Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine), 30.01.2025
Eighty years passed since the gas ovens in Auschwitz-Birkenau were extinguished following the liberation of the death camp by the Soviet army. It is common to accuse only the Nazis for their war crimes against the Jews, but the truth is that all those who acted against the socialist world revolution are guilty of all the war crimes committed in WWII.
The term “antisemitism” was first coined in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr, a 19th-century German antisemitic intellectual, replacing the term “Judenhass” (Jew-hatred). According to Bauer (1993)[i], Marr intended to adapt the term to the modern, supposedly scientific, ultra-nationalistic, anti-Christian, and racist ideology (p. 39) that developed in the second half of the 19th century.
“When he returned to Hamburg, his views had radically changed and he turned his venom against the Jews. His essay “Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums uber das Judenthum. (“The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism”) was published in 1862. Marr’s conception of anti-Semitism focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. His organization, the League of Anti Semites, introduced the word “anti-Semite” into the political lexicon and established the first popular political movement based entirely on anti-Jewish beliefs.
That publication attracted little attention, but he produced a bestseller 17 years later with “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom.” This often-reprinted political tract resonated with the German public when the country was in economic and social turmoil. In it, he warned that “the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” He believed that Jews had been engaging in a 1,800-year worldwide conspiracy against non-Jews that was about to succeed. He called for resistance against “this foreign power” before it was too late. Marr thought that before long, “there will be no public office, even the highest one, which the Jews will not have usurped.” For Marr, it was a badge of honor to be called an anti-Semite”[ii]
Thus, we should ask why modern Anti-Semitism began in the 1870s. What happened in Europe that caused this form of racism? This form of pseudo-scientific justification of racism began in the 17th century. It appeared in 1619 when the first enslaved people were brought to what would become the United States,
One effective tactic used to justify anti-Black racism and white supremacy has been scientific racism. Through the years, scientific racism has taken many forms, all to co-opt the authority of science as objective knowledge to justify racial inequality.
Some 19th-century bourgeois scientists, like Harvard’s Louis Agassiz, were supporters of “polygenism,” which posited that human races were distinct species. This theory was supported by pseudoscientific methods like craniometry, the measurement of human skulls, which supposedly proved that white people were biologically superior to Blacks. At that time, some Jews were slave owners who agreed with this pseudo-science, not knowing that later on, Jews will come to suffer from it in Europe. However, Jews were not slaves, so what caused Anti-Semitism in the 1870s?
36 years before Marr’s propaganda, Karl Marx wrote that the only society Jews will be emancipated in would be neither religious nor a capitalist one. He wrote in 1843, ‘Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.’
In other words, the reason Jewish culture has continued throughout the 2,000 years can be found in Jewish people’s economic and social role during that time. And this role is dealing with Mamon (money).
The essay “The Jewish Question” was written by Karl Marx in 1843. This was the beginning of a materialist explanation of the change in capitalist society that changed the conditions of the Jews. Marx argued that it is an illusion to believe that the Jews can be emancipated in a Christian state. The emancipation of the Jews can be materialized only in the struggle to liberate the human race. Private property is an obstacle to the emancipation of humanity, including the Jews. For the Jews to be free, they must participate in the struggle against the capitalist state. Marx wrote: “Do the Jews demand the same status as Christian subjects of the state? In that case, they recognize that the Christian state is justified, and they realize, too, the regime of general oppression. Why should they disapprove of their unique yoke if they approve of the general yoke? Why should the Germans be interested in the liberation of the Jews if the Jews are not interested in the liberation of the Germans?
The Jews feel the discrimination because he is in religious opposition to the dominant religion. But the Jew, too, can behave towards the state only in a Jewish way – that is, by treating it as something alien to him, by counterposing his imaginary nationality to the real nationality… Criticism had to investigate a third point. It had to inquire: What kind of emancipation is in question? What conditions follow from the very nature of the emancipation that is demanded? Only the criticism of political emancipation itself would have been the conclusive criticism of the Jewish question and its merging in the “general question of time….The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man is the state’s emancipation from Judaism, Christianity, and religion. In its form, in the manner characteristic of its nature, the state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion…
Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property fails to abolish private property and even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, and occupation when it declares that birth, social rank, education, and occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to this distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the country from the standpoint of the state. Nevertheless, the state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way – i.e., as private property, as education, as occupation, and to exert the influence of their unique nature… Man, as the adherent of a particular religion, finds himself in conflict with his citizenship and with other men as members of the community. This conflict reduces itself to the secular division between the political state and civil society. For man as a bourgeois [i.e., as a member of civil society, “bourgeois society” in German], “life in the state” is “only a semblance or a temporary exception to the essential and the rule.” Of course, the bourgeois, like the Jew, remains only sophistically in political life, just as the citizen in French, i.e., the participant in political life] only sophistically remains a Jew or a bourgeois. But, this sophistry is not personal. It is the sophistry of the political state itself. The difference between the merchant and the citizen [Staatsbürger], between the day laborer and the citizen, between the landowner and the citizen, between the merchant and the citizen, and between the living individual and the citizen. The contradiction in which the religious man finds himself with the political man is the same contradiction in which the bourgeois finds himself with the citoyen and the member of civil society with his political lion’s skin….
Therefore, we do not say to the Jews, as Bauer does: You cannot be emancipated politically without emancipating yourselves radically from Judaism. On the contrary, we tell them: Because you can be emancipated politically without renouncing Judaism completely and incontrovertibly, political emancipation itself is not human emancipation. If you Jews want to be emancipated politically, without emancipating yourselves humanly, the half-hearted approach and contradiction is not in you alone, it is inherent in the nature and category of political emancipation. If you find yourself within the confines of this category, you share in a general confinement. Just as the state evangelizes when, although it is a state, it adopts a Christian attitude towards the Jews, so the Jew acts politically when, although a Jew, he demands civic rights” [iii]
Needless to say, the Zionists and their supporters condemn the essay of Marx as anti-Semitism.
Then, the book of Abraham Leon, The Jewish Question based on Marx, appeared in the 1960s.
In 1968 the publication of Abram Leon’s The Jewish Question reappeared. This was a great study document, buried away since the war. Maxime Rodinson had brought it to the light of day at the Sorbonne University in Paris.
Abram Leon led a Trotskyist revolutionary socialist group in Nazi-occupied Belgium. He was captured and died in Auschwitz. Remarkably, he had written the manuscript under these wartime conditions at 24, influenced by Marx on the Jewish question.
Leon developed Marx’s original essay and a convincing study of Jewish history In Europe, locating the growing historical trading function of Jewish communities from antiquity to modernity at the root of Jewish survival. As pre capitalist financiers, Leon argued that the Jewish trading communities were excluded from the rise of capitalism from the 13th century onwards, despite their long history—or, in fact, because of this history, since they were seen as potential competitors by new Christian traders and financiers in the developing capitalist economies.
Leon wrote: “When the enemy of the Jews, Gonzalo Matiguez, offered the king of Castile three million pieces of gold on condition that he would expel the Jews, Bishop Don Gil replied to him: “The Jews are a treasure to the king, a veritable treasure! And you, you want to drive them out …. You are then no less an enemy of the king than you are of the Jews ….” Again, in 1307, following upon a resolution of the Castilian priests against Jewish usury, the king prohibits raising any difficulties for the Jews. “The Jews,” states a decree on this subject, “belong to the king to whom they pay taxes, and that is the reason why it is impossible to permit any limitation whatever on their economic life because this would be prejudicial to the royal The reason for this attitude is not difficult to understand. The Jews constituted a source of considerable revenue for the kings. For example, in Spain, Jewish financiers, the Ravia brothers, made it possible for the Castilian kings to bring the war against the Moors to a successful conclusion. Other Jewish bankers supported the Spanish kings in their struggle against the nobility A special fiscal organization, constituted for collecting Jewish taxes, functioned in several countries. In England, the Scaccarium Judaeorum permitted the registration of all Jewish business affairs, and the recovery of loans was done through its agency. It was directed by a committee of seven members, three Jews, two Christians, and two appointees of the king. Each credit operation brought in ten percent to the royal treasury.
But, In the more developed countries, where usury is no longer anything but an anachronism, the kings have far fewer scruples about pillaging the Jews. Soon the sole important financial power will be that of the bourgeoisie, basing itself on the development of the economy, and in the eyes of the king, the Jews will lose all interest. What are the “Jewish bankers” compared to financiers like the Fuggers and the Medicis? Here is what Schipper says in regard to the importance of these “Jewish bankers”: “As regards the importance of the capital of the Jewish bankers of Italy, we have only found two wealthy families among the Jewish capitalists. But what were they in comparison with such magnates as the Medicis who, around 1440, possessed half a million florins, or Agostino Chigi, who in 1520, left eight hundred thousand ducats!” Jewish bankers had at their disposal only several thousand florins…. It goes without saying that under these conditions, the Jews could no longer be of interest to the kings. The era of the great Jewish magnates who supported the royal power against its domestic and foreign enemies was closed. “The increasing expenditure which war imposed upon the state or the princes compelled the latter to find some new means of replenishing their treasuries; for now that bands of mercenaries and fleets were playing a more significant part in warfare, it was becoming more costly than ever. The old sources of revenue were insufficient …. Consequently, the only thing to be done was to apply to the Third Estate—that is, to the cities—and to ask them to open their purses.
The commercial monopoly of the Jews was one of the greatest obstacles that the nascent bourgeoisie had to surmount. Destruction of the commercial domination of the Jews was the precondition for its development.
It was not a question of a struggle between two national or religious groups for commercial supremacy but a conflict between two classes, each representing a different economic system. The apparent national competition only reflects the transition from a feudal economy to an exchange economy. The Jews ruled commerce in the epoch when “the great proprietors bought works of refinement and objects of luxury of great price against large quantities of the raw materials from their lands.” The industrial development of Western Europe put an end to their monopoly. [In struggling against the Jews, the native traders were rising up against an outmoded economic function which appeared more and more as an intolerable exploitation of the country by foreigners”[iv]
The Jews as pre-capitalist financiers, became an obstacle to the development of capital, not less than the slavery in the South Confederation in the USA. Losing their usefulness for the ruling class, the Jews were not necessary, and this led to modern anti-Semitism against the Jews and to the holocaust. The only solution for the Jews was not to convert to Christianity or the capitalist state but the socialist society where the state and religion die a natural death.
“Hanna Arendt, in her book ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, begins her analysis by distinguishing between traditional religious anti-Judaism and modern political antisemitism. The former was rooted in religious differences and existed for centuries before the latter emerged as a political and social phenomenon in the nineteenth century. This political form of antisemitism was not based on religious dogma but on the perception of Jews as a distinct, hostile race or ethnic group that posed a threat to the nation.
Arndt goes on to discuss how Jews, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, traditionally occupied a restricted range of economic roles, some of which, however, such as in finance and trade, gave them high visibility in certain vital sectors of the economy, which made them very convenient targets during periods of economic distress. In times of crisis, Jews were often scapegoated and held responsible for the financial woes of the broader population.
Arndt links this to the idea that Jews had disproportionate influence and power, especially in financial circles. This real phenomenon was of course, vastly exaggerated by antisemitic propaganda, which portrayed Jews as controlling national and even global finance.
The decline of the traditional nation-state in the late nineteenth century, alongside the rise of mass politics and nationalism, created fertile ground for antisemitism. As older forms of social and political order disintegrated, new nationalist movements sought to unify the nation by identifying a common enemy, often choosing Jews for this role. The liberal bourgeoisie, which had previously protected Jewish communities by integrating them into the broader economic and social fabric of society, began to lose its influence and power. This decline left Jews vulnerable, as they were now seen as outsiders who were neither fully assimilated nor entirely accepted. In examining how antisemitism functioned within the broader power structures of European society, Arndt draws attention to the decline of the nation-state and the liberal bourgeoisie, showing how these changes made it possible to scapegoat the Jews at times of social and economic crisis. Her approach highlights how antisemitism was manipulated to serve the interests of political elites and emerging mass movements, moreover in connecting the rise of antisemitism to the broader context of European imperialism and the attendant development of racial ideologies. Arndt suggests that the dehumanization and racial thinking that was used to justify European colonialism also came to influence attitudes toward Jews in Europe. This connection between imperialism and antisemitism is a distinctive feature of Arndt’s analysis, as she places antisemitism within the larger framework of European expansion and domination” [v]
Part II
Zionism
The Zionist movement was born as a Jewish nationalist reaction to Anti-Semitism. Unlike the Jews who joined the revolutionary movement, the goal of the Zionists was to colonize Palestine and establish itself as a military power to serve the interest of the imperialist’s control of the region and to gain their support and thus replace the financial role with a military one.
Theodore Herzl was openly on the side of the European imperialists against the ‘backward’ non-European peoples. Here are his words from his 1896 treatise on The Jewish State:
“There [in Palestine] we shall be a sector of the wall of Europe against Asia, we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against barbarism.”
At the Second Zionist Conference on 28 August 1898 in Basel, Switzerland, Max Nordau dedicated a passionate speech to muscular Judaism:.
“Zionism breathes new life into Judaism. This much I am sure of. It does this morally by refreshing the ideals of the People, physically by the physical education of our offspring, who shall reestablish a bygone muscular Judaism.”
Three months later in a report titled, “Muscular Judaism,” for the new association newspaper, Jüdische Turnzeitung, Nordau described the new Jew as the “last, globally historic embodiment of a battle-hardened, weapon-ready Judaism.” He called on Jews to “connect with our oldest traditions: (Then) we’ll again be broad-chested, strong-armed, bold-looking men.” [vi]
The thinking hasn’t changed much from Herzl’s time, though the language may be less obvious and blunt. As activist Uri Avnery wrote in 2004 (in an article from the Palestine Chronicle):
“[Herzl’s] sentence could easily be written today. American thinkers propound the ‘clash of civilizations’, with Western ‘Judeo-Christian’ culture battling ‘Islamic barbarism’. American leaders declare that Israel is the outpost of Western civilization in the fight against Arab-Muslim ‘international terrorism’.
Israel is located in a region in which Arabs and Muslims vastly outnumbered them. They were able to gain their state only because Stalinism and Western powers supported them at crucial junctures
“Israel’s development (and expansion) since 1948 cannot be understood in isolation from Western policies in the Middle East. Israel is a small country with a population of only 8.2 million. If Israel did not have powerful Western governments on its side, it would not have become the dominant military power in the region.
Without Western support, Israel would not have been able to invade and occupy Lebanon repeatedly over thirty years, causing immense damage to its civilian infrastructure – most notably, in 1982 and 2006 – while killing, either directly or through proxy forces, tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians (typically refugees) and displacing hundreds of thousands of people over this period.
Nor would Israel be able to threaten Iran – as it has been doing in recent years – because of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons. Whereas Iran is subjected to international pressure and inspections simply because it has nuclear technology, Israel is permitted its estimated stockpile of 200 nuclear weapons without any murmur of protest from the ‘international community’ – a code word for ‘the Western powers’ or simply ‘the US imperialism nor would Israel commit the genocide in Gaza and occupy Another part of Syria”
Without Western support, Israel would not be able to continue ignoring annual UN resolutions demanding it withdraw from the Palestinian territories (including East Jerusalem), which it conquered in June 1967. It would not be able to reject the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation (UN Resolution 194), and it would not be able to keep on (illegally) expanding Jewish ‘settlements’ in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Without Western support, Israel would not be able to ignore the July 2004 advisory opinion of the World Court, constructing a long-winding ‘separation wall’ which effectively annexes valuable parts of the West Bank within an expanded Israel. And it would not be able to supplement this with a system of Israeli-only paved roads and highways (with separate dirt roads and paths for Palestinians) and countless military checkpoints and installations, which make it impossible for Palestinians to move freely within their own homeland.
Israel would not be able, without Western complicity and support, to effectively carve up the West Bank into a fragmented system of impoverished Bantus tan-like ghettos in which Palestinians are supposed to be confined for the rest of their lives. Nor would it be possible for Israel, without any fear of international sanctions, to transform Gaza – one of the most densely populated areas in the world – into an ‘open air prison’, sealing its borders, controlling its airspace and patrolling its seashores.
Nor would Israel be able mercilessly to bomb Gaza into rubble and kill more than 50,000 people, most of them women and children.” [vii]
Thus, the existence of Israel depends on the support from Western imperialism as long as it can prove that it is helpful for them as a powerful state. However, Israel lost the war against the small force of the resistance in Gaza, and such a defeat raised the question for the leaders of Western imperialism: Is Israel a strategic asset or liability?
Once Israel is proven as not a powerful state that can defend the pro-imperialist Arab states, it will be its end, and the false friends of the Jews will be the most Anti-Semitics. Zionism is a false messianic solution that, like another Jewish messianic movement in History, can only fail. The only solution to the Jewish question is a socialist society.
Down with the Zionist monster!
For the Arab revolution!
For Palestine, red and free from the river to the sea!
Endnotes:
[i] Bauer, Y. (1993). Baiyot bekheker ha-antishemiut [Recent problems in the research
of antisemitism]. Michael: Measef le Toldot ha-yehudim betefotzet [Michael: On the
History of the Jews in http://www.jstor.org/stable/23496020 the Diaspora 13,
39–51.
[ii] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/wilhelm-marr
[iii] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
[iv] https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/leon/ch3b.htm#a
[v] https://medium.com/@evansd66/hannah-arendt-on-antisemitism-6e352396cada
[vi] https://www.jmberlin.de/en/essay-muscle-jews
[vii] https://www.palestinechronicle.com/herzls-vision-realized-israel-as-outpost-of-western-civilisation-in-asia/