ANARCHO-COMMUNISM
LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF JEWISH LAW
Seeing the problems
of Judaism with all my four eyes fixed and focused, I am not disheartened.
Neither will I throw away the proverbial baby with the cliché bath
water.
I know there is a God. My faith is in Humanity. That faith remains
unshakeable.
The religion requires
revision (in the sense of seeing it with new eyes), rehabilitation, restoration
return to the Source, rekindling and rededication. That does not mean it should
be trashed.
I wish I could
discuss more examples with a general readership, but they pre-require intimate
knowledge of the intricacies of Jewish Law.
This example is clear
to all:
TRACTATE AVOT (PIRKEI
AVOT, ETHICS OF THE FATHERS), Chapter V, Quotation 10
can be translated
thus:
"There are four
character types among people: S/He who says: "What is mine is yours and
what is yours is mine", is an ignoramus; [s/he who says] "What is
mine is mine and what is yours is yours" – this is the median
characteristic; and some say that this is the characteristic of the people of
Sodom; [s/he who says] "What is mine is yours and what is yours is
yours" is a pious and benevolent person; [s/he who says] "What is
yours is mine and what is mine is mine"
is a wicked person."
Let's consider two
points in the above paragraph. First, is it true that one who says"
"What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine" is an ignoramus?
Usually when one fluffs someone off as "an ignoramus", one knows that
the person who holds the position has something important to say and doesn't
want you to hear it. We may always suspect the motives of someone who calls
another and "ignoramus" and presents another's position in their
stead.
Second, let's
consider how the quote defines a pious and benevolent person. S/He is
someone who says "what is mine is yours and what is yours is yours".
If the process of give and take stops with one person, then the possibility of
private property might continue to exist. All proprietary
entitlement transfers to the receiver, the pious and benevolent person having
abnegated his or hers.
However, if the pious
and benevolent person gives to someone who is likewise pious and benevolent,
that person will say: "No! What is mine is yours and what is yours is
yours!" In such a situation BOTH
(or in the case of more than two people, all) have abnegated their rights to
their property mutually, and in so doing have negated the concept of private
property entirely.
The laws of
commercial interaction called for in Judaism then, if we wish to be what our
ideals hope for, leave us no recourse but the abolition of private property.
Anarcho-Communism, then, is
the conclusion of Jewish Law taken to its logical last step.
I am NOT speaking of
Marxist Communism, which is nothing other than State-owned property, as those
of you who know my position are aware.
I am speaking,
rather, in terms of Kropotkinian Anarcho-Communism
– the utter abolition of property and currency. This is the only system of
Anarchism that will allow for us to keep the Laws of Torah as they are written
and as they are intended.
The intermediate
forms of Anarchy, generally known as "Mutualism" and
"Collectivism" will not fulfill the needs of the Jewish people, for
they still retain either some degree private ownership of property or
collective ownership of capital.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel