portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

anti-racism | imperialism & war | political theory

Misc. Selected Passages From “On the Jewish Question” – Karl Marx

Communist Study Corner: Excerpts from "On the Jewish Question"- Karl Marx, "Foundations Of Leninism"- Josef V. Stalin, and Various Passages from Marshal Kim Jong Il on the Role of the Leader

 http://irsn.jeeran.com/cscmarxstalin.html

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. 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. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Misc. Selected Passages From "On the Jewish Question" - Karl Marx


"You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule."

"In wanting to be emancipated from the Christian state, the Jew is demanding that the Christian state should give up its religious prejudice. Does he, the Jew, give up his religious prejudice? Has he, then, the right to demand that someone else should renounce his religion?"

" 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 [here, meaning, member of civil society, private life ], "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 the sphere of political life, just as the citoyen 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, between the day-laborer and the citizen, between the landowner and the citizen, between the merchant and the citizen, 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. "

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. 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. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. "

"An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical _expression of human self-estrangement. "

"We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. "

"In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism"

"This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. "

"Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal _expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals. "

"Judaism continues to exist not in spite of history, but owning to history."

"The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails. "

"What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism."

"The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many needs, a polytheism which makes even the lavatory an object of divine law. Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state. The god of practical need and self-interest is money."

"Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it. "

"The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange."

"The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination."

"The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

"The groundless law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself."

"Here, too, man's supreme relation is the legal one, his relation to laws that are valid for him not because they are laws of his own will and nature, but because they are the dominant laws and because departure from them is avenged."

"Jewish Jesuitism, the same practical Jesuitism which Bauer discovers in the Talmud, is the relation of the world of self-interest to the laws governing that world, the chief art of which consists in the cunning circumvention of these laws."

"By its very nature, the religion of practical need could find its consummation not in theory, but only in practice, precisely because its truth is practice."

"Judaism could not create a new world; it could only draw the new creations and conditions of the world into the sphere of its activity, because practical need, the rationale of which is self-interest, is passive and does not expand at will, but finds itself enlarged as a result of the continuous development of social conditions."

"From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become a Jew again."

"Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies."

"Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity, but this application could only become general after Christianity as a developed religion had completed theoretically the estrangement of man from himself and from nature.

Only then could Judaism achieve universal dominance and make alienated man and alienated nature into alienable, vendible objects subjected to the slavery of egoistic need and to trading."

"Consequently, not only in the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but in present-day society we find the nature of the modern Jew, and not as an abstract nature but as one that is in the highest degree empirical, not merely as a narrowness of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism -- huckstering and its preconditions -- the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, nd because the conflict between man's individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism."

homepage: homepage: http://irsn.jeeran.com/digest1.html


no reason to be anti-Jewsih 25.Jul.2004 20:57

Marx's mother

Dude, the man was obviously falling for the inaccurate stereotypes of his day. Unfortunately, all stereotypes have a kernal of truth--that's why they're so successful and so deadly. Have you ever wondered why Jews became merchants and money lenders?

Have you ever considered that they learned merchanting from the Phonecians when they were enslaved,

that they were not allowed to own land or engage in other professions,

that they were already scattered and found merchanting one way of staying alive or even of being accepted into societies that would otherwise not have them,

that specifically in money-lending they established a symbiotic relationship with groups for whom such behavior was prohibited and those groups in exchange performed services forbidden to Jews.



Hey, I'm no Zionist, but that's no reason to feed the flames of hate and historical genocide. Jews are part of the traditional oppression of setting oppressed groups against each other so they don't focus on the real oppressors. Sure, many Jews have been complicit while many have led the rebellions. Wasn't Karl Marx of Jewish descent? Marx's philosophy is often considered good reason to be anti-Jewish, and is part of that deadly Jewish/communist/banker/media conspiracy to rule the world. Hmmm. Looks to me like the real rules are WASP. And no, I don't consider that a reason to be anti-WASP

yes, Marx was ashkenazi 25.Jul.2004 23:45

eek

That's pronounced with a soft "z", by the way.

It's kind of sad, really. While some prominent socialist thinkers back then were antisemites (actually, Marx was the only one who incorporated this into his theorem; others like Proudhon and Bakunin kept it separate from their writings), the rank-and-file were largely Jewish. On the other hand, capitalist propaganda was packed with grotesque caricatures of hook-nosed bomb-throwing anarchists and whatnot.

Then again, this is all back in the late 1800s-early 1900s. Things change.

Blood Libels, Et. Al. 26.Jul.2004 00:02

A Sense Of History

>On the other hand, capitalist propaganda was packed with grotesque caricatures of hook-nosed bomb-throwing anarchists and whatnot.

>Then again, this is all back in the late 1800s-early 1900s. Things change.

Not as much as you might think, apparently, given current media coverage...

On this Piece 26.Jul.2004 09:18

John Paul Cupp, anti_imperialist_solidarity@yahoo.com

First Karl Marx was NOT a Jew. His mother was a Jewess that converted to Lutheranism years and years before he was born. Marx was raised in a Luthern home, as a Lutheran, and in a Lutheran Neighborhood. When Comrades say a revolutionary "jew" said this or said that, it is a slap in the face to marx. In fact, MARX WAS AN ATHEIST. Had he been raised a Jew instead of a Lutheran, we have every reason to believe that his stance would have been correct in saying that one can not be an athiest and a Jew anymore than an antheist and an Lutheran.


We find some valuable lessons in this piece
1. It is 100% OKAY TO ATTACK JUDAHISM AND NOT JUST ZIONISM ON AN IDEOLOGICAL LEVEL. Do we have to pretend that the ideological aspects of a religion which are based on a caste system over the goyim, sent by g-d's will, and an illusionary nationality based on this being chosen people, is compatable with progressive values? No we do not! Is this the same as eugenics or racism? Of course not.


2. The "jews" are a RELIGIOUS GROUP (OR LACK OF) AND NOT A NATIONALITY.
Their is no right to "jewish" self-determination anymore than their is for mormans, shia, or hara krishas. At the same time we support fully the REAL national liberation struggles of the Irish, Arabs, Puerto Ricans, etc.

3. The basis of Zionism (Israel or Territorialsim) is MONEY WORSHIP AND NOT A MALFORMED RESPONSE TO "ANTI-SEMITISM". This is a real key, because it exposes the level of opertunism on the left with regards to the Zionist Entity.
Their would be no debate that the Afrkaner Apartheid Appartus was not based on a malformed response of various european working classes to their upper classes. Their would be no thought of letting them off the hook. Of course, the Zionist Entity is 100xs worse than living in South Africa ever was. Zionism is a qualitative and quantitative stage in the epoch of world reaction. Shall we, frankly, call it the Judahism of the era of imperialism? This was something I once saw suggested on the Free Arab Voice. Perhaps, when Christ, and the cross, with the blood of the native people, when the excuse was "saving the savage", and Divine calling was the excuse, behind Christianity ( really isn't this its return to a Talmudic basis for both Christ and Muhammed stood as rebell in oposition to Judahism)was this not the Christianity of Colonialism?

4.
Also we see that the question of the jew and "anti-semitism" in Europe was not the same as the question of the African slave descendant and the anglo in the US. In fact one is a two way street of mutual chauvenism in power and dirty tricks. The other is a clear onslaught against an innocent victim whose identity and humanity has been robbed.


The answer to the Jewish Question has always been the assimiliation of the Jew into the working class alongside the Catholic, Protestant,and Agnostic, etc.
The Jew is neither a racial group nor nationality (and of course their is no basis for self-determination based on race alone, eith).
Everything Marx said in this classic piece is as valid now as ever including the general attack on the religious man, including in his secular form were god is not the dollar bill, and in wide spread is humanity's estranged relationship with nature.


actually, jewish is an ethnic group as well as a religion. 26.Jul.2004 11:18

""

one doesn't have to accept the religion to be jewish. if marx's mother was ethnically jewish, even if he denied the religion, he is still part of the ethnic grouping. when you lump an entire ethnic group together and malign them, you are racist. people cannot choose to be part of that group or not--they can choose the religion, but not the ethnicity. you hate babies who are born jewish, cupp? you represent the worst kind of unthinking racism.

Things DO change 26.Jul.2004 11:39

GRINGO STARS

As much as Judaism clings to its holocaust-era air of victimhood in order to justiofy the claims of a faux-Jewish Zionist regime in Israel, it is Arab and Muslim people who are scapegoated much, much worse than Jews are today. The anti-Arab/Muslim prejudice is all over the Western World.

Marx's writing in the Jewish Question also protected religious freedom for all in a communist or socialist state, saying that religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of such a political system. Conveniently quoting those passages which sound vaguely anti-Jewish may meet some peoples' agenda, but it is not representative of reality.
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Marx was commenting that Jews of his day wanted Jewish emancipation at a time when no one had any emancipation. He asked how could they emancipate themselves humanly if the basis of theior emancipation was based on their Judaism? It is their prejudice of being God's Chosen that they cannot deign to consider themselves part of humanity which is part of the problem. It is these unpleasant facts about Judaism which muddy the waters. One cannot call "antisemitism" when confronted with the real superiority complex of the Jewish faith.

Luckily, I have never met a Jew who believes such nonsense. Most Jewish people, at least that I meet, are about as Jewish as a ham sandwhich. Things definitely change.

"most jewish people are about as jewish..." 26.Jul.2004 13:58

stop being a bigot

WHAT? They ARE Jewish. It's also an ethnic grouping.

"Most black people are about as black as..."

Think about what you're saying, and how racist it is. Criticize zionism and Israel, fine. But to talk about "Jews" and what you perceive to be their bad characteristics is as racist as talking about blacks, arabs, or any other group in that way.

A little logic, please. 26.Jul.2004 18:37

Derek Smalls

There seems to be a lot of confusion arising from the vagueness of the term "jew". It seems abundantly clear to me that Marx and John Paul Cupp are refering to "jews" solely as a set of people defined as adherents to the religion of Judaism. Everyone else who has posted seem to be referring to "jews" as a set of people of a certain ethnic/genetic background. A child could recognize the clear difference between the two defintions.

Since the posters assuming the latter definition seem to be attempting to refute the claims made by Marx and Cupp, they clearly fail based on the discrepancy between the defintions of the key term, "jew".

It's interesting to note, that this same vagueness, that allows zionists to quell intellgent debate about the role of zionism in world affairs amongst logically-challenged individuals, is also used by neo-nazis and other such racists to instill hatred and fear in other logically-challenged individuals. The moral of the story is, logical discourse generally arises not just from discussion between intellgent people, but between intellgent people with a thorough understanding of reason and logic. Now go read a book on logic please.

jp and gringo seem to make no distinction between the 26.Jul.2004 19:13

dialogue is lost in threads like these

ethnic group, the religious group, and israel. it is nondesciptive and racist to just say "the jews" and brand them with all the racist stereotypes that have been around for ages. whether jews agree with israel's policies or not, they are still jewish, and aren't going to be able to throw off their ethnic or religious heritage just because fuckwads like gringo and cupp can't make a distinction. i've seen other posts where they say "jews" in general deserve any crap and oppression they get around the world because of israel. as if some starving jew in ethiopia is responsible for the political system of israel. so is every black person here responsible for the bloodshed in sudan? should every white person here be shot for what whites did in south africa? i'm sick of seeing indymedia polluted by the periodic posting of marx's racist crap and other polemics that don't describe the problem or attempt to move towards solutions, but are apparently around simply to bait the jews and allow some to express their anger at israel and not so suble racism. well, we're ALL living on occupied land in america--so go fuck off and shoot yourself and give the native americans back their land. that's as helpful as threads like this end up being. i have so much disgust at seeing threads like this it inspires me to learn nothing about the palestinians and their racist supporters who post shit like this. it turns people away from the cause, and creates more hatred all around. good job jp and gringo.

p.s. 26.Jul.2004 19:38

Derek Smalls

I spelled "intelligent" wrong twice in the same sentence on purpose. I swear.

Nacazi = Nazi False Flag Operation 26.Jul.2004 20:29

majdur

Nacazi is a transparent false flag operation intending to inject CIA configured neo-Nazism into the Left. We have to remember that it is not only the project of the CIA, et al, to attack the Left in militant ways but also, and on this occasion mainly, to lead the Left into extreme errors that cause irrepairable damage to our cause.

Nacazi is a Nazi operation on its face which is being allowed to disseminate reactionary ideology into a Left forum where no other Nazi group would dare, or be allowed, to tread. On the ground that certain individuals within the PDX IMC collective know JP Cupp personally from his involvement in the Homeless Front he is allowed to conduct a CIA manufactured "black bag operation" in plain view. The adoption of the anacronym "Nacazi" is obviously a metanym for "Nazi".

It is plain that "Nacazi" an onomonopoetic "seme" or "sign" for "Nazi". Nacazi arouses the the linguistic Nazi though it intendes to precess the corresponding accusation "you Nazi" by the displacement of a few linguistic characters as if "Qwest" doesn't say "Quest" and therefore "Shop" and "Shoppee" are as unrelated as "Labor" and Labour". If it were not enough that "Nazi" and "Nacazi" were spelled differently the politics of "Nazi" and "Nacazi" are the same.

On these grounds, the IMC collective must assert that JP Cupp is in violation of IMC editorial policy since he is either a Nazi or a CIA agent pretending to be not only a Nazi, but a socialist and an Arab freedom fighter. JP Cupp is either a cop or the unwitting stooge of a cop.

one problem is terminology 26.Jul.2004 21:45

eek

There isn't a set standard of what means what. Here's a starter, not complete:

Jew: Ethnic or religiously Jewish. Used as a noun (A Jew, That Jew, Jew get out of here, etc.), can be used as an insult. Used as a verb, always an insult.
Jewish: Ethnic or religiously Jewish.
Jews: Plural of Jewish.
Ashkenazi/Ashkenazim: Ethnic European Jew.
Sephardic/Sephardim: Ethnic Mediterranean, North African, or Middle Eastern Jew.
Palestinian: Arab (or one's descendant) forcibly removed from present-day Israel. Admittedly, this definition is pretty much universal, except that Zionists argue that Palestinians don't exist, since there is no "Palestine" (the end result is, it makes it much easier to wash their hands of the brutality inflicted upon the Palestinians).
Anti-Zionist (1): An advocate for Palestinian rights, seeking a two-state or one-state solution to the conflict. Generally seeks to reconcile the Israelis and Palestinians. Examples: Noam Chomsky, Tikkun.
Anti-Zionist (2): One who seeks to wipe Israel and its inhabitants off the map. Diametrically opposite from the first definition. Example: Hamas.
Anti-Zionist (3): Anti-Semite. Examples: Poland circa 1968, neo-Nazis, the NOI.
Anti-Semite: One who hates Jews. The etymology is a Gordian knot; I'll let the link explain it.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

REGARDING THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL:

Jews: Inaccurate at best, antisemitic at worst.
Zionists: Accurate, though "Zionist" is frequently used by neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists as a way of saying "Jew bastards". Kind of like how people use terms like "welfare mothers" and "inner city youth" instead of saying "the N word".
Israelis: I like this term best, though it's not very accurate. Similar to using the term "Americans" to identify who does shit like Bhopal.

I'm disappointed that Indymedia allows this 26.Jul.2004 22:03

observer

to remain up on the main site. The original post isn't even ABOUT Zionism or Israel, it's simply about how scummy "the Jews" are! It's not an analysis of Israel or anything. Substitute in any other group, and you'd be hearing calls of racist etc., certainly not a defense. Substitute in "Arab" for "Jew" and see how it sounds. The editorial staff should be ashamed for this crap and called out on their racism.

it seems the ops have gone fishing or something 26.Jul.2004 22:16

eek

since yes, a lot of threads that should have been composted haven't.

Actually, they always allow this 26.Jul.2004 22:32

-

article to stay up, as it's periodically posted-

always 26.Jul.2004 22:42

just a jew

I remember learning that when answering a true/false question that contained the word "always" or "never" to lean toward false because the statement would almost always not not always) be false). I know it doesn't take very much effort to find this in the compost bin. We need to have this conversation from time to time and it wouldn't happen if every post was composted. I know I read stuff in the compost bin from time to time but rarely do I see much of a dialog. But then I doubt these comments are even legitimate. It's just a time of action and people trying to paint this site as "anti-semitic" while others claim that it's controlled by the zionists (as I'm sure JP would tell you). You aren't allowed to comment on stories corporate media sites; here you are, to provide correction, discussion, and denouncement. I've liked many of the posts here, and they wouldn't have come without this story. I don't want to see the newswire overrun with racist posts but I do not wish to see an end to these discussion either. Think about it if you truly care about the content here.

Another comment 27.Jul.2004 02:51

Derek Smalls

The crux of all Marx's critiques of the jews, were naturally based on generalizations of all european jews. The crux of all anti-semites critiques of jews are based on generalizations. The crux of all fervent pro-semites critiques of jews are based on generalization. A generalization of a given set of individuals, is a sort of mode average of all characteristics of all individuals in that set.

Naturally, in order to prove/disprove Marx's theses on the "jews", whomever the may be, one would first have to clearly understand the intended defintions of *all* terms used, down to the most seemingly simple words. If anyone wants to indulge this fancy please play along by clearly answering this question. What *exactly* did he mean by the term jew? As I've said before, unless there's a clear consensus on that question, all further debate is absolutly pointless.

If however, a consensus was reached on his definition, you could then proceed to look at each of his statements to see if they all meet the criteria for sound reasoning. Being that Marx was well versed in the conventions of logic, it seems to me the area he would be most likely to fall short when it comes to this topic, would be where so many others fall short when talking about "the jews", that is, working from false premises, namely stemming from inaccurate generalizations.

However, merely calling him a racist anti-semite doesn't acheive anything, without further justification. I'm really not saying he wasn't a racist anti-semite, but I'm not going to accept that he was just because someone says so, no matter how confidently/indignantly they say it.

As a final note, if you truly want people to see things as you do, from your perspective, try laying out your arguments in a clear, logically-sound manner. If you can't, maybe your perspective isn't all that great. If you just plain refuse to, well, I guess us enlightened few will just have to guess what your real intentions are. (that goes for any real or imagined subversive neo-nazis or cointelpro ops alike)

o.k., I thought about it. Let's start posting 27.Jul.2004 10:15

<><><><>

polemics on "the black problem" and "the arab problem" and "the gay problem" now, since some might "need" to discuss it. This article had nothing to do with zionism and Israel, it was about "the jews." And it's such a helpful discussion that we all "need" to have, to make generalizations about an entire group of people, to no seeming end except making some feel secure in their racism and some feel appalled that on a site like Indy that this targetting of this group alone gets to stand. Very constructive. Unfortunately, posts like this about any other group would not be allowed to stand. Find an article from a century ago about "the black question"--it won't be hard. See how long it lasts on the main board, and what kinds of comments are on it. You won't find racists like yourself defending it.

Chosen for what? 27.Jul.2004 13:26

Marx's mother

Thanks for posting all the good info, especially about Nacazi.

I've been hearing this line about being "chosen" recently. The term certainly seems to have created some bad feelings. I asked one friend, "Chosen for what? Looks like they have historically been chosen the be shit on."


Actually, as I understand it, they were "chosen" to obey the Hebrew law. Anyone else who wanted to obey the law could. Yet they did not necessarily see that others had to obey that law (proseletyzing is against Hebrew law). Obeying the law was onerous and they believed the consequences of not obeying--like karma--could devastate the entire community.

I believe it's some Christians who have emphasized the concept of being chosen--obviously if Jews don't believe in Christ, they can't be saved. However, receiving the law was such an honor, Christians need to find a way out for Jews, so some have told me Jews may not believe in Christ but may be saved anyway because they are "God's chosen."

Since Jews do not believe in original sin, they do not need to be saved. I believe that to Jews, the concept of being chosen has more to do with being chosen to record the events of receiving the law--literacy and study were cultural cornerstones, so Jewish religious work involved debating and recording, quite different from the required work of other religions.

I regret that this concept has caused so much misunderstanding, and I believe that misunderstanding results in many anti-Jewish feelings.

The fact that Jews are linked with capitalism further clouds the issue. I don't like capitalism either, and Jews were actively involved in its inception along with the Dutch East India Company. However, many non-Jews have furthered capitalism as well.

By the way, I am an atheist, ethnically Jewish, and Dutch Sephardic.

It is not uncommon to find atheist Jews, even those practicing some form of Judaism. Because the religion is works based rather than faith based, this concept is not an oxymoron in the milder forms of Judaism.

Jews HAVE been historically oppressed--and badly. Some have also been oppressors. Some have even oppressed other Jews. All of these characteristics are human. However, detailed Jewish history make it relatively easy to study human characteristics when under pressure. Jewish history is a lesson for all groups. Complicity never saved anyone's neck. So don't sidle up to the bad guys in power.

Stupid me. 27.Jul.2004 13:34

Derek Smalls

I thought possibly this could be turned into a constructive conversation out of the otherwise not-so important topic of Marx's views on "the jews", as opposed to a bunch of senseless name calling, and knee-jerk calls of racism. For any active anti-racists out there, if you haven't noticed, neo-nazis and other WP groups have more and more at least made attempts at veiling their ideology in reason. You might want to start doing the same. You know, fight fire with fire kind of thing. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.

To "dialogue is lost in threads like these" 27.Jul.2004 13:40

GRINGO STARS

Actually I make very concise distinctions between Jews and Zionists. The last sentence of my previous comment clearly referred only to my personal experience, and by "as Jewish as a ham sandwich" I meant "not religious." I thought I was being clear. Either i wasn't or you want to intentionally misrepresent what I say. Which very well might be the case since I NEVER equate Zionists with Jews, because those terms are not equitable. apparently you have never read any of my comments?

Dialog only gets lost when people start calling those they disagree with "fuckwads" and any honest discussion is intentionally thrown out the window. My previous comment was commenting directly on the origional post, whereas yours was not. Don't cast the first stone... etc etc.

To "stop being a bigot" - as I said, I was only speaking of my personal experiences. I have radical friends who don't believe in a santa clause in the sky who treats some better than others. It's just my experience. And their experience is that they are derided as "bad Jews" by those that truly consider themselves Chosen Ones. It's the 21st century now. Apparently your experience is different.

gringo, you step into threads like these 27.Jul.2004 19:47

disagree

talking about zionists and israel and jews. did you happen to read the original post that started it all? it says nothing about israel and zionism. when you start talking about the wrongs of the jews and the israeli political system in the context of a racist post--never noticing the racism but adding more fuel to the fire--you are part of the problem. I don't expect you to understand.

gringo--try to read that initial post 27.Jul.2004 19:50

disagree

as someone either yourself born jewish, or someone who might care about someone born jewish. no fault of your own. see if you can see why someone might be pissed and use a word like fuckwad. see if you can see how deeply offensive and racist that post is, and how offensive it is when people defend it. once again, I doubt you can.

understanding starts with oneself, not with others 27.Jul.2004 20:52

messenger

"see if you can see how deeply offensive and racist that post is, and how offensive it is when people defend it"

"never noticing the racism but adding more fuel to the fire--you are part of the problem"

"If all muslims believe this way, then fuck them, fuck you, and I hope you'll stop polluting this country with your mindless hate"

One may find it beneficial and important to deal with one's own racism before critiquing others.

o.k. "messenger"--I agree, I got mad and 28.Jul.2004 01:16

mea culpa

lashed out. I think my comments in the context of what I was responding to specifically are understandable in their anger, but I should be bigger than that, and need to respond with more reason or walk away. You're right to call me on it, and I apologize for comments that I let get out of hand.

More reason, less mindless anger 28.Jul.2004 02:17

GRINGO STARS

I'm glad you can admit your mistakes, "disagree."

Yes, I mentioned Israel (once) in order to make the distinction between Jews and Zionists. Some people apparently still do not understand the difference. Do you believe that Zionists and Jews are the same thing? Is that why the reaction? Orthodox Jews, as well as politically progressive Jews, would both heartily disagree with you.

Dialog is lost only if it is actively discarded by one or more conversant. Otherwise, discussion can continue. I think dialog is important.

I don't like ANY religion. Every Jew I have ever happened to personally know agrees. Do not take offense with reality. Perhaps it is different for you. Perhaps you hang with religious types. Maybe I have known only younger radical Jews.

There is a current propagandic attempt by many to portray ANY discussion of Israel as "antisemtic" and that is untrue. There is supposedly a "new antisemitism" (i.e. legitimate criticism of Israel's crimes, which is not anti-Jewish but rather anti-Zionist).

Taken out of the context of Marx's dialogs with other intellectuals of the time, certain isolated quotes sound very anti-Jewish. But Marx's whole work should be read. I read the original post with disgust, because of the inaccurate and slanted agenda it has, which is at odds with what Marx is actually saying in that ENTIRE work, which I linked to above.

Zionism deserve nothing but resistance and scorn. It is a murderous political movement. But no one should harbor anti-Jewish sentiment for any reason. I don't equate Israel with Jews but many do, although it is a completely inaccurate equation. This is WHY the vitriol from the original post and its organization and JP Cupp's schtick, etc. Discussion is the only way out of this problem.

Zionists are not Jews, even though they falsely claim to be. Zionists give Jews a bad name worldwide, with their racial supremicism and their genocide against Arabs in Israel. Zionists give lie to anti-semitism everywhere, inspiring every mouth-breathing neo-Nazi by acting the villains.

"The entire existence of the tumei regime [the Zionist "State"] is in opposition to our holy Torah in a manner that has not been precedent... and anyone who possesses even a thought that there is necessity for [the existence of] their "State", this constitutes acquiescence to idol worship without a doubt... and there is no doubt in my mind that we would already be in the period after the Messiah's arrival if not for this tzureh [Zionism] prevalent in the world."
-- Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum

"The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism."
-- Rabbi V. Soloveichik

"Not via our desire did we leave the land of Israel, and not via our power will we come back to the land of Israel."
-- Rabbi S.D. Schneerson

"[The Torah] forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means"
-- Rabbi S. R. Hirsch

So are these Rabbis Jew-Haters?
They are strongly against Zionism.

There are organisations of Jews against Zionism. To list just a couple:

JEWS UNITED AGAINST ZIONISM
 http://www.nkusa.org/

JEWS AGAINST ZIONISM
 http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

And besides these groups, there are well over a hundred JEWISH groups for a free Palestine. Links found at:
 http://www.eccmei.net/~eccmei/j/orgs.html