WI: Bundism Triumphs Over Zionism

[eliphas8]

In the early 20th century there were two major streams of thought in the Jewish community that I know a significant amount about. Zionism and Bundism, we all probably know about Zionism, the movement to return to Israel and colonize Palestine. But Bundism is more forgotten, it was in favor of autonomy as a national minority (as in the Jewish people are one United group, not defined on religion) in the countries where it operated. For most of the early 20th century the streams of thought competed, but ultimately the question was settled by the Germans and the holocaust, which effected all the countries where the Bund had significant presence. What I'm curious about is, what would have happened if the Bund had won out (I'm assuming a no-nazi Germany POD).

There were a lot of more minor differences with Zionism too beyond just their focus on autonomy. Bundism was a decisively left wing movement affiliated to the Social Democratic Parties of the countries it existed in (And the Russian revolution caused a split between the communists, and the social democrats, like in every other countries social democratic movement). They were very much in favor of Yiddish as the language of the Jewish people, viewing Hebrew revivalism as a romantic and silly notion. And in general they were more in favor of becoming a more definite part of European culture on their own terms.

 

[NoMommsen]

That's ... highly interesting ... will have to look up on this "Bundism".

Where were their "strongholds" ?
Who were their "exponents" ?
Did thes had a or several aknowledged "organizations" ?
Were these somehow bound or ... networked to political parties/organizations of some kind (beside "just" being menbers in both of them) ?

 

[sciscisciortino]

Probably need a Socialist Europe for this.

 

[eliphas8]

That's ... highly interesting ... will have to look up on this "Bundism".

Where were their "strongholds" ?
Who were their "exponents" ?
Did thes had a or several aknowledged "organizations" ?
Were these somehow bound or ... networked to political parties/organizations of some kind (beside "just" being menbers in both of them) ?

They were grouped around the International Jewish Labor Bund, which was an organization affiliated officially to the Second International. The main strongholds of the group (as far as it went) were Lithuania and Poland. Before the October Revolution they also had a large presence in Russia, but they mostly sided with the Mensheviks from what I understand, and so didn't last in Russia as an independent organization. As a rule Mensheviks who defected to the Bolshevik side in the dispute in the civil war were allowed into the party but weren't allowed to form official blocs within the communist party. So the Russian organization died.

 

[Minchandre]

Don't forget the "silent majority".

Both Bundists and Zionists arose from a very strange position of Jews that were mostly assimilated but not entirely so (being mostly assimilated being a requirement for this sort of post-Enlightenment nationalist and socialist thought, being not-quite-assimilated being necessary for Jewish-based movements). Both completely assimilated Jews in Western Europe and completely unassimilated Jews in shtetls had little to do with either movement, whose membership was primarily restricted to urban Jews in the Pale of Settlement (also some activity in the United States, but not much - even though American Jews were strongly socialist, they tended to support universalist socialist movements in the US as opposed to Bundism, and celebrated American culture rather than trying to celebrate old-world Yiddish culture).

I also want to point out that it's not like Zionism and Bundism were enemies or anything. Aside from competing over the same pool of people and being ideologically opposed, they were more parallel than interactive.

Regardless...Bundism is a doomed movement in my opinion. The problem is that it is a, uh, nationalist and socialist movement. While such ideas were briefly en vogue, especially in the USSR of the late 20s and early 30s, the ultimately universalist and supernationalist sentiment that runs deep in most socialism of the time makes it difficult for Bundism to take root. Plus, things like the Dreyfus Affair provide a dark demonstration that institutionalized anti-Semitism ran deeper than anyone would care to admit, even in the most modern and liberal countries in Europe. The Nuremberg Laws were, of course, the final argument in debate about Jews ever being accepted in Europe (I'm not arguing that Jews cannot today be accepted, I'm referred to the effect on the contemporary intellectual atmosphere). In the newborn USSR, creeping antisemitism was already starting to become apparent, even after the glorious revolution, showing that hatred of Jews was not limited to the aristocratic overclass as had been proposed.

In my opinion, saving Bundism requires, at the very least, two things: a continuation of the nascent Soviet policy of encouraging ethnic and national pride within a federative USSR (probably requiring that Stalin not be Minister for Nationalities), and a Nazi Party that's less openly antisemitic. Being anti-Jewish is fine, but actually openly making laws against Jews makes it far, far too easy for Zionist leaders to argue that Jews will never be accepted.

But let's say the Bund wins out. What does that mean? Well, it won't actually kill Zionism, which will probably continue on, with at least a few hundred thousands Jews in Palestine (the ultimate disposition of Palestine in such a TL is something that lots of people have discussed on this board in the past). Jews end up being a very prominent part of the Party in most Communist countries, but this is countered by the "anti-exceptionalism" that both Zionists and Bundists shared of trying to make "Jewish" just one more ethnicity. In Poland and the Baltics, nationalism and anti-Communism will almost certainly link Bundist organizations to the USSR - they might be right - and will likely single out Jews for discrimination and expulsion, which will likely lead to Bundists openly supporting revolutionary Communist movements in those countries. The USSR, bowing to such pressures, might invade the Baltics and Poland well ahead of schedule - in fact, such an action could well be the catalyst to WWII, though I'm not convinced that anyone's going to be coming to the Baltics' aid and I really don't know what'll happen if there's more Communist agitation within Poland. Poland, in general, is a mess in the late 20s and early 30s and I could see a Soviet-propped native Communist government taking power.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

One obvious POD, sadly pre 1900, but not that far. Major Esterhazy's private letters end up not being private sometime before September 1894 and he ends up the target of the Army's ire not Dreyfus, that means Herzl doesn't organize the First Zionist Congress, and the movement has a hard time getting off the ground

 

[riggerrob]

WI .... circa 1947 ..... Josef Stalin expelled all the German-speakers out of East Prussia and offered the land to Bundist, socialist and left-leaning Jews?

How many Jews would settle in "Jeruselum by the Baltic?"
How many Jews would emigrate to the new state of Israel?

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Having looked it up I'm afraid I don't really understand what Bundism wanted. Perhaps someone with a better understanding can explain it? Wikipedia appears to imply that the idea was to break a country out into overlapping ethnic groups rather than counties or provinces and that everyone would be a member of an ethnic group. Each ethnic group in turn would rule and tax only their own members. Is that a good summary?


It seems to me that isolating European Jews even more from their European neighbors both politically and economically while not doing so geographically seems like it would be a terrible idea.

 

[eliphas8]

Having looked it up I'm afraid I don't really understand what Bundism wanted. Perhaps someone with a better understanding can explain it? Wikipedia appears to imply that the idea was to break a country out into overlapping ethnic groups rather than counties or provinces and that everyone would be a member of an ethnic group. Each ethnic group in turn would rule and tax only their own members. Is that a good summary?


It seems to me that isolating European Jews even more from their European neighbors both politically and economically while not doing so geographically seems like it would be a terrible idea.

My reading of that was that the state would have devolved cultural assemblies which are responsible for the aspects of the state important to that group specifically. Eg education in the language of that group, cultural activities and practices, etc. As far as ideas to id be interested to see people try that, because it in the very least sounds like a better idea for regions with extremely ethnically muddled regions than picking out the plurality and telling them they're in charge. Like the Balkans is what it makes me think of.

 

[Polish Eagle]

In Poland and the Baltics, nationalism and anti-Communism will almost certainly link Bundist organizations to the USSR - they might be right - and will likely single out Jews for discrimination and expulsion, which will likely lead to Bundists openly supporting revolutionary Communist movements in those countries.

Not necessarily. The Polish Sanationists, in their Prometheist plan to break up the USSR by playing on the ethnic tensions in that country, might get it in their heads that Bundism might be promoted in the USSR as a way to generate discord between Jews and Russians and perhaps create a Jewish population friendly to Polish interests.