalism – aka, the arch enemies of the “neo-cons” who blame Israel for troubled US foreign policies.
Next, for an example of religious incompatibility of the Jewish people we need look no further than the Middle-East. Collectivism in its most rabid form is today manifest in militant Islamic culture where the world is called to submit and assimilate into the Islamic faith or face annihilation (with exception to the Jew who is called only to face annihilation.) This is presently the staunchest form of collectivism and it is likely the most anti-Semitic ever.
And this raises the question, is the degree of collectivism practiced related to the degree of power the controlling authority rules by, and furthermore, the degree of anti-Semitism it espouses?
This would seem to hold true in many historical cases when we consider Nazism, fascism, communism, or the authoritarian church in the dark ages.
Furthermore, the different societies around the world today that practice collectivism/socialism to varying degrees, is that practice relative to the degree of anti-Semitism embraced in those societies?
The United States is considered one of the freest and guarantees the most rights to the individual – Its people also are the most pro-Israel in the world. However, with the creation of the EU, and the move toward collectivism in Europe, has that continent become more anti-Semitic, anti-Israel with these developments? The answer seems to be obvious.
It is ironic then that Jews in Diaspora have a history of helping create collective cultures and societies, only to become victims of the authoritarian power they helped build. In the United States today a large majority of Jewish voters are proponents of a socialist agenda, which will lead to a more powerful and larger bureaucracy and greater collectivism. Notwithstanding, as a collective society develops a monolithic identity, minority groups become excluded and suffer persecution.
There are however, some benefits of collectivism and certain things can be accomplished that would be either impossible or dysfunctional without it. With that in mind, in the United States provisions were made in a limited capacity to deal with specific circumstances such as defense, interstate commerce, and eminent domain.
Nevertheless, when collectivism becomes a fix-all to solve all problems, a small minority of people such as the Jewish population may find themselves falling further and further outside the criterion for membership in that society as time goes by, even if they were a strong element in its establishment. Many Jewish people today who fear religious collectivism have sought refuge in secular collectivism – this has and will reward them no better, if even as well.
I have tried to be as brief as possible as to the effects of socialism, communism and other forms of collectivism upon the Jewish people as practiced among the nations outside of Israel. It would be another topic to address collectivism within the Jewish state where the Jewish people are a majority, being that changes some factors which may effect the degree and necessity of it, if only in a limited application – for Israel is unique unto itself among the nations.
by RA Sprinkle
“The emphasis is placed upon the common good of all as one, and to still discontent all members are to be considered equal, even if that means being equally poor”
It is impossible to be equally poor as it is to be equally rich. Money has no value if it is all equal. After all, if everyone is equally rich, that means no is rich and no one has valued money. This is nonetheless a good thing which helps eliminate many of the problems of the world such as greed. Unless not all money is destroyed… then greed will lurk such as the case with former communist societies.
Greed is not in money it is in man. It is true that it is unrealistic that people will be equally poor as it is that people will be equally rich. This is only one reason that collective societies in pursuit of social equality fail. They are a fantacy at best and an insidious scheme at worst – either way, the result is equally destructive.
Greed is in man, but it is powered by money because man desires power and power equals money. In a communist society, there is no money, therefore no power, therefore complete equality throughout, unless a capitalist finds a loophole during the socialist period, and thus replants the seed of greed. Greed and dissidents keeps communities of social equality from being successful. Look at Cuba – they all ask if Cuba is so free and great, why are people trying to go the the US? Because the US aka “police of the world” decided they had the power and right to intrude on another country and attempt a coup. The US has Cuba under close military watch, and deliberately destroys its economy with a trade embargo. I believe without this imperialistic (you honestly can’t call it anything else… what would you think if Russia tried to do the same to the US?) intrusion, Cuba could be a successful communist country due to its isolation and outside aid mostly.
“In a communist society, there is no money, therefore no power, therefore complete equality throughout, unless a capitalist finds a loophole during the socialist period, and thus replants the seed of greed.”
Money is merely a symbol which represents food, clothing, housing, jewelry, etc….You mean to tell me these things do not exist in communist societies or that there will not be envy by one man who covets another man’s wife? Money is amoral, it is the “love of money that is the root of all evil,” If money did not exist there would be a rivalry over other things, for as I stated, lust and greed proceeds from man’s nature. Murder and war existed before money and would exist if money ceased being.
“The US has Cuba under close military watch, and deliberately destroys its economy with a trade embargo.”
If Cuba is so great why do they need to remove the trade embargo to engage in capitalism with capitalist to save their economy?
Thats exactly what money doesn’t represent though. It represents power, not food and the such. It was invented to make trade easier so one person doesn’t trade a goat for 3 chickens. With money, the rich can do anything from bribing politicians to paying to not join the military or stay at home and be a lazy good for nothing for society. If a man sits on wealth, the economy sits as well. If the working class works, the economy can only increase (great example is China, who’s economy greatly surpasses that of the United States. Russia during Stalin’s regime, although a dictatorship, with the industrial revolution he created there, the economy again surpass that of the US, until the US unwittingly and imperialistically decided they shouldn’t have power because “communists are taking over the world and bringing it down.” If so, why was the economy greater, with workers rights, shorter hours, better conditions, equal earnings, etc.? Murder will exist, but war can be stopped with communal living. Before men settled down and began trade, there was no war (maybe scandal between tribes for land and food because they were not united). With communal living, there will be nothing to war about if everyone lives an equal lifestyle and can’t get selfish because “the rich guy has more so I should rob him.” War is caused by greed caused by property. What would a communist fight over other than beliefs?
As for Cuba, they don’t need to engage in capitalism. If you don’t know, it is an isolated island with few resources. How the hell can you survive without the needed resources? Communal trade is being stopped between Cuba, South America, Russia, China, because the selfish ignorant US wants to show Cuba’s decline as communist propaganda, just as they do with Russia and China. Russia is having more problems now in a capitalist society which is corrupted by money, which is entangled with power, which is held by the rich. The US and Russia aren’t democratic. You know what democracy means? It is rule by the people (most of which are under middle class). In actuality, who rules the US and Russia today? The oligarchy – rule by the minority. What minority? The 1% rich politicians – honestly – look at the governments and please name me the workers you see. All of them are corrupted rich bastards who are controlled by corporations and private industry, who are in control by money power, and it goes in a circle. In a communist society with no rich or poor, everyone is equal and the majority, therefore it is complete democracy. You cannot argue with that however you try, you will be proved wrong, unless you choose not to care, be ignorant, and make stuff up. Cuba the socialist nation was once great because of trade, now it cannot reach communism because it is being destroyed by selfish bastards who cannot tolerate other ideologies and think their way is the only right way and that the world cannot be ‘infected’ any other way. That is imperialism my friend. Would you like it if the majority of the world was communist, and you stand out as a capitalist and are suppressed because of the way you think? You are under gov surveillance, are not allowed in government, cannot spread your ways, cannot rule… what the hell kind of freedom is that.
Also before you argue, please read Engel’s ‘The Principles of Communism’ and know the difference between communism and socialism. You think they intertwine and obviously have no clue how the government is run or the economy. Read it because it is not long, and it is found on the internet in one medium sized page. It is not complete, but a great overview to understand communism. It is also from the 19th century so don’t try to contradict it with modern government.
Sorry, I didn’t really want to start a huge debate or a fight for that matter, but if you knew communism, you would prove yourself wrong. Most people don’t due to Cold War propaganda. I hate ignorance – I once read on an anti-communist forum full of idiots that “Stalin killed 97.8% of his people – 200 Billion dead”… if you don’t get what I’m trying to say by posting that inaccurate quote, think of it this way – in Stalin’s time, only 2 Billion people inhabited the earth. Today its 6 Billion.
Good day, I think this will be my last post.
That’s exactly what money doesn’t represent though. It represents power, not food and the such.
I agree money is power but only because it does represent things. You can hardly eat money or use it for clothing or shelter. Money is power to get those things and therefore represents them. If it did not represent things it would have little value and no one would serve for it.
With communal living, there will be nothing to war about if everyone lives an equal lifestyle and can’t get selfish because “the rich guy has more so I should rob him.” War is caused by greed caused by property. What would a communist fight over other than beliefs?
If everybody is equal and has one of something, there will still be greedy people who want two. They will band together and and take other peoples’ one. This happened in communal tribalism. Communism is tribalism to a science and it cannot work because man is intrinsically flawed.
If man were perfect, utopian communism would not need a revolution to come into being for it would happen naturally and voluntarily. The fact that it demands a totalitarian system and a huge bureaucracy to bring it into being is evidence that man is flawed and incapable of such a system that requires complete pureness of heart.
I do not dismiss communism as an idea but I dismiss it as a reality in a world where it is dependent upon the purity and love of mankind. The history of the world begins almost immediately with blood and it will likely end with it also.
When mankind as a whole is perfect in his love to his neighbor get in touch with me and I will consider communism. As long as natural impulses are the driving factor and lust and greed are prevalent in all types of societies I will opt for representative systems of checks and balances and will support the concept of free nation-states and individual rights. These systems are imperfect but they are also designed for the imperfect and they reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.
Wow, Toma and Skarbutts. You had me going there. Skarbutts, you answered it for me. Thanks for discussing this where people like me who are cowards and afraid to express their ambivalence and feelings one way or another can read and walk away with something to think about.
I’m not a communist myself, but rather a social democrat. All true communists hate moderate communists because they don’t completely agree with everything to the fullest and tend to “flip-flop.” Well I don’t flip flop like democrats and republicans do, but I also don’t know everything there is to know about communism. If I knew, I would explain it more. In communal living, humans disrupt the order, and I agree with you on that. But what got humans into this disruptive state of greed? I’m not much of a religious person so I’m not going to say “God made us this way” but I will say that greed came from the the lust to be better than everyone else – individualism. Communism or any communal living is disrupted by people with individual greedy thoughts who do everything just for themselves to survive. Before trade and pre-capitalism came into being, communal living existed without greed. People didn’t have the chance to be greedy when they spent their lives hunting and sharing with the tribe. All of the men in the tribe hunted communally, the women cooked communally, and everyone therefor shared and lived communally. Greed would try to put you above the rest, and when you think for yourself during these times, you cannot survive on your own. Families for example, are communal. Do you rank yourself over you cousins? If you all lived in the same house to survive, you wouldn’t. Everyone would be equal based on how they contribute to the communist. A capitalist in a communist society would starve himself to death. If you put yourself above the community and think only of yourself, no one will be with you and you will just rot. The UN is communal. Ever country contributes rationally, and no one has the power to be greedy because of checks and balances in the UN. The secretary general, some who think is the king of the world, has absolutely no power other than to lead the UN in directions and take responsibility. Rogue nations, do they survive as individuals? No.
Capitalism creates more and more greed. A communist society is hard to form in a capitalism world, just like it was in Russia. There will still be capitalists around, which is why honest people need to become dictators to get rid of dissidents, because dissidents destroy order and the chance of having a perfect communist society. The way capitalists put down communists each day is disgusting. What I am saying is that if the world was kept communist or communal thinking, as it evolved that way, it would not be disrupted by greed. I think Marx or Engels wrote about how capitalism started and how it could have been avoided and how it was before it. Interesting to read, but I won’t go into that.
‘Democratic socialist’ I meant. Sorry
Toma, sincerely without snark,I reply to you that I have met many who say the exact same thing…does your major happen to be sociology, or perhaps anthropology? And if my hunch is correct, you are either top of your class or already graduated. But when you were in school, you were the model “socialist democrat” and your instructors loved you.
I’m perfectly fine with being hated by my teachers. It’s pretty typical these days because I refuse to be cut with their cookie cutters. I respect what you have written, but I’ve heard it all before. I’m not convinced- if natural selection occurs in biology,why would that not apply to sociology?
Of course those who pursue wealth are more likely to be rewarded with it than those who don’t (excepting the elite, which is actually a separate issue.) If we all become equal, striving will cease, as will crops and other commodities. The angst, pain and struggle is a necessary part of the human existence. Even Voltaire knew that.
Natural selection does happen in sociology. Didn’t you know that the economy in America is going down? Statistics and also thought – think about the enormous rich to poor gap. America has one of the biggest. Think about oil and gas consumption and how prices rise every day – America uses many times more of both than Russia or even China and India – all three’s population greatly exceed the US. What kind of nation is at war all the time? A capitalist one because they lust for money and such commodities as oil. I won’t get into Iraq, but that’s really the main reason we are at war – oil, and corporations are keeping us in war because they make money off of it (here is a video that might change your mind about capitalism and how it affects war – http://iraqforsale.org/). China, although not a communist country is increasing its economy while the US drops. Almost forgot to include the Great Depression – yep, natural selection. How about early communist Russia – what happened there? Economy increased, even with the dictator Stalin. What happened when capitalists got jealous of losing power and getting beat? The interfered with a “Cold War” and are doing the same today with Cuba. I’m just wondering how anyone can accept what is happening. How would you feel that if during America’s ripening years, the world put a cage around it to keep from achieving what it is today?
Anyway, I writing this bit here at the end of my debate because if I wrote it before, you won’t take me seriously at all. I’m just a sophomore in high school without a major. I’m studying European history right now though, and we are learning about the beginnings of Communism and the Industrial Revolution clash. I was born in Romania, one year after the communist dictator there was publicly mutilated along with his wife. They soaked up all the wealth while breaking the backs of workers. All of my family members that are one year old than me know the hardships of the Soviet Bloc, and therefore are not communist nor capitalist, but some form of leftist-independents. It’s been nice debating with a group up, I’ve done it before, but only other adult communists.
If you are a sophomore in highschool, then I apologize for my remark (though the website attached to your name makes no mention of highschoolers, but alludes to a very worthy team of sociologists. I think that is a bit dishonest) left on your blog. I also applaud you for taking a serious look at this issue. Yourcritical thought is above average for a highschool sophomore.
On the other hand, I maintain that I’ve heard the arguments you’ve recounted, and they all come from those with a social agenda. Without these theories, socialists are out of a job, quite frankly. The truth is, man is a greedy creature. WIthout a purpose for being unselfish (i.e. a spiritual journey, a hero’s journey) that is opposed to narcissistic world views, communism can only, will only continue to fail.
I’d like to challenge you to rub elbows with some accounting majors and study economics. I came fom communism and once I left, determined never to return.
Capitalism indeed poses evils– I favor lassiesse fare free enterprise….the freedom to choose communism or capitalism, depending on my needs and goals that day.
I’m just going to agree to disagree. I’m not out to convert anyone, but if you read about it and don’t use propaganda to challenge the truth, then you will most certainly be a communist. Then, read about capitalism and compare. I’ll admit, I haven’t taken economics yet, but will look forward to it next year with a strict, hard line capitalist teacher who everyone in the school dislikes with a passion. Evil capitalist predator – what else is new?
Toma, you make me laugh. The strong man is not for everyone…if everyone were strong then no one would be strong. We each have a perspective to contribute..if everryone was capitalist there would be no such thing as communism…and if everyone were communist there would be no such thing as communism. But there will always be capitalism as long as human beings breath upon this planet… primitive economics (like the laws of gravity) is pretty much non-negotiable. If I work, I eat. If I don’t work, I die of starvation unless I can convince someone else to work to feed both me and themselves. And why would they do that unless I had something to offer them? And if what I have to offer them is not as good as what they offer me, who is capitalizing on the situation?
You cannot remove capitalism from real life. It is impossible.
Jael is correct. If there were no money it would be replaced by other things or by brute force. Peoples’ desires, interest, or even necessities will not always be in unison and when they conflict there will arise a struggle.
Attempting to force “perfection” on an imperfect world is imperfection in its worse state. Such were the ambitions of the world’s cruelest despots from Nero to Hitler to Stalin, and all others who had their own concepts of perfection which they sought to make universal.
Wow. Great picture, Skarbutts. One point I’ve been pondering is this illlusion of conservative vs. liberal. I don’t think it’s that simple.
Marx’s economics/social outlook stated something to the effect that the classes are vyying for limited resources. To me, that is a negative outlook. And in all my wanderings and ponderings, what seems to be a common theme is this idea in socialism versus so- called capitalism (every type of economic system is capitalist. Depends on who is the capitalist in the situation, each is labled accordingly.) what appears to be a common contrast is not so much the absence or presence of a God. Both systems justify questioning either way equally well. It is the belief, however, in a just God, a hopeful God, and a God who provides that drives economic progress over stagnancy.
If God or the forces of nature, or whatever a person or society believes drives its system is believed to be entirely evil, that is cause for a closing down, a hunkering down like bears in the winter, of the economic system. If, however, there is a belief that all can be, will eventually be well (either through a belief in a just and caring God or belief in mankind in general) capitalism prevails.
And not surprisingly, capitalism drives progress. It is expansionist in nature, constantly seeking refined methods, new territory, undiscovered reserves. To get behind such a drive, one must have a fundamental positive outlook.
On the other hand, socialism, communism,fascism promote stagnancy based on the presumption that things will eventually “run out.”
From a personal perspective, I believe in an Almighty and just God who has provided enough to sustain the world. Only when he believes he is finished with his creation will he remove his hand from the peacekeeping of his fatherhood and allow us to destroy ourselves.
Our planet will not be divested of the rich and generous resources provided by a rich and generous father, nor will we as humans be divested of a capital seeking nature. It will unfortunately be the strivings amonst ourselves as jealous siblings that will rob us of obtaining a peaceful and eternal existence as a planet. Jealousy has and will continue to overcome us until we shred ourselves asunder.
perfect!!
Interestingly, I’ve recently entertained two views on Collectivism. The first is the criticism, the second is a reprise in light of China’s emergence. The two hardly satisfy any debates, but the important lesson for me is to be on guard against naively taking history as a final arbiter on anything, and to remain constantly vigilant and critical of ideas, no matter their merit.