While most conservatives in the West consider Karl Marx’s primary legacy to be “the specter of Communism” that haunted Europe – and the world – throughout the last century, committed leftists to this day are far more interested in his theoretical innovation of historical materialism.
This approach, introduced in The Communist Manifesto and expounded at length in Capital, introduced a novel way of analyzing history as a series of material contradictions in a constant dialectic, “class conflicts,” that animated the economic, political, and ideological developments that we recognize as “history.”
The power of Marx’s approach, when adopted by revolutionaries like Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, was its ability to accurately understand the material interests of the power structure that they sought to overthrow, and disrupt that material base in order to break down the system.
Similarly, Avraham Stern and his successors in the Leḥi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) center adopted a Marxist understanding of British interests in Mandatory Palestine and in the broader region, in order to effectively select targets for their operations.
Their use of historic materialism to understand the material contradictions within the British Empire, and also within Palestine’s internally divided Jewish population, enabled them to antagonize these contradictions, eventually bringing about the united Hebrew Resistance Movement, which succeeded in forcing the British to withdraw from the country.
Any modern-day Jewish political movement that aspires to bring about real change within Israeli society, or in Israel’s geopolitical position in the region or the world, should study Marx, as well as later theorists of historical materialism, in order to acquire the theoretical tools for waging an effective political struggle.
There is, however, a danger in uncritically accepting this approach when dealing with the people of Israel.
In this period of the year, as we transition from mourning the destruction of our Temple and our national framework in the months of Tammuz and Av to self-reflection and t’shuva in Elul and Tishrei, our weekly portions of the Torah and the prophets provide a powerful insight into Israel’s unique approach to materialism.
In stark contrast to many religious traditions that establish an afterlife of pleasure or suffering as reward or punishment for man’s obedience to the Divine will, the Torah insists that our morality determines our material reality in this world. But rather than mystifying materialism in a way that encourages idleness or complacence, our tradition pushes us to “act with the Creator” (“lif’ol im El“), in order to manifest the Divine blessing to which we merit by walking in His path.
The starkest example of this is at the end of Parshat Ekev, in which Moshe tells the nation as we prepare to cross the Jordan that the land of Israel is uniquely dependant on rainwater, and that our national sustenance depends on living up to the purpose for which we were freed from Egypt and given the land – in order to inspire awe of HaShem and his people in all of the nations.
This theme continues throughout Parshat R’eh, which is full of the blessings and curses that set the parameters for our national life in the land. Agriculturally and militarily, the Torah insists that success and failure are ultimately Divine gifts. But unlike the destruction of Egypt, whose first born were slaughtered while Israel sat peacefully in our homes and whose army was crushed in the sea while Israel fled securely to dry land, HaShem promises Israel victories in our conquests “before you” (11:23, 11:25, 12:29, 12:30), while we face our enemies on the battlefield, and act with HaShem to defeat them.
Rav Avraham Yitzḥak HaKohen Kook explains this dynamic in Orot, in the second chapter of “Israel and its Renaissance.”
There, he presents two approaches to history – causality and morality. While acknowledging the truth and importance of a scientific understanding of causal history, what Marx would call historical materialism, Rav Kook rejects the binary that insists causality and morality are mutually exclusive. He instead likens them to a body and a soul, with the Divine hand guiding causal history (the external material body) in the direction of moral elevation and ascension (the metaphysical force that gives history meaning – the soul).
By understanding that causal history is a material expression of the Divine imperative for human free will to advance towards Divine morality, we can more deeply appreciate Israel’s role in history and the universal nature of Israel’s return and redemption.
The most immediate implication is that any Hebrew liberation movement seeking to apply historical materialism must be guided not only by revolutionary theory, but also by our Torah.
The praxis that the Torah permits in a revolutionary struggle to free our land from foreign rule is not the same as the praxis permitted in struggling against a sovereign Jewish state. But this need not undermine historical materialism as a useful tool for struggles within Israeli society.
Just as Frantz Fanon’s postcolonial understanding of historical materialism doesn’t erase the differences between the colonial (Western) bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, because their material relationship to the colonized subject is fundamentally different, so too Hebrew historical materialism must familiarize itself with the realities of the Jewish people, through all of its historical developments, when aiming to advance the struggle between different elements of Israeli society. This reality, which is animated by the nation’s relationship to the Torah, to the land, and to the Creator, is essential to any analysis.
But even more important than the question of means is that of ends.
Any attempt to affect radical change within Israel without advancing Israel’s metahistoric mission is doomed to failure on the material plane. Israel’s modern history demonstrates this clearly, with political initiatives aimed at strengthening Israel materially (especially militarily and economically) seeing great success, while efforts to ingratiate Israel with the West on its terms have brought repeated catastrophes. Israel must stand out as a light to the nations, neither by becoming like them, nor by rejecting the material realities of statehood, but rather by developing a material powerhouse that can serve as the body for a revolutionary spirit able to inspire all of humanity towards holiness.
So, Hebrew historical materialism can be summed up in four principles:
- The ultimate goal of history is not universal communism, but universal holiness – “to restore the world under the kingship of Shaddai.”
- Israel must be a material superpower on the world stage in order to influence the nations towards holiness – therefore, Israel’s material development is critical to advancing the goal of history.
- To become a global superpower, Israel must adopt a Marxist analysis of the material contradictions, both internal (within the nation) and external (among the nations), to develop praxis for advancing the goal of history.
- Praxis must conform to the laws of Israel’s nature, the Torah’s moral guidance, in order to effectively advance history’s goal. Any deviation from these laws would negatively impact Israel’s material development.
