Marxism for the Orthodox

Orthodox Marxism

(Marxism for the Orthodox)

by Tom Milstein

Karl Marx, whose entire theory of history revolved notoriously around the concept of class, distinguished between two types of class identity, or consciousness: a class “in itself,” and a class “for itself.”

A “class in itself” was simply a social group whose objective circumstances rendered it a class as Marx defined classes – for example peasants in feudal society, or workers in industrial capitalist society. According to Marx, a class occupied a fixed, objective relationship to the “means of production,” whatever that happened to be in a given historical epoch – the land in feudalism’s rural agrarian economy, factories in capitalism’s urban industrial system.

A “class for itself” introduced a subjective dimension into Marx’s historical analysis, the dimension of consciousness. A class for itself was simply a class in itself that had become aware of itself as an historical actor. For example, the embryonic bourgeoisie of early and middle feudalism in Europe was a class in itself, because it clustered together in trading towns in the interstices of feudal society, occupied a fixed position in relationship to the means of production (trading the products of feudalism for profit), and developed a culture and way of life unique to itself. But this bourgeoisie did not become a class for itself until after the Protestant Reformation, and especially the Enlightenment, which caused members of this class to begin thinking of themselves as the representatives of society’s general interest. Soon the bourgeoisie was plotting to overthrow the twin pillars of feudalism: the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy-aristocracy.

In other words, the European (and American) bourgeoisie transformed itself from a mere “class in itself” into a “class for itself” – but only after it had managed to transmute the other-worldly ascetic dream of Calvinism into a secular call to revolutionary arms, so to speak (of course, this reinterpretation process was helped along by such unpleasant historical events as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of the French Protestants).

A recent column on the Op-Ed page of the New York Sun by Meyrav Wurmser entitled “The New Focal Point of Israel’s Schisms” (attached) got me to thinking about these arcane Marxian notions. Ms. Wurmser is described in her bio as “a neoconservative scholar of the Arab world. She is married to David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney. She is also a member of the conservative US think tank, the Hudson Institute.” Be all that as it may, the focus point of her “New Focal Point” column is the Israeli Army, and in particular, the great prominence of kippah seruga – “knit-cap” religious Orthodox – in the IDF, especially in the elite combat units which make up the backbone of its fighting forces, and in the middle and upper (although not the topmost) tiers of the officer corps.

Ms. Wurmser notes that membership in these military units has traditionally been identified with “’ownership’ of the nation,” a Zionist property title which arose when left-wing secular  Kibbutz youth supplied the army’s elite cadres. Now of course these committed youth have ceased to exist or have other interests. Their place has been filled by young people from the religious nationalist milieu in Israel. And therein, says Ms. Wurmser, lies the problem – a problem, as her article title suggests, of schism.

She implies, without quite saying so, that the reason – or at least, a reason – for Israel’s military debacle in Prime Minister Olmert’s 2006 War in Lebanon, was rabbinical disapproval of the war, rooted in fear of the consequences of victory: “…after Prime Minister Olmert stated that a victory in Lebanon would provide the impetus for another disengagement in the West Bank, leaders of the religious national settlement movement, rabbis, and thousands of settlers, sent word to their sons in the military telling them to disobey military orders that would take them to war.”

From this insinuation, she proceeds to the main point of her article, which is that if the Annapolis Conference and its aftermath lead to peace agreements requiring extensive Israeli territorial concessions to a Palestinian State, “future withdrawals may turn Israel’s defense forces into the focal point of the country’s schisms.” In other words, the new Zionist title-holders in the IDF cannot be trusted to carry out the orders of the duly constituted civilian authorities of Israel. They will place their loyalty to “the Scroll” over their duty to the State.

Personally, I came away from this piece with the sinister feeling that Ms. Wurmser is hiding behind the role of Cassandra in order to proffer strategic advice to Israel’s American Jewish enemies about how to take apart the Zionist entity. Given her sterling credentials (she is after all an associate of Richard Perle!), I hope I’m wrong about that. But right or wrong as I may be about her motivations, she has laid out a blueprint for the demolition of Israeli society. And that blueprint takes me right back to Karl Marx’s observations about class.

If we strip out of Marx’s ideas about class his “means of production” gobbledegook, we are left with some very cogent political sociology. For the religious Zionist segment of  Israeli society fits perfectly the definition of a class “in itself” that has not achieved the level of consciousness necessary to become a class “for itself.” It has stumbled into possession of the keys to the Israeli Kingdom in a fit of utter absent-mindedness, filling the ideological vacuum left by the implosion of secular Left-wing Zionism without the slightest intention of using this power politically in order to become the new masters of the State.

This ambiguous role, the role of a class in itself which has been propelled by blind historical forces into the position of having power without any corresponding will to power, is a prescription for political and social suicide. To possess power unconsciously, with no corresponding program for using power in order to transform society and thereby legitimate that power, is to stimulate in the minds of one’s enemies morbid fear and fierce hatred. Shy protestations of political innocence and disinterest do not appease these enemies, they only aggravate their fear and hatred.

The religious Zionist community in Israel finds itself in the potentially tragic role of a class in itself which has unconsciously ascended to an extremely dangerous and exposed position of power. In order to survive, it must negotiate the difficult but feasible ascent to true power – the power which is conferred upon a class for itself, a class which understands and accepts its historical mission and embraces its political destiny. If religious Zionism shrinks from this challenge, Ms. Wurmser has accurately presented the consequences – the schismatic disintegration of the central institution of the State of Israel, which is not the laughing-stock government, but the IDF. Such a disintegration will not be bloodless. And most of the blood will be ours.

What's Orthodox in Karl Marx?

Orthodox Marxism

(Marxism for the Orthodox)

Karl Marx, whose entire theory of history revolved notoriously around the concept of class, distinguished between two types of class identity, or consciousness: a class “in itself,” and a class “for itself.”

A “class in itself” was simply a social group whose objective circumstances rendered it a class as Marx defined classes – for example peasants in feudal society, or workers in industrial capitalist society. According to Marx, a class occupied a fixed, objective relationship to the “means of production,” whatever that happened to be in a given historical epoch – the land in feudalism’s rural agrarian economy, factories in capitalism’s urban industrial system.

A “class for itself” introduced a subjective dimension into Marx’s historical analysis, the dimension of consciousness. A class for itself was simply a class in itself that had become aware of itself as an historical actor. For example, the embryonic bourgeoisie of early and middle feudalism in Europe was a class in itself, because it clustered together in trading towns in the interstices of feudal society, occupied a fixed position in relationship to the means of production (trading the products of feudalism for profit), and developed a culture and way of life unique to itself. But this bourgeoisie did not become a class for itself until after the Protestant Reformation, and especially the Enlightenment, which caused members of this class to begin thinking of themselves as the representatives of society’s general interest. Soon the bourgeoisie was plotting to overthrow the twin pillars of feudalism: the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy-aristocracy.

In other words, the European (and American) bourgeoisie transformed itself from a mere “class in itself” into a “class for itself” – but only after it had managed to transmute the other-worldly ascetic dream of Calvinism into a secular call to revolutionary arms, so to speak (of course, this reinterpretation process was helped along by such unpleasant historical events as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of the French Protestants).

A recent column on the Op-Ed page of the New York Sun by Meyrav Wurmser entitled “The New Focal Point of Israel’s Schisms” (attached) got me to thinking about these arcane Marxian notions. Ms. Wurmser is described in her bio as “a neoconservative scholar of the Arab world. She is married to David Wurmser, Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney. She is also a member of the conservative US think tank, the Hudson Institute.” Be all that as it may, the focus point of her “New Focal Point” column is the Israeli Army, and in particular, the great prominence of kippah seruga – “knit-cap” religious Orthodox – in the IDF, especially in the elite combat units which make up the backbone of its fighting forces, and in the middle and upper (although not the topmost) tiers of the officer corps.

Ms. Wurmser notes that membership in these military units has traditionally been identified with “’ownership’ of the nation,” a Zionist property title which arose when left-wing secular  Kibbutz youth supplied the army’s elite cadres. Now of course these committed youth have ceased to exist or have other interests. Their place has been filled by young people from the religious nationalist milieu in Israel. And therein, says Ms. Wurmser, lies the problem – a problem, as her article title suggests, of schism.

She implies, without quite saying so, that the reason – or at least, a reason – for Israel’s military debacle in Prime Minister Olmert’s 2006 War in Lebanon, was rabbinical disapproval of the war, rooted in fear of the consequences of victory: “…after Prime Minister Olmert stated that a victory in Lebanon would provide the impetus for another disengagement in the West Bank, leaders of the religious national settlement movement, rabbis, and thousands of settlers, sent word to their sons in the military telling them to disobey military orders that would take them to war.”

From this insinuation, she proceeds to the main point of her article, which is that if the Annapolis Conference and its aftermath lead to peace agreements requiring extensive Israeli territorial concessions to a Palestinian State, “future withdrawals may turn Israel’s defense forces into the focal point of the country’s schisms.” In other words, the new Zionist title-holders in the IDF cannot be trusted to carry out the orders of the duly constituted civilian authorities of Israel. They will place their loyalty to “the Scroll” over their duty to the State.

Personally, I came away from this piece with the sinister feeling that Ms. Wurmser is hiding behind the role of Cassandra in order to proffer strategic advice to Israel’s American Jewish enemies about how to take apart the Zionist entity. Given her sterling credentials (she is after all an associate of Richard Perle!), I hope I’m wrong about that. But right or wrong as I may be about her motivations, she has laid out a blueprint for the demolition of Israeli society. And that blueprint takes me right back to Karl Marx’s observations about class.

If we strip out of Marx’s ideas about class his “means of production” gobbledegook, we are left with some very cogent political sociology. For the religious Zionist segment of  Israeli society fits perfectly the definition of a class “in itself” that has not achieved the level of consciousness necessary to become a class “for itself.” It has stumbled into possession of the keys to the Israeli Kingdom in a fit of utter absent-mindedness, filling the ideological vacuum left by the implosion of secular Left-wing Zionism without the slightest intention of using this power politically in order to become the new masters of the State.

This ambiguous role, the role of a class in itself which has been propelled by blind historical forces into the position of having power without any corresponding will to power, is a prescription for political and social suicide. To possess power unconsciously, with no corresponding program for using power in order to restructure society and thereby to legitimate that power, is to stimulate in the minds of one’s enemies morbid fear and fierce hatred. Shy protestations of political innocence and disinterest do not appease these enemies, they only aggravate their fear and hatred.

The religious Zionist community in Israel finds itself in the potentially tragic role of a class in itself which has unconsciously ascended to an extremely dangerous and exposed position of power. In order to survive, it must negotiate the difficult but feasible ascent to true power – the power which is conferred upon a class for itself, a class which understands and accepts its historical mission and embraces its political destiny. If religious Zionism shrinks from this challenge, Ms. Wurmser has accurately presented the consequences – the schismatic disintegration of the central institution of the State of Israel, which is not the laughing-stock government, but the IDF. Such a disintegration will not be bloodless. And most of the blood will be ours.