What is the essence of the historic life of a people? This question
has been on the program of the sociologist ever since society began to
free itself from the hold of the state. Prior to the French Revolution,
when society and the state were interlinked by thousands of strands,
the belief was current that the national state--particularly, the well
organized, centralized state--is the essence of the historic life of
a people. It was thought that as soon as a special form of government
was overturned the people would turn loose like a herd of wild men.
Then came the French Revolution and laid the prestige of the state low.
A national society began to organize, outside the state, and became a
historic factor of its own account. It then became evident that the
state was not the only essence of the historic life of a people, that
there were other factors equally, or even more important, and that
no national historic life could exist without them. Only a short
time before the French Revolution, a French historian said that the
Chinese nation, despite its living a national life, is only _existing_
in a historic sense, because it has no influence upon the historic
process, and plays no part in the production of cultural values for
the human race. In short, the Chinese nation lives outside the pale of
history. Now then, if a people like that of China, numbering hundreds
of millions of souls and living on its own soil under the auspices of
its own government, is placed in the category of nations that merely
_exist_, other nationalities of smaller numbers and having no national
government are certainly not to be classed as historically living
nations.
Liberal-minded thinkers, whose thought was influenced directly by the
events of the French Revolution endeavored to minimize the historic
glory of the state and reduce it to only one of the factors in the
historic life of a people. The conservatives on the other hand
endeavored to restore to the state its old glory. The controversy
was especially intense in Germany. Hegel, the father of conservative
philosophy in Germany, raised the state to the pedestal of a deity,
characterizing it as the aim and substance of historic development,
in general, and as the most significant phenomenon in history. Johann
Fichte, Hegel's contemporary and opponent, the father of the national
doctrine in Germany gave society the first place, and looked upon the
state as a necessary evil. He regarded culture, with the exception of
art, as opposed to the state. The essence of historic life was to him
not the political life of the people but its ethics, science, religion
and art. The state can have a positive attitude towards art alone--all
the other elements, such as science, religion and ethics, must enjoy
the freedom and independence which the state can not always grant to
them. According to him, therefore, not political acts but scientific
cognition and intellectual development are the driving forces in the
historic life of a people.
Even Kant himself--who gave preference to the state--recognized a
certain antagonism between ethics and the state. The state is the
realm of law, while ethics has its origin in conscience. The romantic
philosophy, which attempted to solve this problem from the standpoint
of esthetics culminated in the extreme individualism which found its
highest expression in the doctrines of Nietzsche. The superman, the
great personality which a people produces is according to this doctrine
the aim and end of history, and, naturally, that of the historic life
of a people. Herder hinted at this conclusion, Schelling developed
the doctrine and Nietzsche--the extremist of romanticists--perfected
it. But this historic personality of the romantic philosophers is not
only, as many are inclined to believe, an intellectual being. The great
philosopher or the great artist is not the historic personality, but
the man of great deeds; for history is first and foremost the realm of
action and not that of thought. Nietzsche's "blond beast," that is, the
man of great passions and great deeds, is the historic personality,
that motive power in historic life, in general, and the life of the
nation in particular.
* * * * *
If we look upon Jewish history in the Diaspora in the light of classic,
or romantic, or even modern philosophy, we are bound to come to the
conclusion that the Jewish people ceased to live a historic national
life when it was exiled from its land. We have not lived a political
life during the past two thousand years; hence we could not contribute
to the civilization of mankind, for a national civilization is
possible only in a national state. True, we have produced many great
personalities, but the Jewish great personality in the Goluth is not
a great Jewish personality--in the majority of cases it is merely
an intellectual personality: a poet, an artist, a philosopher, etc.
Lord Beaconsfield certainly was a great historic personality; but who
would dare claim this statesman as a Jewish historic personality--the
product of Jewish culture? His deeds are chronicled in the history
of the English people; his historic accomplishments are the historic
accomplishments of the English people. It was not the Jew Disraeli
who procured the Suez Canal for the Jewish people, but the English
statesman, the Lord Beaconsfield who acquired it for the English people.
The Jewish great personality displayed its talent in various
intellectual fields, but did nothing in the political field, for which
it lacked the necessary conditions. For two thousand years, we have
lived an unhistoric life--the life of Chinese, with the exception that
the Chinese live on their own soil and were spared the persecutions
that fell to our lot. We eked out an existence; but we did not live.
Hence the entire history of the Jewish people for the past two thousand
years is a history of Jewish literature. Since the deterioration
of the Jewish state, Judaism has been a mere literary tendency in
general history; an interesting tendency, to be sure, occasionally
even original, but not more than a literary tendency. Not our historic
deeds but the abstract thought alone aided us in continuing our
existence--our philosophy, poetry, ethics, and religious cravings kept
us alive. We the bearers of that literary aspiration have been going
a-begging for thousands of years. We wandered from land to land and
from sea to sea without an end in view. All our political achievements
have been concentrated in our memory for the past two thousand years.
We remembered that we once were a people like every other people,
and by the mere force of these memories we went wherever we were
directed. Thus in our long travels we have become spiritualized, we
have converted a system of national culture with laws and regulations
about the state and its rulers to a system of theology. The ancient
Hebrew culture which is essentially a secular culture became to us a
sacred thing. The Hebrew prophets, who were historic personalities in
the full sense of the word, because they were men of action, statesmen
and warriors of political battles, were raised by us to the category of
saints in the theological sense. Thus the Hebrew culture was reduced to
a mere theological system.
We lived in a Roman environment, that is, in an environment which draws
its strength from ancient Rome, whose program was the state, practical
civilization, wars, conquests, revolts, political reorganization, etc.
In such an environment with its peculiar culture, there was no room for
the ancient Jewish culture based on ethical teachings, which, in order
to be able to maintain its existence, was compelled to confine itself
within the walls of the synagogue. In short, it is not only impossible
to create new cultural values in the Diaspora but even to continue the
thread of the ancient Hebrew idea, in essence an idea of civilization.
In exile, more so in Roman exile, there was no past and no future for
Judaism. Ancient Judaism was a historic and not a literary phenomenon;
hence, since it has been the destiny of the Jewish people for the past
two thousand years _to exist_, and not to live a normal national life,
it is even unable to preserve the memories of a historic past.
Then came Zionism. The nationalistic trend in history has influenced
the Jewish people too. Zionism came not from the East, but from the
West--from the centre of modern nationalism. Modern nationalism,
unlike that of ancient peoples, is not a cultural nationalism; modern
nationalism is nationalism in the sense of civilization and can be
understood only in connection with the industrial revolution and
the colonial expansion of the great nations. Zionism could not have
come from the East; for the East is politically and industrially not
sufficiently developed to produce a movement which is both national and
civilizing.
The Zionist platform is known to all: A publicly recognized and legally
secured home in Palestine for the Jews. What is the historic meaning of
this program? It is to convert an unhistoric people, that is, a people
that does not live a historic life, to a normal historic people and to
create for it all the factors necessary for a national civilization:
a Hebrew administration, a national Hebrew economic life, a Hebrew
education, a Hebrew social organization. The Zionist genius realized
that there cannot be even national Hebrew culture without a national
Hebrew civilization, for the culture of a people is only the roof on
the edifice of a national civilization, and woe to the culture which
lays its foundation upon personalities and does not draw from the wells
of the nation's civilization. At present there are only atoms connected
to one another by the ties of national remembrances, spirit, tradition,
and poetry. Zionism purports the building out of these atoms, which
are scattered throughout the world, of a national organism in the
land of the Hebrews. And since every national polity and civilization
is secular, with the exception of papal Rome and theocratic Tibet,
the function of Zionism is to create those conditions which will
again secularize Judaism, and raise it to the pedestal of its ancient
glory--to make it a historic force.
Goluth means: a scattered existence, and one of misery and affliction.
Zionism means: a national historic life. And he who prefers a national
life to a miserable existence has no other choice than to join the
Zionist ranks.