[Zhukov]

I'l say again, abce, that I am tryng to 'discuss' the formation of Zionism, not Israel. Keep this in mind when reading my posts or posting yours.

Nothing I have said contains anything that defames Jewish people, or supports their oppression. Your sole basis for thinking that I am an anti-semite is my anti-Zionist stance. I have a clear distinction between my opposition to Zionism and my support for the legitimate struggle of the Jews, of all oppressed people, against any form of racism. The only people that seem to think the Jews and Zionism are one and the same are the new wave of Islamic terrorists and the Zionist suporters. Saying that m opinions are anti-semetic is really the lowest you can go, since you haven't found anything that I have said to be anti-semetic. This is because nothing of the sort exists.

In fact, you didn't even know it existed until It was pointed out to you on this board.

No, you assumed I didn't know about Zionist Socialist parties, because you thought that their existance would somehow prove that Zionism was born of Socialist and Communist principles. You convineintly dodged my question on "How can Zionism be based on Socialism and Communism", and instead dropped names and reffered to Zionist Socialist parties. I am a firm believer that Socialist Zionist parties were not responsible for the creation of Zionism. I believe this just as much as I believe that no single person was responsible for Zionism, you aggree with me, but still find the time to drop more names.

What you need to show is what led to the formation of Zionism, and what it's purpose was. You don't have to show Socialist leanings in Israel, or how many "card carrying communists" (Which Communist party??) were part of the creation of Israel, because these things didn't have any input into the creation of Zionism.
I have stated that Zionism came from the nationalistic sentiments of Jews under attack from anti-semites, mainly in Eastern Europe. I have stated that Zionism's purpose was to unite Jews into their own homeland.

You dissagree with me on the first point, you say that Zionism came from Socialist and Communist sentiments. However, I guess that you agree with me on the Zionist purpose.

Since the ceation of a 'Jewish state', or a 'Dutch state' in Sth Africa, or any other kind of state based upon race, religion, or colour can be considered nationalistic, then the aim of the Zionists is a Nationalist one. I again guess that you agree with this, because you jump to the defense of Nationalism.

How can Communism be related at all to Nationalism? It can't be. The break down of borders, equality of race and classless society can only be seen through an internationalist light.

Communism can never be achieved while the workers are not united on the basis of false differences, such as believing ones state is the road to worker freedom.

Nationalists support their own bourgeoise and middle classes, instead of suppoting their own class in other countries. Class collaboration is not a principle of Communism or Socialism, be it in the form seen in Spain during the 1930s by the Stalinists, or in normal everyday Capitalism.

The Zionist aim is to create a 'Jewish state', the creation of a state - Jewish or otherwise - cannot be considered a communist principle. Nevermind the fact that this 'Jewish state' is not even required to be a proletarian dictatorship, (hence, not Socialist) but Communism is another stateless stage of human history. There will be no state in a Communist society, just as there has never been a "Communist state/nation/country", because there never can be. The existance of states, even workers states, negates the existance of Communism. The ruling class creates/inherits the state to supress other classes, be it Proletarian or Bourgeois. Since there are no classes in a clasless society, there is no state.

While the current wave of Socialist dopes like yourself might like to distance themselves, or discredit how legit a left leaning Zionist was , in order to feel like you're still down with the "oppressed" and "downtrodden", there is no difference between Socialist Zionism, or Zionist Socialism.

What the hell does this mean? Have I said that there was a difference between the two? I might have been using one or the other at random, so if I gave you the impression that there was a differenec, I apologise. I don't discredit the revolutionary Marxism of Leftist Zionists based on differences in "Zionist Socialist" and "Socialist Zionist", I discredit them based on their support for reactionary two step theories, the likes of which Stalin "theorised". If you want to legitimise the Zionist Socialist movement then you are going to have to defend their two step theory, their support for their own middle and bourgeois classes over the proletarians of neighbouring states, and their support of "trade unions" such as Histadrut.

You can't decide if you want to claim they weren't good Socialists, or that they weren't Socialists at all

The leaders use socialism as an excuse to proport Zionism, the rank and file that believe in Zionism, but also Socialism are misguided utopian Socialists. The main theoritists of early Zonism were misguided as well. I tried to keep it straight forward in earlier posts.

Meanwhile, it's suspect of you to Argue their integrity when you've already demonstrated an inability to comprehend how something like Marxist theory could every apply to Jews, or those with Nationalistic tendencies

Marxist theory applies to Jews, Christians, Hindus, black, white, male, female, everyone. This is what it means to be internationalist. I have never said that Marxist theory does not apply to Jews. You are trying to portray me as anti-semetic. Is this your only defense? I can't comprehend how you would think that "Nationalistic tendencies" belong in Marxist theory, nor have you given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Fidel Castro is hardly a Socialist "poster boy", and he has nothing to do with anything.

slighting Jews for being "nationalistic" is the original basis for antisemetism itself

Jewish nationalism followed anti-semitism, not the other way around. It is the decline of the capitalist world system from the end of the 19th century that has produced the racism of anti-semitism. The abolishment of Serfdom in Russia in the 1860s (or round about) caused Eastern Europe to drift ino continual crisis. The old feudal order was in decay, but there was no expanding capitalism to take its place, as there had been in Western Europe. Eastern captalism was weak, stunted and unable to attain the position once held by feudalism. The influx of peasants into the cities looking for jobs during the decay of feudalism came into conflict with the urban Jews because of the highly competitive labour market. The traditional positions of Jews such a moneylenders, artisans and small merchants were lost to them with the fall of Feudalism. The inability of Eastern Europe to intergrate milions of displaced Jews, the competition for jobs, institutionalised blaming of the Jews for the problems with society, (Which was fine for the non-jews in competition with them) and the worsening conditions of the middle class in Western Europe or the US (wich was blammed on the newly arriving Jews who fled E. Europe) all contributed to the rise of anti-semitsm. Jewish nationalism and Zionism sought to defend against this racism by taking the anti-semites argument that Jew and Gentile can't live together, and aiming to create a Jewish state for all Jews to live in. The creation of a Jewish state their way of combating anti-semitism, to no avail.

Moses Hess' book was "Rome and Jerusalem", which turned out to be a Zionist manifesto where he called for the return of the Jewish people to their "ancestral homeland". I've said earlier that Hess was an assosciate of Marx. However, he then changed his mind, and went from Marxism to Zionism.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hess.html
Five minutes on google agrees with me.

"Following the unification of Italy, the rise of nationalism in that country and the emergence of German antisemitism, Hess returned to his Jewish roots."

While your here, check out http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

"Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals"

Class colaboration if ever I saw it. Socialists don't put many goals in front of social revolution, least of all the creation of a state based not on class, or even on language, territory, economic life, and psychological make up, but based on a religion!

Here is what Lenin had to say about the national question:

"The awakening of the masses from feudal slumber, their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of nations is progressive. Hence, it is the bounded duty of a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and consistent democracy on all points of the national question. The task is mainly a negative one. But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism, for beyond it begins the 'positive' activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism." (My emphasis.)

Also:

"That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving any guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation."

Lenin writes of the harmful influence of nationalism in the workers' movement: "The conclusion is that all liberal-bourgeois nationalism causes the greatest corruption among the workers and does immense harm to the cause of freedom and the proletarian class struggle. It is all the more dangerous because the bourgeois (and bourgeois-serf-owning) tendency is hidden by the 'national culture' slogan. In the name of national culture—Great Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, and others—the Black Hundreds reactionaries and clericals, and also the bourgeoisie of all nations, do their dirty work. "


BTW: I use "Nationalism" in regards to the Jews for lack of a better word, since Judaism is not a nation.


Regarding your second post:

State ownership does not equal Socialism unless it goes hand in hand with proletarian dictatorship, easy to understand because alot of states have public industry and are, suprisingly, not socialist.

The reality of Histadrut is that they are not a trade union, but an investment wing of large capital. The first company established by Histadrut, Soleh Boneh (sp?), developed ito the largest corporation in Israel, building luxury hotels thoughout Africa and military bases throughout Asia.

Histadrut controlled all health insurance in Israel, until recenty.

Two key companies behind Histadrut were AMPAL (American Israel Corporation - a finance company that directed US capital investment in Irael) and Koor, a majorcompany in the field of constrution and manufacture. These companies were not cotrolled by wrkers, but were privately owned, profit driven enteprises.
Kibbutzim affiliated with Histadrut have their goods produced sold for a profit. The profit ends up in the hands of Histadrut companies. Wage-labour is prominent in Kibbutzim and Histadrut companies.

The French socilaist party are "Democratic Socialists", France was like Sweeden etc - Capitalists. The attempt to nationalize the Suez Canal was a progressive move, and any revolutionary socialist, French or Israeli, would have supported it, instead of invading and bombing the place.

I am not saying Jews don't join socialist parties! I am not saying Jews can't be socialists.Are you trying to portray all Jews as Zionist? Trotsky, Luxemburg, Zinoviev and many other prominent communists and socialists had Jewish heritage. Why are you providing these statements that have nothing to do with Zionism? What is the reason for your inability to post anything regarding the forming of Zionism?

I am asking you about the foundation of Zionism, not how 'socialist' you think Israel is! You are only keeping yourself up, abcde, if you don't provide an answer or argument, this thread will never end.

Your post on Stalin I agree with, it is a perfect example of the opportunist nature of the beuracracy who were willing to lean left when it suited them, and right when it suited them. However, 'Marxism and the National Question' by uncle Joe is still relevant, (he wrote it before the degeneration of the Russian socialist movement) if anybody was interested...

(My post is too long, I think, sorry.)