–Leon Trotsky, 1937
Dexter, would you mind explaining how this fits into your assertion?
–Leon Trotsky, 1937
Dexter, would you mind explaining how this fits into your assertion?
I will not trust the CGI.
I will not - please don’t ask me why.
I will not trust it in a box.
I will not trust it with a fox.
I will not trust it on a boat.
I will not trust it with a goat.
I really do not give a damn!
I will not trust it, Sam-I-Am!
Would you mind explaining how it is relevant, or important? Trotsky may express an opinion, but it is nothing more. Your opinions on the subject are also quite clear, but they are also nothing more than that. By no means have you presented any persuasive arguement, and just asking someone to explain what some quote means to the Zionist movement presents 0 value.
(BTW, I am not a Zionist and do not agree with many of the things they stand for).
Simply put: Trotsky was Jewish.
Olentzero, IF I knew exactly what Trotsky meant by “the Jewish question”, AND I knew more about his outlook on things in general and Zionism specifically, then I MIGHT be able to tell you how it fits in.
But I don’t know, so until he posts something here (or you post for him) then I can’t help.
Hahahaha! That’s the funniest line I’ve read in GD, thanks for the belle laugh.
Trotsky was Jewish, and therefore, what? Every Jew will give you several opinions on the topic. I have at least three or four…Trotsky indeed.
Come on, tradesilicon, think about this for a minute. CKDexterHaven asserts that it is practically impossible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish. I provide an anti-Zionist quote from a Jew, and I want to know how CKD would explain that. Now stop being so snidely obtuse.
The quote by Trotsky seems to indicate he doesn’t think Zionism is a cure-all for Jews, which it certainly wasn’t.
It does not indicate that he was anti-Zionist, only that he wasn’t Zionist.
Well, (and this is an earlier quote, so it’s possible Trotsky’s thinking changed on the matter), in his 1932 “On the Jewish Question”, he doesn’t seem to be opposed to Zionism so much as the current state of the Zionist movement, which he sees as capitalist in nature
Also, in his “Thermidor and Anti-Semitism”, while he condemns modern Zionism as utopian and reactionary, does say about Birobidjan (A “Jewish Autonomous Area” set up in the Soviet Union as a domestic alternative to Palestinian Zionism)
So I think it’s a mistake to call Trotsky anti-Zionist. He was just against the modern idea of Zionism.
In other words, “Zionism doesn’t work”. What would you have him say further to prove he is anti-Zionist?
Captain Amazing: Much of Trotsky’s outlook in the 1930s was severely distorted by his being cut off from life in the Soviet Union. He was convinced that some deformed vestiges of the revolution he helped make in 1917 remained under Stalin, which was not the case. He therefore tended to view events in the USSR as somehow still retaining a socialist tinge even when they were simply rehashes of old reactionary ideas (in this particular case the Jewish Pale of tsarist times).
I suppose there might be some confusion as to definitions of “anti-Zionism” here as well… by “anti-Zionist” I mean being opposed to the idea of Zionism as a solution to fighting anti-Semitism.
Well, yeah, it was. I mean, Birobidjan was, frankly, a Siberian hellhole. But, in spite of reality, Trotsky considered it a socialist Jewish region, so, we need to look at it as he saw it, and he saw it as a good thing.
You’re right, he was opposed to the “modern” Zionist movement, but that wasn’t because the movement was Zionist…it was because he saw it as capitalist in character. He’s saying, “Lets set up a socialist, Marxist state…a socialist, Marxist world, and then we’ll have Marxist Zionism.” Or, like the section I bolded in the last passage
So, what he’s saying is Zionism would work, and would be a good solution to “the Jewish question” when, and only when, the revolution has been achieved. That’s not anti-Zionist…that’s anti-capitalist.
In other words, lets have the revolution, and then, if people want, they can set up a Jewish national state on socialist, Marxist principles. It may not last…Trotsky says that it might disappear, like other nationalist boundries, but that’s too far in the future to predict.
It’s also worth noting that the Zionist/anti-Zionist divide among secular Jews existed prior to the state of Israel. The debate was along the lines of “Is it better for their to be an independent Jewish state, or would it be better for Jews to assimilate into the cultures around them?” So anti-Zionism in the 1930s had a slightly different character than modern anti-Zionism.
(to clarify my last post)
In other words, anti-Zionism before the state of Israel was formed says “People shouldn’t set up a Jewish homeland”. Modern anti-Zionism says, “The state of Israel needs to be dismanteled. It’s not a legitimate state”
That’s the reason that modern anti-Zionism is linked so closely with anti-Semitism…because it puts Israel on such a different level than any other country. I mean, you might hear someone say, “I think the U.S.'s policies are bad” or even “I think the U.S. should change its political and economic structure”, but you don’t, for the most part, hear people saying, “I don’t think the U.S. has any right to exist.” What anti-Zionists say is “I don’t think Israel has any right to exist.”
Can’t it be explained simply by saying that Trotsky was both a Jew and also anti-Jewish? (I’m not saying that he was, since I don’t know much about him. I’m just trying to figure out what the question is. Without being obtuse.
We have anti-American Americans, and it’s not unheard of to call someone a misanthrope. So why is the concept of an anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic Jew so difficult to grasp?
Your key phrase there is “in spite of reality”. Trotsky could have, in spite of reality, seen a dog as a cat constructed according to socialist principles. Does that make it a cat in reality? Of course not. So Trotsky may have seen Brio-Bidzhan as a Marxist Zionist region, but let’s look at something here.
Herzl, writing about the Dreyfus affair in his Diary, said:
A mere nine years later, in debates with the Jewish Bund over representation of Jewish workers in the social-democratic movement, Lenin said the task of socialism was
Marxism and Zionism are incompatible. Trotsky was wrong to see even Biro-Bidzhan as a good thing. It’s understandable that he was extremely reluctant to let go of all his illusions in the USSR, given the fact that if he’d done that he probably would have given up all hope, but at the same time it led him to some very erroneous conclusions that need to be examined and challenged.
Well, whether Marxism and Zionism were in truth incompatable, the question being discussed is what Trotsky believed about Zionism, and I think that the evidence suggests he believed some sort of Marxist Zionism was possible. He might have been wrong in his beliefs…that’s a different debate.
At any rate, being an anti-Zionist in the '30s wasn’t being anti-Semitic. The argument people are making is that being anti-Zionist now (saying that Israel should be destroyed) is anti-Semitic.
You are absolutely right, I dod miss the context, and it makes perfect sence to use that quote in that light, Olentzero. SOrry for the smug retorts.
'S cool, no worries.
I’m still a little stuck on the “anti-zionist” definition. The question in my mind is why someone would be against the state of Israel. If it’s “the Jews don’t deserve a state”, then that would almost definitely be anti-semitic, unless it was under the general framework of belief that no nationality “deserves” a state.
What about, however, if one criticized the existence of Israel as it exists now because the Palestinians were there first? That would certainly be anti-zionist (although it might allow for the possibility of a jewish state, just not in Palestine) but it wouldn’t necessarily be anti-semitic, as the reasoning behind it could be simply that those who have land and a state deserve it, and that those that do not have no claim to it despite any historical grievances. This is the argument usually used against those who believe that non-treaty native North Americans should get their land back, that “I am not responsible for the sins of my forefathers”. It’s also the argument against slavery reparations. Indeed, it’s the argument I’ve heard against “right of return”… once you’re gone, you’re gone, deal with it and settle where you are.
While the logical basis of this latter argument may be faulty, and it can be turned back upon those who argue it at the same time as they argue the “right of return”, I can’t see how it is anti-semitic, at least in any real sense. Since it is an argument I often hear against Israel, it’s also fairly relevant.
Perhaps someone can correct me.