The critique of Zionism began within the Jewish community it claimed to speak for and was largely initiated by left wing Jews. One of the most important centers of that critique developed in the United States and was theoretically indebted to the work of revolutionary Marxist Jacob Milch. Because he largely wrote in Yiddish, the work of Jacob Milch (Yankev Zoyermilkh) is not widely known among English-speaking Marxists. The Polish-born polymath (he produced a Yiddish version of Plato’s ‘Dialogues’) had a profound impact on the Jewish left in the United States from when he joined the Socialist Labor Party in 1891 as an immigrant carpenter and member of the Hebrew Trades Council until his death co-editing the Communist Party’s Morgan Freiheit in 1945, Milch, who had become a well-to-do chocolatier, was a central figure in the Jewish left. In 1906-1907 he penned this important analysis of the development of the Poale Zion, the Socialist Zionist movement, and their territorial solution to the ‘Jewish question.’ Far more than an essay, this deep look at the state of Jewish workers and their possible futures under capitalism was spread over six issues and will be presented here in three parts. Part one here. Part three here.

‘New Movements Amongst the Jewish Proletariat, Part Two’ by Jacob Milch from International Socialist Review. Vol. 7 Nos. 7 & 8. January-February, 1907.

IV.

Before we begin our analysis of the theory of the Zionist Socialist, it is necessary to inform the reader that these ‘“Zionists” are not Zionists at all; they are rather opposed to the idea of settling the Jews in Palestine. What they are after is a territory somewhere, where the Jews could settle as an independent nation. So much for the Zionism of it. As for the socialist part of it, it is nothing else but a misinterpretation, at best a misconception of the teachings of scientific socialism, although they claim to be strict Marxians, and their theory strictly scientific.

Let us now examine the theory itself. It runs thus:

The development of modern industry leads to the accumulation and concentration of capital. This accumulation of capital in ever fewer hands, causes misery, misfortunes and unhappiness not only to the workingmen, but also to the small manufacturer and the middle class in general, in that they can not withstand the competition of combined capital and are driven with an irresistible force into the ranks of the proletariat. At the same time when the ranks of the proletariat are thus forcibly enlarged, the invention and the introduction of new machinery and the division of labor make many workers superfluous. And so the numbers of the working-class are increasing at the same time when their chances of employment are decreasing. The result, of course, being an ever increasing reserve army of unemployed, causing a fierce competition among the workmen with a tendency to keep wages to its lowest margin, lowering the standard of life, and, at last, creating a pauper class.

On the other hand this very capitalism carries within itself the germ of its own destruction: With its accumulation of fabulous fortunes, with its huge factories, with its development of machinery, with its bringing together of enormous masses of workmen under one roof, capitalism creates a class-conscious proletariat which is waging war against the capitalist class for economic supremacy and which will ultimately bring about the social revolution and thus emancipate mankind from economic slavery.

So far so good.

But this conflict is manifold, they further say. Simultaneously with the fight between the capitalist class and the working-class, of each nation there goes on a strife between the different nationalities which may be living in the same country. In this conflict it is no more the proletariat that is struggling against the capitalist and vice versa, here it is rather a contest of the capitalists of the different nationalities among themselves and of the proletarians of the different nationalities among themselves. The outcome of this struggle is always in favor of the ruling nation, which owns the national industry of the land. And what is more, this very portion of the proletariat which has the victory on its side, thanks to the favorable circumstance of belonging to the nation that owns the national industry, is also the one that is destined to bring liberty and equality to suffering humanity.

The conclusion of this theory is the following:

The Jewish nation is the weakest among the nations. It is in the first place, the most oppressed; its workingmen began to take part in productive industry at a time when the proletariat of other nations was more fully developed. They are therefore not permitted to take part in the main industries. “The Jewish proletariat is called into life not by the large, but by the small bourgeoisie; he appears not as an industrial workingman, but as an artisan of the sweat shop and house industry, and inasmuch as this sort of industrial undertakings is doomed to death with the further development of capitalism, and as the Jews are not admitted into the large factories they are doomed to become paupers, and as such unable and unfit to take part in the reconstructing of society.

The fact that the number of Jewish workingmen are steadily increasing and that they are very active in the socialist. movement, as well as in the actual revolution in Russia — this fact, they say, proves nothing. The proletariat (like electricity?) consists of two poles: the negative and the positive.

The negative proletariat is being formed in the small factories and sweat shops, where it acquires the spirit of discontent only, its accumulated energy, therefore, can be used as a force of destruction, but it can never become a power of construction, while socialism is mainly a doctrine of construction, the constructive power of which rests with the positive proletariat, which is being produced in the large factories operated with huge machinery. The Jews not being admitted into these factories, have no chance of ever becoming “positive” proletarians and are therefore deprived of the possibility of giving a helping hand to the upbuilding of the new, socialistic society.

These abnormal conditions force the Jews to emigrate en masse. But emigration does not help matters much. In their new countries conditions are not much better, as no national industry awaits their coming. Besides, immigration itself becomes difficult in view of the restrictive laws that are being enacted in England and the United States. The only permanent and real remedy, therefore is an autonomous territory, a territory where the Jews could settle as an independent nation. In such a territory the industry would, of course, be Jewish-National and the Jews could freely proletarize, and so contribute, as positive proletarians, to the establishing of socialism.

There remains, however, one more point to be settled: How and where is this territory to be acquired? Who will be crazy enough to supply them with a territory? And here again it is strictly “Marxism” that comes to their rescue. Capitalists are always on the lookout for new markets. They always welcome new colonies. It is therefore, in the interests of international capitalism to help the Jews acquire a new land. And England, the classical land of capitalism, was really moved by its own interest to offer them Uganda.

To sum up, the whole theory amounts to this: The social revolution is inevitable. But it will be brought about by that portion of the proletariat that is employed in the large factories, because in those large factories the real constructive spirit of Socialism is bred. The Jews belonging to an oppressed nation, which is not in possession of any national industry, are not admitted into those large factories and can, consequently, not proletarize in the “scientific” sense of the word and have therefore no opportunity to participate in the social revolution. In order that the Jews may aid in the reconstruction of society they must become positive proletarians. In order to become such proletarians their nation must be in possession of a national industry. In order to establish such industry, they must acquire a new territory. Territorialism, thus, becomes necessary for the sake of socialism.

We shall yet use the opportunity to examine more closely this new interpretation. I would prefer to call it misinterpretation of Marxism. Meanwhile we will assume their assertions to be correct and try to follow up the logic of this “theory” from its own premises.

In the first place we notice that the whole theory is nothing else but a new excuse for Zionism or Territorialism. The “bourgeoisie” Zionists and Territorialists claim the necessity of a new independent land. because in exile the Jews can not achieve high rank in the army; because their number in the intelligent professions is limited; because they can not acquire land or titles of honor. The idealist Zionists need a land for the expansion of the Jewish spirit; and the Socialist-Zionists are after a territory because the Jews can not proletarize, because they can not become positive proletarians. Was it really necessary to cause so much disturbance, to split the Zionistic party and to form a new one, to invoke Marxism and generally to make so much noise only to find a new excuse for Zionism? What matters it for what reason the Jews need a country? And if a reason be really necessary, why not the old reason? Moreover, it seems to me that the reason of the old-fashioned Zionists, that the Jews can not become of great importance and mighty in the different walks of life, is from a strictly nationalistic standpoint, more powerful and, more appealing than the one of the so-called Marxists, that they, the Jews can not proletarize.

Again, from their illogical conclusion it seems to follow that a new state is to be created for the expressed purpose of giving a chance to a certain number of people to make a social revolution. The Jews, they declare, can not become a constructive factor in the social revolution while living among the nations. What of it? The revolution will then be made without their aid, as long as it is bound to come.

To such a proposition, it seems, the Zionist-Socialist would never agree. The Jews must take an active part in the revolution. In exile, it is impossible, for the reasons, mentioned above. A new territory is the only solution. A queer notion this of socialism and the social revolution!

But let us not quarrel with them for “minor” matters, let us again admit the correctness of this supposition. But right here we are confronted with another difficulty. In this case the social revolution would have to be postponed until the Jewish State is ready for action.

From their “orthodox” Marxian standpoint, they could not think of a revolution until their state would reach a high point in the development of capitalism, and until the proletariat has become a positive one, with a pauper proletariat in addition, with the formation of trusts and so forth and so on, as it is written in the code of Marxism. Now, the other nations that have begun their career earlier would of course get ready before them, and would have to postpone action until such time when the Jews are ready.

Let us go a bit further:

The whole movement though designed strictly to serve the interests of the proletariat, can in reality not move without the bourgeoisie. The main point in the programme of these Zionist Socialists is the proletarisation clause. Now proletarisation implies capitalisation. One cannot become a proletarian without someone else becoming a capitalist. The fact that they insist upon being the proletarians does not alter the fact. The movement is therefore more nationalistic than specifically proletarian, their “philosophy” then can hurt them more than help. To put their theory in plain every-day language it amounts to this:

We, the Jewish workmen in exile, cannot become positive proletarians because our brethren, the capitalists cannot become positive capitalists. We therefore must acquire a new territory in order that our brethren come in possession of the national industry, and have a chance to exploit us in a real capitalistic manner, that we may become real, positive proletarians, that we may start a real class-conscious movement and ultimately make a revolution.

The bourgeoisie therefore becomes an indispensable factor in their new undertaking. They admit, it is true, their ignorance of the motives that would induce the bourgeoisie to help establish the new land, (“Marxian” philosophy seems to have forsaken them in this particular point), but they know that very little could be accomplished without the material aid of the Jewish capitalists. How do they expect to make the bargain? Whatever the capitalists are, they are not lacking practical common sense, especially when it comes to strike a bargain. Do they expect to get the capitalists to agree to their terms. The capitalists would at once detect the traps set for them by the Zionist-Socialists, and refuse to help establish a territory with the avowed purpose of making a revolution against them. Oh, no! They would never agree to sure death.

This is not intended as a joke, though it sounds humorous. My purpose is rather to show how ludicrous is the adoption of Marxism to the movement of Zionism, whatever its own merits may be.

More ridiculous yet is the main point of their contention: The Jews must acquire a territory, because among the nations they cannot proletarize and, consequently, can not help in the reconstruction of society. In other words: The “positive” proletariat alone possess the “power of reconstruction” the “negative” proletariat can, at least be used: only as a destructive force. The Jewish people, because of its peculiar economic condition, belong to the negative proletariat. As such it can only destroy but is impotent in building up. Therefore…they must build a totally new society in the wilderness. And this is deducted from the philosophy of Marx. How ridiculous!

But let us make another concession; let us forgive them this inconsistency, too; let us admit that this “powerless, destructive” and “negative” proletariat will be able to build up a new society; let us admit that the capitalists will be stupid enough to agree to a bargain by which they are sure to be losers; let us admit that the social revolution will be postponed; let us admit, that it is desirable and possible to build up a country in order to make a revolution; let us finally admit that the role of the Jews in the present revolution in Russia has been and is only of a negative character. In a word, let us admit everything.

What then? Will this help any the Jewish nation? We have our doubts about it.

It must be remembered that even the Zionist-Socialists admit that the whole nation cannot possible emigrate. At the best it would take fifty years for two or three million of people to settle in the new territory, in which time, as has already been pointed out, the depletion would be made good.

How will the new territory help those that are going to remain in exile? Senseless as are the contentions of the Zionist — both materialist and idealist — that a Jewish state somewhere will make the Jew be more respected, or that an “intellectual center” will tend to keep alive and develop the Jewish “spirit” of western Europe. Senseless as these contentions are, it may yet sound plausible to some. Difficult as it is to believe we can still imagine how the philosophic faculty in Jerusalem, for instance, under the guidance of the long since dead idealistic philosophy of “Akhad Haam” should influence some self-taught “philosopher” of Talmudic study. But how the “national” industry in the new Territory somewhere in Asia or Africa could help the millions of Jewish toilers in eastern Europe to become “positive” proletarians is beyond the comprehension of any sensible man. The majority of the Jewish nation is after all doomed to pauperism, and will still be unable to become a factor of construction in the social revolution. The only result of such territory would be to still more scatter the Jewish people. To the many countries where the Jews now live would be added another one new territory. From the above it will be easily seen how utterly baseless and illogical is the whole “theory” of the Zionist territorialist. But the thing becomes worse yet, when we look into their “Marxism” from the real Marxian point of view.

V.

Let us now look into the character of the theory of the Zionist socialists.

They claim to be orthodox Marxists, and their theory strictly Marxian. It, therefore, behooves us to examine it from that standpoint.

The Marxian philosophy is based on the principle that economic conditions (not economic circumstances) are the axis upon which turns the wheel of history. In other words, the way in which people produce and distribute among themselves the material things necessary for subsistence, is the basis for all human activity, upon which all else is built. This is the philosophy of Marx. This is, at the same time, his method of investigating history. The principle once established leaves nothing else but the investigation of the existing economic conditions of a given period; that is, the investigation of the ways and means in which, and by which things are produced and distributed. And while studying the economic conditions of the capitalistic era, Marx has discovered that the mode of production and distribution under capitalism leads, in the first place, to the accumulation and concentration of large capitals in the hands of a few on one side, and it creates misery, privation, suffering and degradation on the other; that it divides the people into different classes which are arrayed one against another: that it drives the middle classes into the ranks of the proletariat, and those of the proletariat into that of paupers; that it simultaneously engenders and nourishes a healthy discontent and class consciousness amongst the disinherited classes, which will ultimately lead to the establishment of a new social order, based on justice and equality, in a word, to the establishment of socialism.

This is Marxism in one breath. It will at once be seen that no amount of scholasticism and dialectical jugglery would be able to deduce the idea of Territorialism from this and the Zionist Socialist can not do the trick either; they bring it about, however, with what they arbitrarily add to the doctrine of Marx. And for that purpose they begin at the end instead of at the beginning.

The doctrine of Marx, they say in substance, is true, but it is only half the truth, the whole truth being that in addition to the class struggle, which, no doubt takes place, there also goes on a struggle among the nations; that in a country like Russia, which includes many nationalities, there goes on a continuous fight amongst the capitalists of the different nationalities, as well as amongst the proletariat. And, what is more, it is always the ruling nation that scores a victory in this contest. Hence, the capitalists of the subordinate nationality can never hope to become capitalists in the real sense of the word, that is, to gain control over any considerable portion of the main industries of the land; likewise the proletariat of the subordinate nationality can never attain the distinction of real proletarians, that is to participate in the main industries of the land.

The “theory” is thus based on Marxism, but upon a misapprehension thereof.

We shall, however, not quarrel with them on that account. We cheerfully concede to them the right to construe—rather to misconstrue— Marx according to their own understanding, or misunderstanding. But then, we have a right to demand of them to reason out logically their own propositions. And what would be the logical conclusion of that interpretation? It would amount to this: The economic conditions of society cause not only a conflict among the different classes; they also are the cause of the eternal strife amongst the different nationalities within the classes. In this struggle of the nations, the stronger nationality, which is in possession of the national industry is sure to come out winner, while the weaker nations are bound to underlie. The Jewish nation being the weakest of them all, having no national industry, and having no hope of acquiring one, is doomed to extinction; it is bound to turn pauper, and no one can help it. The iron laws of economic conditions have so decreed.

Such a conclusion would not be in accordance with the truth, neither would it conform to the spirit of Marxism, nor would it exactly fit the known facts about the Jewish people, but it would be the logical conclusion from their own premises,

This only logical conclusion they fail to draw, instead they seek refuge in emigration.

The abnormal conditions of the Jews, they maintain, drive the nation to seek homes in new lands, where the prospects are not much better; hence the conclusion of acquisition of an autonomous territory becomes an economic necessity. We have thus an entirely new theory which has little in common with Marxism.

The Zionist Socialists may here raise an objection. They may say: “We are not Marxists in the sense that we subscribe to every word uttered by Marx, but we hold to the doctrine in that sense that we believe in the materialistic conception of history, and that we apply the Marxian method to the solution of the Jewish problem, and applying this method we find that the lack of national industry is the chief trouble of the Jewish nation; and that the remedy, therefore, lies in the acquisition of territory wherein such industry could develop.”

This has a scientific sound to the untrained ear. But the difficulty lies just in this very application. They know not how to use the. method, and, therefore, confound economic conditions with economic circumstances— the economic conditions of society at large with the economic circumstances of the Jews within society. Their theories are therefore built on quicksand, and crumble at the first touch.

In an article in “Das Volk” of June of last year, one of their chieftains has, as if to order furnished the proof of the correctness of the, above statement. Says he:

“Socialism, according to the materialistic conception of history, is an ideal the holders of which are interested not in the name of justice, morality and ethics, but in the name of selfinterest. This self-interest begets the subjective will in the class mostly concerned for the changing of society. The subjective will, however, can guarantee the realization of socialism only when it is in accordance with a certain measure of objective force. The production and the technique must have reached a certain point in its development, and then, it is only the class which is employed in the higher forms of production that will inaugurate the desired change. This is also the reason why according to Marxism the machine workers will hold the main position in the changing of the social order.”

This paragraph is characteristic of the Zionist Socialist as to clearness of thought, power of expression and understanding of Marx. It is just the opposite of Marxism according to which teaching it is not the economic circumstances of this or that class that will establish socialism in the name of its interest. It is rather the economic conditions of society (the condition of producing commodities not for one’s own use, but for the market, to make profit; the conditions that compel the workingman to sell his labor-power; that deprive him of the tools necessary for production)—it is these conditions that pave the way for socialism, it will therefore not be the machine workers alone it will be the working class as a whole, aided by the remnants of the middle class, and to great extent by the inner struggles within the capitalist class themselves that will help in the establishment of socialism. Whoever is not clear on this point is incapable of formulating new theories based on Marxism.

Let us now once more recapitulate the theory of the Zionist socialist. It may be reduced to the following few formulas:

1) The industry of a land is always national industry.

2) When several nationalities live together under one government there goes on a struggle between the different nationalities for the control of this industry, resulting in the triumph of the ruling nation.

3) The proletariat 1s divided into two parts—the negative and the positive—according to the part each takes in the industry. The proletariat of the ruling nation, however, always belongs to the positive, while all the others belong to the negative one, with a probability, nay, a certainty, of falling into the ranks of pauperism,

4) The alternative of pauperization is emigration, which, however, leads to no better results.

I have formulated these propositions advisedly, because only as general rules can this theory have any claims to our attention. No theory can be called by that name when it is applicable to only one exceptional case. Let us, therefore, inquire how this theory would work when applied to other nations similarly situated.

VI. NATIONAL INDUSTRY.

What is the meaning of this term? We have heard of national honor, national pride, national flags, national character, national wealth and many other things which may or may not be, but which are called national, but we have never heard of national industry. In vain will we look up the dictionaries, we will not get wise on that point. The Zionist Socialists have not as yet taken the trouble to give us a correct definition of the term. From their literature, however, we gather its meaning to be that the industry of a certain land belongs collectively to the nation of that land, which definition is neither overwise nor extraordinarily new. But that in a many nationed country like Russia it invariably is dominated by the ruling nationality—in this case the Russian people.

This is the “Marxian” rule. Accordingly, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Armenians, those of the Baltic Provinces and scores of other peoples that pine under the Russian rule, have no share in the national industry; accordingly the Poles in Germany, the Ruthenians, the Chechs, the Italians and all other nationalities constituting the Austrian Empire have no share in the national industry of those lands, and the workingmen of all these nationalities belong to the negative proletariat, which will never be able to take part in the Social Revolution, and is doomed to pauperization. And, if we come thus far, we are bound to make the next step. The economic circumstances of all those subjected nationalities lead to an emigration on a large scale, which is proven by the following official figures:

From July 1st, 1904 to June 30th, 1905 immigrants arrived to this country, from Russia 184,622, and out of this number 92,388 were Jews, Russians proper 3,278, and the remaining 88,956 from the other nationalities. The immigration from Austria-Hungary was 275,418 out of which number 47,352 were Jews, 22,000 Germans, and the remaining 206,066 recruited themselves from the different nationalities under the Austrian rule. To take the number of immigrants of several subjected nations alone, we find:

Jews, from Russia and Austria, 129,910; Poles, 102,137; Slovacs, 52,368.

We must, therefore, come to the following conclusion: The Poles and the Slovacs, like the Jews, have no national industry which fact drives large masses of their number to emigrate. In the new country where they arrive they can not hope to get a share of the national industry which is already owned by the ruling nationality. The only remedy for all those peoples, therefore, is a new territory of their own.

This is where we arrive at when we essay to make a general rule of the theory of the Zionist Socialist. We reach a “territory” from whence “no traveler ever returned”.

The Z. S. will, no doubt, frown at such conclusions. They are not at all trained to the straight and narrow path of logic: they will, no doubt, try to evade the question by pointing out the incomparableness of the two; by claiming that the Polish nation really has its land, and its national industry, that its trouble consists only in the fact that a, strange and tyrannical government captured and holds their land by force of arms. Their remedy, consequently, lies in freeing themselves of this tyrannical government, a thing very possible nowadays, while the Jews are, and will remain in exceptional conditions, no matter what happens in Russia. The Jew will always remain a stranger, and will never have any chance of controlling any part of the large industries.

Such an argument may sound very plausible, even scientific, to some. A little reflection will, however, reveal the weakness of the position.

Whatever the definition of “National Industry” may be no man will deny that the Germans, British, Italians and Scandinavians do own such national industry. If the Socialist Territorlalists, the new interpreters of Marx, be right in their assertion, the emigration of those countries ought to have been, if at all, very insignificant. What do the figures tell us? From the year 1881, i.e. from the year since the Jewish emigration began, there arrived to this country: From Germany 2,135,117; From England 2,507,814, Italy 1,918,971; Scandinavia 1,319,645; Total 7,881, 547. 

While Jews came altogether less than one million. In the fiscal year, beginning July the 1st, 1904 and ending June 30th, 1905 there arrived here:

Italians 226,250; British (including Irish) 137,134; Jews (from all countries) 129,910; Germans (Germany and Austria) 82,360. 

The nations that live on their own territory, possessing the national industry of their lands, have thus supplied us with a greater number of immigrants than the Jews that have none of these much coveted things. And we must not forget, that the immigration from Germany and England fell off considerably in the last few years. There were times as in the year 1882 when Germany sent to us 250,630 of her beloved children, and England bade good-by to not less than 179,419 of her positive proletarians. This is not guess work as is the theory of the Zionist Socialist. This is the official report of the Bureau of Immigration at Washington.

What do these figures teach us? They tell us in unmistakable language that the “national industry” and one’s own territory do not prevent the emigration of large masses of the people; that, consequently, the lack of it accelerates the movement; that they stand in no relation whatsoever, that there must be other causes for this phenomenon. It is, therefore, possible, nav, probable that the emigration of the Jews, also, has other causes than those designated by the Z. S.

Here, again, the “scientific” Territorialist may raise an objection. He may sav: While it is true that the absolute number of the Italian immigrants is larger than the Jewish, relatively, when we consider the size of the two nations, the Jews yielded the greater number, which goes to prove the exceptional condition of the Jewish nation. This is true, to a certain extent, or rather, to an uncertain extent. It is only true in some years, while in others also the relative number of other nationalities is larger than the Jewish. And the years when the Jewish number is greater, it, no doubt, proves the exceptional condition Jews are in. But the exception is in an altogether different direction than the Z. S. take it to be. When the causes are different the conclusions necessarily must be of a different nature.

In the year 1891 the government of the United States of America sent a special commission to European countries “to investigate the causes which incite emigration to the United States.” Two of the commissioners, Weber and Kempster especially investigated conditions in Russia, They visited St. Petersburg, Moscow, Minsk, Wilna, Byalostok and Warsaw, besides a number of minor towns and townlets. The result of this investigation they have embodied in a report to the Commissioner of Immigration, and this report unfolds before us a heart-rending picture of oppression and persecution; of ruined lives and ruined fortunes; of broken hearts and spoiled careers.

The poverty, the misery, the agony which they witnessed, they write in the report, they would never forget in all their lives. And they appeal to their own government in the name of humanity to stretch out a helping hand to this downtrodden, persecuted and haunted people.

What is the cause of this misery and starvation? The Commission knows of one, only one: Government oppression! ‘That is the word. Emigration from all other European countries, the commission reports, is caused mainly by economic conditions—by the poverty at home and prospects of improving conditions in America: partly also by the exaggerated tale of prosperity spread by unscrupulous agents of transportation companies that thrive upon the ignorance and the misery of the people, while the immigration of the Jews is caused solely by persecution of the government and the special laws enacted against them. That even the poverty prevalent amongst them is due, to a great extent, to this very persecution and oppression; that the overcrowding in the “pale of settlement” aggravated by the forced exodus from Moscow, as well as by the laws which closed a number of occupations to them, has created an abnormal competition in all walks of life with the result that comparatively wealthy men were reduced to begging.

Out of the many facts cited by the commission I shall here quote only one: In Minsk the commission met a contractor of government buildings, a Jew, who had just concluded a contract to build some armories in Minsk, one clause of which prohibited the employment of Jews in any capacity whatever. And this in a city preponderatingly Jewish, with a great number of Jewish artisans, which are, according to the testimony of the commission, more skilled, and more reliable than the non-Jews of that town.

The report winds up thus: “In view of the fact that the restrictive measures levelled against the Jews in Russia affect the condition of from 5 to 7 million people, that these persons are in consequence forced to emigrate. and that owing to various reasons, the chief of which being superior advantages, personal and religious liberty their trend is toward our shores, we gave more time to Jewish immigration than to any other, as in every country visited, except Russia the migration is due – almost entirely to normal conditions. In Russia, however, emigration is incited by causes within the control of the authorities. There is a propulsive force behind it which can be stopped by an Imperial edict, by an intimation to cease the persecutions, just as was done after the ‘May laws’ of 1882 started the exodus which ‘swelled the figures of emigration to our country and promised to grow into huge proportions, but which was stopped by the protest which came from all directions.”

To prove their contention that the immigration of Jews is due to persecution of the government the commission quotes the following statistical figures:

There arrived in this country from Russia in 1880: 7,693; 1881: 10,515; 1882: 15,900; 1883: 7,577.

Emigration thus rises according to the intensity of persecution, and drops as soon as it relaxes. And this is true until this day. Furthermore, until the year 1881 hardly any Russian Jews left that country. From that year, the year of the first anti Jewish riots, the immigration of Russian Jews dates, and it varies according to the variation of oppression.

From the year 1881 to the year 1890 there arrived to the United States through the three main ports of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore between 20,000 and 25,000 Jews annually, only few times reaching the high mark of 30,000 in one year. In the year 1891, after the Jews were driven out from Moscow, the number of immigrants takes a jump to 69,139. In the following year it again drops to 60,325, to be followed up by another drop to 25,000 and 30,000 annually. In the three years from 1899 to 1902 it rises again to an average to 49,000, and from now on keeps on the ascending point until it reaches the number of 129,910 in the year 1905.

It is thus plain as daylight, that first the possession of a national industry does not hinder emigration; and second, that the emigration of Jews is not due to the lack of national industry; that it is rather the deliberate and arbitrary oppression of the Russian government that incites emigration.

This fact becomes still more obvious when we compare the migration of the Russians with those of Austria-Hungarians.

Jews arrived to this country:

We see here that while the emigration of Jews from Austria-Hungary varies within certain limits, the emigration of Russian Jews is steadily progressing, and has more than doubled, almost trebled in the course of five years.

The same thing is to be noticed with the Roumanian Jews. The Jewish emigration from that country varies with the persecution in that unfortunate country.

To recapitulate on the one hand the theory of “national industry” leads to the conclusion that the Poles, etc. ought to look around for a new territory; on the other hand we sec that a “national industry” is powerless to protect the proletariat against pauperization and consequent emigration. In the third place, it is clear that the emigration of Jews is not caused by the absence of a “national industry”, but by political circumstances.

We will consider the matter from one more viewpoint:

Out of the 129,910 Jews that arrived to this country from July 1st, 1904, till June 30th, 1905, 60,135 or 46.28 were skilled laborers, while out of the 226,320 Italians that arrived during the same period only 27,897 or 12.32 were skilled. It is true, among the skilled laborers of the Jewish immigrants there were 22,234 tailors, but it is “up to” the Socialist Territorialist to prove that tailoring does not belong, and is not a part of Capitalistic industry.

This again shows us that there is no reason to lament the inability of the Jews to become “positive proletarians”’. They do, thanks to the Almighty, proletarize fast enough. On the other hand, it would seem that Italians are more apt to fall into the ranks of paupers. And they have a national industry.

The thing becomes worse yet when we consider the occupations of the most of the Italians in this country. Wherever there is a tunnel to be dug, or ditches to be filled, or hods to carry, or boots to shine, or beards to shave, and more such real capitalistic undertaking, we are sure to find Italians there.

We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Italians, too, are born to be negative proletarians, or that they need a new territory, or—that the Socialist Territorialist would better look out for a new theory, and leave Marxism alone.

In the next and last chapter we shall treat of the negative proletarianism of the Jews and the positive capitalism of the Russians.

The International Socialist Review (ISR) was published monthly in Chicago from 1900 until 1918 by Charles H. Kerr and critically loyal to the Socialist Party of America. It is one of the essential publications in U.S. left history. During the editorship of A.M. Simons it was largely theoretical and moderate. In 1908, Charles H. Kerr took over as editor with strong influence from Mary E Marcy. The magazine became the foremost proponent of the SP’s left wing growing to tens of thousands of subscribers. It remained revolutionary in outlook and anti-militarist during World War One. It liberally used photographs and images, with news, theory, arts and organizing in its pages. It articles, reports and essays are an invaluable record of the U.S. class struggle and the development of Marxism in the decades before the Soviet experience. It was closed down in government repression in 1918.

PDF of issue 1: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/isr/v07n07-jan-1907-ISR-gog-Harv.pdf

PDF of issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/isr/v07n08-feb-1907-ISR-gog-Harv.pdf