ALLIANCE (MARXIST-LENINIST)
Number 30, Oct 1998
MARX, LENIN & STALIN ON
ZIONISM:
Pt 1 Marx on Jewry &
Preface;
The other parts accessed via
the Table
of Contents
PREFACE
Bourgeoisie nationalists, whether
of Zionist and Pan-Islamic persuasions, both accuse the USSR of the socialist
era (from 1917-1953) of racism, aimed against either Jews or Arabs respectively.
But, in reality Lenin and Stalin gave an even-handed and single reply,
to both the Pan-Islamists and to the Zionists. This reply was to eschew
a narrow bourgeois nationalism, in order to create socialism.
In Alliance
30 we attempt to put the recent
history of Jewry into a Marxist-Leninist context. This means we will first
examine the views of Marx, Lenin and Stalin upon the ideologies of Zionism
and its precursors. Next we discuss the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan
established by the Soviets. Of necessity we examine the so called AJewish
Plot@ and the ADoctor=s
Plot@ in the USSR. This is necessary
to sensibly to discuss how it was that the USSR would come to agree at
the United Nations, to a recognition of the imperialist-led partition of
Palestine, and the planting of the colony of Israel.
In the companion Alliance
Number 31, we will examine the views
of Lenin and Stalin on Pan-Islamism. The form Pan-Islamism took in the
USSR, was known as Sultan-Galiyev-ism. We then briefly examine the versions
of Pan-Islamism represented by the Ba=ath
Party ideology of Syria and Iraq; and finally we will assess the views
of Samir Amin.
____________________________________________________________________
A Methodological Foreword
Upon Recent Sources For Marxist-Leninists:
Alliance has always tried to punctiliously
show its source material with as precise references as is possible. This
is not an academic peccadillo- to be disdained as Aarmchair
Marxism@. Rather it is essential
to root a Marxist-Leninist view of the world in an objective and clear
manner. Only this permits any possible rebuttals that are based on facts
rather than those of opinion. It has not been necessary to comment on this
matter till now. However three new issues have arisen, regarding source
materials that directly affect the Marxist-Leninist movement.
Firstly:
Certain documents have been released in the Gorbachev era and more recently,
from the Soviet archives. This is generally of benefit to Marxist-Leninists,
who try to explain the real events inside the former USSR in its Marxist-Leninist
days of Stalin=s life time. Previous
readers of Alliance, will know that we generally try to highlight the most
significant of such documents; and we draw readers=
attention to the confusion that this raises in the bourgeois academic circles.
For instance, we previously discussed how the school of so called Arevisionist@
historians - such as Arch Getty Junior - have tried to struggle with such
evidence that contradicts the standard Trotsky influenced bourgeois academic
histories. But a caveat must be introduced. It is very unlikely that ALL
relevant documents will surface in our lifetime. Moreover, we do not know
what documents of Stalin=s=s
and other relevant leading personalities may have been destroyed. All the
written archival materials are unlikely to be made available to us anyway,
since some of these will be deemed Atoo
sensitive@. Why should the Russian
state behave any differently to the British Kew Gardens Archives for instance?
We therefore simply raise a caution regarding the appropriate interpretation
of documents that may become available. These are likely to be only Aspotty@
and unlikely to give us all the facts.
Secondly:
As a corollary, this leaves some to a continuing abundance of the hear-say,
AHe said-They said,@
type of scurrilous evidence. This leads to a dilemma for the Marxist-Leninists,
as to whether to even use this type of evidence at all. But to ignore it
is to ignore the charges that the authors lay at Stalin. This does not
help Marxists-Leninists currently since one of our current tasks - is to
counter the bourgeois historiography and lies. On the other hand, in using
these sources it is necessary to be highly selective. Instances are provided
in Alliance 30 of two especially problematic sources.
Very little written is available
on Stalin=s attitude to the Jewish
Question. A new low in scurrilous writing on Stalin is provided by the
virulent Arkady Vaksberg in AStalin
Against The Jews@, New York;
1994. Much of the tone and a large measure of the content of this book
is scurrilous. For instance - Vaksberg alleges that Stalin did not really
research and write the famous article on AThe
National Question@. Nonetheless
we will use the Vaksberg source - albeit with caution - since little else
is available on the subject.
Another such problem source is the
memoirs of Pavel Sudoplatov, published in 1994. After 1939, he was
the officer in charge of the NKVD (later MGB) special operations. Several
attacks upon Sudoplatov=s honesty
and reliability have been made. Sudoplatov claimed that he organized the
assassination of Trotsky under direct orders from Stalin, and that the
Soviet atomic bomb was only made possible by secrets divulged by the Danish
physicist Niels Bohr.
Both claims are untrue. David
Holloway has exposed the latter lie in an article in AScience@,
(Holloway D; Science May 27th, 1994), and the former lie is contrary
to key facts as discussed by the CL. (CL article reprinted Alliance Issue
Number 7. ) It is interesting that these memoirs were recorded from Sudoplatov
by Jerrold L. & Leona P. Schecter. This same couple first fully published
Khrushchev=s memoirs in 1970,
in an association between Life magazine & Little Brown Publishers.
(See Pavel &A Sudoplatov; with JL &LP Schecter:@Special
Tasks@; Boston; 1995 p.xxiii)
. It is also not a coincidence that one of the most anti-Communist
writers, Robert Conquest, exonerates Sudoplatov of falsification
in a glowing foreword.
Of course, Conquest is careful to cover himself
by saying that:
ASudoplatov
is by no means immune from error@.
(Ibid; p.xv).
Nonetheless Conquest ends by lauding the memoirs:
ABut it
will be seen that (criticisms-ed) are of little consequence compared with
the solid substance we Sudoplatov offers is.. A unique document.. The most
valuable of all possible sources for important matters over the whole period
of High Stalinism".
Ibid; p.xiv.
We reply that the most solid evidence
about the period is in Stalin=s
own writings. The fragmentary additional evidence must be sensibly pieced
together using in addition, Marxist-Leninist theory.
Thirdly:
We have increasingly over the last few months/years used sources derived
from the world wide web. We caution however that it is sometimes difficult
to know who is posting these various documents on the web. We thus attempt
to use these documents sparingly. Above all, if web sources are used, we
attempt to fully reference the web site.
MARX, LENIN AND STALIN UPON
ZIONISM
Introduction
When Zionists attack Lenin and Stalin
for their alleged racism against the Jewish peoples, the accusation devolves
onto one issue. That issue is that Lenin and Stalin denied at the turn
of the century, that the Jewish people had a national status.
After German fascists, aided by
Western imperialism launched the genocide against Jews, before and during
World War II, a national identity was then formed in the state of Israel.
In fact the German fascists helped to weld a later national=
possibility for Jews in the imperialist stooge state of Israel. This later
event was not one that could have been dealt with by Lenin or Stalin in
their early writings. In "The National Question", Stalin had pointed out,
that nations come into being and pass away. Obviously a different situation
arose after World War II, engineered by imperialism, which before turned
a blind eye to the genocide of the Jews. This was part of the overall strategy
of turning Germany against the USSR. But some imperialisms, especially
the USA promoted the migration of Jews into former Palestine, to consolidate
their position against other imperialisms. This created a further tension
between the British imperialists and the USA imperialists.
It was not racism that informed
the views of Lenin and Stalin. The attitude of Lenin and Stalin was to
destroy separatist tendencies that would ghetto-ise=
and narrow the proletariat. Lenin quoted with approval the words
of Ernest Renan, which quickly summarize the views that Lenin had
on ghettos= and racism of all
sorts:
AWhen the
National Assembly of 1791 decreed the emancipation of the Jews,@
writes Renan, AIt was very little
concerned with the question of race.. It is the business of the Nineteenth
Century to abolish all ghettos=,
and I cannot compliment those who seek to restore them. The Jewish race
has rendered the world the greatest services. Assimilated with the various
nations, harmoniously blended with the various national units, it will
render no less services in the future than in the past."
(Lenin Quoting Ernst Renan of Paris, 1887, in : AThe
Position of Bund In The Party@.
1903).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KARL MARX AND THE AJEWISH
QUESTION@
Marx=s
Views
There can be little doubt that the
position of Germany Jewry was that of a discriminated section of the German
people. This is attested to even in the biographies of the few that managed
to climb out of the slums such as the Rothschilds. (Elon A; ARothschild@;
London; 1993)
We will not need to itemize these
discrimination in detail, as the texts and interpretation are easily available.
In brief, the Jews suffered severe restrictions including curfews, limits
on where they could live, special mandatory requirements in order to allow
them to perform any work, no State employment allowed, and a host of petty
problems including upon marriage rights. This does not even discuss the
excluding the possibility of pogroms.
The views of Lenin and Stalin on
the Jews, followed those of Karl Marx- himself a Jew. In turn, Marx=s
views on the Jewish Question, were very similar to contemporary Jewish
progressives, such as seen in the early views of Moses Hess, a Jewish
social democrat. In essence they all urged Jews to fully embrace secular
society in order to merge into it. But Hess then renounced a secular progressive
stand to adopt Jewish mysticism. But Moses Hess turned to embraced mysticism.
In doing so he ensured that later on, 'progressive minded Zionists=,
would point to Hess rather than Marx, in order to argue that Socialism=
and Zionism@ are supposedly compatible!
In contrast to their support of
Hess, Zionists loathe Marx, and charge him of racism. But the grounds for
this Zionist charge, are transparently flimsy. The charges invoke a Marx
- Aalienated@
from his Jewishness. The charges of anti-Jewish racism has to deal with
the fact that Marx was a descendent of a long line of Rabbis in Germany
and Italy. His father in Trier had converted to Christianity, in order
obtain livelihood, although his mother never did convert. Marx, it is claimed
hated his Jewishness= - Saul
Padover uses the term ;
"Selbsthass (self hatred)=
of Marx."
(Padover S.K.; AIntroduction@
vol 5, AOn Religion=;
Karl Marx Library; New York; 1974, p. Xiii.).
As Padover puts it :
AAs an
understandable defense mechanism, young Marx deprived of a spiritual base
of support in Judaism, imbibed the ancient hostility to his people and
accepted all the ugly stereotypes of the brutally caricatured Jew then
widely prevalent in Europe .. This was an expression of what the Germans
call Selbsthass."
(Padover Ibid; p. xiii)
The evidence for this is said to reside
in his letters, and, especially in his early work. But when these are read,
it is clear that what is objectionable to the Zionists, is simply the boldness
of the following assertion: That to be free, and to truely and fully exercise
civil rights, the Jew must renounce Jewishness, just as the Christian must
renounce Christianity.
Even the most antagonistic Zionists,
such as Saul Padover, are forced to acknowledge, that Marx=s
first published work on the AJewish
Question@ which appeared in the
Cologne Rheinische Zeitung=,
in the summer of 1842, was a forthright defence of the Jews. At that time,
Heinrich Hermes of the 'Kolnische Zeitung=,
a Catholic paper, had attacked Jews. In this attack, Hermes denied that
Jews had any rights to ACivil
Equality@. Marx openly counter-attacked
this in print. Following his defence of civil rights for the Jews, Marx
told Arnold Ruge that he had been approached by local Jews, to put
a petition on behalf of Jews to the Landtag (Diet) :
AJust now
the chief of the local Israelites came to see me and asked me to forward
a petition for the Jews to the Landtag (Diet) and I want to do it. Revolting
(Widerlich) though the Israelite religion is to me, nevertheless Bauer=s
opinion (In the Jewish Question) seems to me to be too abstract.@
(Marx; Letter to Ruge A; March 13th 1843; Cited Padover
Introduction Ibid; p. Xxi.)
The petition was successful, and marked
the first time that a German parliament had granted AComplete
equality of Jews in civil and political matters.@
Padover is forced to take note of this, but he deals with it, by simply
dismissing it as: a Apolitical
gesture@ taken by Marx@
in spite of Ahis revulsion for
Judaism.@ But it is clear that
Marx calls the AIsraelite religion@
revolting, not Jews themselves. In fact the whole of Marx=s
work testifies to his determination to tear the veils that perpetuate slavery
and enchainment. With Engels, Marx identified backward looking nationalisms
and religion as narcotic-laden veils - Marx called a spade a spade. He
is just as virulent about Christianity, about Islam, about Hindooism=
and all religions. Indeed all these were means to disguise and veil the
reality of the world. Hear Marx on the Hindoos=,
and the Brahmins:
AWe must
not forget that.. that they restrained the human mind within the smallest
possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving
it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical
energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism.. the perpetuation of
unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns..
this passive sort of existence evoked.. murder itself a religious rite
in Hindostan...the little (Hindoo) communities were contaminated by distinctions
of caste and by slavery.. they subjected man to external circumstances
instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances.. they transformed
a self-developing social state into a never changing natural destiny, ..
brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation
in the fact that Man the sovereign of nature fell down on his knees in
adoration of Hanuman the monkey, and Sabbala the cow.@
(Marx.,"British Rule in India";: "Marx & Engels
On Britain." Moscow; 1971; p.168. p171-172.)
AI share
not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan... the
mythological chronology of the Brahmin himself, places the commencement
of Indian misery in an epoch even more remote than the Christian creation
of the world@.
(Marx= The
British Rule In India',Ibid. p.168)
Who denies that Marx fought the religious
vapours of the Brahmins? Just so, he fought the religious and pseudo-nationalist
Zionist vapours. Neither of these fights, made him a anti-Indian racist,
or somehow alienated= from Indian
problems, as Padover would have us believe!
What did Marx say On The Jewish
Question?
Marx only wrote two main articles
that explicitly dealt with the Jews as a central theme. They both took
the same essential line.
Namely that:
That the Jews in general, had found
a niche in capitalist society, by acting as money lenders. Stripping away
sanctimony, Marx therefore proclaimed that something else, besides religion,
defined the Jews. In his first article, Marx contrasted the Aactual
secular Jew@ with the ASabbath
Jew@. Since the public role of
he most prominent Jews was as money merchants, he concentrates on the Ahaggling@
and usurious life of the Jewish trader:
ALet us
consider the actual secular 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 religion in the actual Jew. What is the
secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the world
cult of the Jew? Schacer (Bargaining, haggling, or huckstering-Ed). What
is his worldly god? Money! What actually was the foundation in and of itself,
of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism. Hence the Jew=s
monotheism, is in reality, the polytheism of many needs, a polytheism that
makes even the toiler an object of divine law.. The god of practical need
and self-interest is money. Money is the jealous god of Israel before whom
no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of mankind-and converts
them into commodities.. The god of the Jew has been 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... What is contained
abstractly in the Jewish religion-contempt for theory, for art, for history,
for man as an end in himself - is the actual conscious standpoint and virtue
of the money man.. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality
of the merchant, of the money-man in general.@
(On the Jewish Question - Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher=-
Vol 3 Marx Collected Works; pp 146-74)
Padover makes Marx into a mythical
Christian loving and Jew hating person. But in reality Marx describes clearly,
from where in his view, Christianity came from. It arose from Judaism:
AChristianity
arose of Judaism. It has again dissolved itself into Judaism. .. Christianity
overcame real Judaism only in appearance, It was too noble, too spiritual
to alienate the crudeness of practical need except by elevating it into
the heavens. Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism, and Judaism
is the common practical application of Christianity; but this application
could become universal only after Christianity as the compete religion
had theoretically competed the alienation of man from himself and from
nature.@
(Marx; On The Jewish Question=;
p.191; in Padover Ibid).
For Marx, it was necessary to emphasize
the need to dissolve the religious fetters upon the Jews, and by so doing
allow them to enter into the rest of society. The article ends with the
words:
AThe social
emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Jewishness@.
(Marx; A@The
Holy Family@ (b) The Jewish Question
No 1. The setting of the question. Volume 4; CW; Moscow; 1975; p. 87; also
in Marx On The Jewish Question=;
p.192; in Padover Ibid.)
The second article was contained within
a section of the AHoly Family@,
which was a settling of accounts, by Marx and Engels, with the pre-Marxist
ideologies in Germany as represented by Bruno Bauer, a member of
a philosophical grouping known as Absolute Criticism.
Bauer argued to deny civil rights
to Jews, because like everyone else, they had no inborn ARights
of Man@, no dogmatic=
claim for this that over-rode everything else. The implication was that
nothing was Aowed@
to the Jews. In an attack on the materialists, whom he names the Aspokesmen
of the masses@, Bruno Bauer repudiates
any Rights of Man=:
AHow thoughtless
the spokesmen of the Masses are; they have God knows what a great opinion
of themselves for supporting emancipation and the dogma of the rights of
man=.
(Marx Karl: AThe
Jewish Question No 1. The Setting of the Question. Part of AThe
Holy Family@. (1844);
In Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975; p. 87).
Marx replies that the abstract ARights
of Man@ are irrelevant as compared
to the much more real, fundamental and practical assertions of the inborn
rights of man to Afish, hunt
etc@, as had been pointed out
by Charles Fourier:
AAs for
the rights of man= it has been
proved to Herr Bruno (On the Jewish Question - Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher=-
Vol 3 M CW- pp 146-74) that it is he himself, not the spokesmen of the
Mass, who has misunderstood and dogmatically mishandled the essence of
those rights. Compared to his discovery that the Rights of Man are not
inborn=- a discovery which has
been made innumerable times in England during the last 40-odd years - Fourier=s
assertions that the right to fish, hunt, etc are inborn rights of men is
one of genius.@
(Marx Karl: AThe
Jewish Question No 1. Part of AThe
Holy Family@; Ibid; p.87-89).
One of Bruno Bauer=s
assertions, had been that it was only to be expected, and indeed was quite
natural, that a Christian state would not enshrine rights for Jews:
AThe Christian
state having as its vital principle a definite religion, cannot allow adherents
of another particular religion .. Complete equality with its own social
estates.=
(Bauer cited In Marx AThe
Holy Family@ Ibid; p. 88.)
Marx in reply, points out that the
Christian states render this whole question meaningless, since they do
not even allow civil equality to their Christian their Aown
social estates@- to use Bauer=s
phrase, to even non-Jews:
AThe Deutsch-Franzosische
Jahrbucher (showed) that the state of social estates and of exclusive Christianity
is not only an incomplete state but an incomplete Christian state... Absolute
Criticism still regards the abolition of religion atheism, as the condition
for civil equality... It has therefore not yet acquired any deeper insight
into the essence of the state.@
(Marx Karl: AThe
Jewish Question No 1. Part of AThe
Holy Family@; Ibid; p. 88)
For further detail, the interested
reader can consult the Appendix (Via Table of Contents) for a detailed
annotation of Marx=s article.
Although those two articles are the basic and longest exposition on the
nature of the Jews by Marx, an isolated later description of the Jews by
Marx is often quoted, as another example of Marx=s
alleged Aanti-Semitism@.
Here Marx discussed the historical role of the Jews, and he was equally
graphic as in his earlier remarks. Marx=s
vivid phrasing - AJews in the
pores of society@ - offends Zionists.
It seems that this image of the Jews who were not fully visible in the
middle of society, Marx painted by Marx, is somehow a racist=
view of Marx. But in what context does Marx place this image? Marx is talking
about trading for commodities in the ancient world, where the dominant
relations of production are not commodity based. Marx asserts that Jewish
trading is ancient in its history:
AIn the
modes of production of ancient Asia, of Antiquity etc; we find that the
conversion of products into commodities, and hence the existence of men
as mere producers of commodities plays a subordinate role, which however
increases in importance as the ancient communities approach closer and
closer to the stage of their decline. Trading nations proper exist in the
ancient world only in its interstices, like the Gods of Epicurius in Intermundia,
or like the Jew in the pores of Polish society. These ancient social organisms
of production are extraordinarily more simple and transparent than the
bourgeois ones, but they are based either on the immaturity of the individual
man, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him naturally
with his own species, or on direct master-servant relationships. They are
conditioned by a lower stage of development of the productive forces of
labour and the correspondingly encompassing relationships of men within
their material generating processes, and hence to each other and to nature.
This actual narrowness is realised ideally in the ancient worship of nature
and in folk religions. The religious reflex of the real world can vanish
altogether only when the relationships of practical everyday life offer
men daily visible and reasonable relationships to each other and to nature.
A
(Marx K; Capital@
Volume 1; Chapter 1; Section 4; Cited by Padover Ibid; p. 137.)
Well, is this unfair? Marx is simply
pointing out that Jews were not given full civic right in then Poland.
There is another dimension, relating to the Jewish concentration in trading.
Perhaps Jews were not important traders in the ancient world, and perhaps
commodity trading was a more main-stream and prominent feature in antiquity?
But, no evidence to contradict
Marx, is shown by those such as Padover who critique Marx here.
The very useful function of providing
loose monies for loan, had been the prerogative of the Jew, right up until
the Reformation. Until then, loans were made only in the interstices=
of society. But the increasing need of capital, fueled a demand for the
practice of charging interest, or usury=.
This became a root cause of the Reformation, the vast social movement that
upturned traditional Catholicism, and is usually portrayed as the rise
of the Protestant religion. But the underlying reasons for the Reformation
are still often overlooked. The drawback of Catholicism, one the Protestant
version of Christianity could overcome for society, was the lack of money
trading. Under Catholicism but not under Protestantism, money trading by
loans (known as usury) was forbidden as avarice:
AThe historical
background.. Consisted of the body of social theory stated & implicit,
which was the legacy of the Middle Ages. The formal teaching was derived
form the Bible, the works of the Fathers & Schoolmen, the canon law
and its commentators, and have been popularized.@
(Tawney R.H. AReligion
& The Rise of Capitalism@;
London; 1975; p. 28)
The condemnation of usury supported
a land owning feudal society. Pope Innocent IV argued:
AIf usury
were general, men would not give thought to the cultivation of their land
except when they could do ought else, and so there would be so great a
famine that all the poor would die of hunger..@
Tawney R.H. AReligion
& The Rise of Capitalism@;
London; 1975; p. 56
@Early Councils
had forbidden usury to be taken by the clergy. The Councils of the 12th
& 13th Centuries forbid it to be taken by clergy or laity, and laid
down rules for dealing with offenders... The Legislation of the Councils
of Lyons (1274) and of Viene (1312) ... re-enacted the measures laid down
by the third Lateran Council (1175) & supplemented them by rules which
virtually made the money-lender an outlaw.@
Tawney R.H. AReligion
& The Rise of Capitalism@;
London; 1975; p. 58.
Luther=s
views largely echoed traditional Catholicism. But Calvinism, in
contrast, was unlike Lutheranism - it was largely an urban movement that
reflected the needs of the growing capitalist society. Calvin could write:
AWhat reason
is there why the income from business should not be larger than that from
landowning? Whence do the merchant=s
profits come.. except from his own indulgence & industry?@
Tawney R.H. AReligion
& The Rise of Capitalism@;
London; 1975; p. 113
There was an intense frustration, by
all capitalists and traders, inside the developing capitalist Middle Ages
society of developing nations. Even in Florence, the greatest mercantile
centre in the Middle Ages, the patent nonsense of the old laws, was shown
by the simultaneous hypocrisy of banning usury, whilst depending upon imported
Jews to conduct it:
AFlorence
was the financial capital of medieval Europe; but even at Florence, the
secular authorities fined bankers right and left for usury in the middle
of the 14th Century, and fifty years later first prohibited credit transaction
altogether, and then imported Jews to conduct a business forbidden to Christians.@
Tawney R.H. AReligion
& The Rise of Capitalism@;
London; 1975; p. 49.
So there was a societal need and drive,
to adopt the mores of Calvinism. Following this, the social utility of
Judaism to a developing capitalist society diminished. Large scale pogroms
would follow the rise of capitalism, which had now ensured its own secure
form of usury. (This is a very truncated synopsis. Since Marx=s
views on this question encompass the whole place of religion in civil society,
we carry a more detailed view of this in Appendix
1).
In Conclusion: Marx
stripped bare of camouflage, the vice in which modern workers of all colours
and creed were held - capitalist relations. This meant the dissolution
of religious faith. Naturally, religiously biased ideologues, like Zionists,
will find this offensive. Too bad! We next examine how Marx=s
views were echoed by Lenin and Stalin on this question.
-ON TO: APPENDIX
- TO: LENIN & STALIN ON
THE BUND & EARLY HISTORY OF THE BUND: PART
TWO