Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 5:29:19 PM
Well, I thought
I said everything there was to say, but as I got one rather negative response, I decided to write a little bit more on this topic.
The argument advanced seems to be "Jews were involved in communist organizing, even other Jews recognize this, so obviously Jews are all liberals, maybe communists." If you add enough famous names, it also sounds respectable, but it really isn't.
First, let us dismiss any claims by liberal Jews that Judaism and liberalism are identical. Of course a liberal Jew would say that. Liberal Christians argue that Christianity endorses liberalism, if not communism. So why should we listen to liberal Jews on this matter? All liberals argue their own religious or cultural tradition endorses liberal thought, it means little, saying much more about the beliefs of the speaker than the religion or culture.
Second, of course Jews who were involve din communism used Jewish organizations to spread their beliefs. Liberal Quakers use Quaker organizations to spread their beliefs. Liberal Catholics used seminaries to spread liberal and communist thought. All groups use whatever social groups they can infiltrate to spread their beliefs. That says nothing about Judaism except that it has social organizations. Unless one is willing to argue that the existence of liberation theology proves Catholics are all communist as well, the argument against Jews holds little water.
Finally, there is the simple argument that "lots of communists were Jews". As I said in my reply to the comment, lots of Soviet dissidents were Jews too, which seems to argue against some sort of innate communism. Yes, Israel did develop a socialist philosophy, but looking at the date, all nations were ardently moving toward socialism, including our own, so that hardly says anything about Jews. Yes, there was a large Jewish presence in the urban communist groups, but there was a disproportionate number of Jews in those cities as well, making those numbers less impressive.
Well, let me try this using different logic. Blacks and Hispanics tend to make up a massive percentage of urban criminal gangs. Does that prove blacks and Hispanics are innately criminal? Or organized crime is largely Italian and Catholic, does that prove there is an innate criminality in being Italian or Catholic? Or corrupt Democrat political machines were largely made up of Irish Catholics. Does that prove Irish or Catholics are inherently corrupt or liberal? You see, if you pick any group and look for the predominant group, you can make up any stereotype you wish. And, while it may point out that some avenue was particularly attractive to a given group at a given time, or that some factors drove the over representation of a group, it really tells us very little.
For example, blacks turned to crime in disparate numbers because of the lucrative nature of crime, the incredible failure of urban schools, and the message they receive that they have no opportunities in the US. Likewise Jews in the 40's, 50's and 60's were over represented among the urban intelligentsia at a period when being an intellectual meant a far left world view. Neither says anything about an inherent nature of either group. In fact, being a historical artifact, the Jewish example is even less relevant.
However, I am sure some will now write in to say "See I told you they were commies!" When in reality all I said was that a very specific group, which moved generally left, had more Jews than the general populace. That really tells us very little except that Jews tended toward more intellectual pursuits and congregated in urban areas. Yes, their religion may have moved them slightly left of the general population, but beyond that any claims of innate communism, now or in the past, is simply absurd.