The Nut Garden

לקוטים מזוהר (Gleanings of Zohar)

The Curtain shall Divide for You

He stretches Zaphon over the void, hangs earth over emptiness, bundles water in His clouds, the scud does not burst below, covers the face of the throne, spreads His cloud upon it, draws a circle over the water to the border of light and darkness (Job 26:7–10).

“He holds tightly thick darkness about His throne so that angels will not see Him; He spreads the clouds of His glory over it like פַּרְגוֹדָא (pargoda), a curtain” (Targum to Job 26:9).

“The Tabernacle denotes that its importance was equal to that of the world, which is called ‘tent,’ even as the Tabernacle is called ‘tent.’ What is the proof? As is written, In the beginning Elohim created the heavens (Genesis 1:1), and it is written, Wrapped in light like a cloak, stretching out heavens like a tent-cloth (Psalms 104:2), while of the Tabernacle it is written, And you shall make goat-hair panels for a tent over the Tabernacle… (Exodus 26:7). It is written of the second day, And Elohim said, Let there be a vault [in the midst of the waters,and let it divide [water from water] (Genesis 1:6), and of the Tabernacle it is written, and הַפָּרֹכֶ (ha-parokhet), the curtain, shall divide for you [between the Holy and the Holy of Holies] (Exodus 26:33)” (Bemidbar Rabbah 12:13).

Advertisements

The Adversary Dances Among Them: He Descends and Leads Astray, Ascends and Arouses Wrath

And one day, the sons of God came to stand in attendance before YHWH, and the Adversary, too, came among them to stand in attendance before YHWH. And YHWH said to the Adversary, “From whence do you come?” And the Adversary answered YHWH and said, “From roaming the earth and walking about in it.” And YHWH said to the Adversary, “Have you paid heed to My servant Job, for there is none like him on earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and shuns evil and still clings to his innocence, and you incited Me against him to destroy him for nothing.” And the Adversary answered YHWH and said, “Skin for skin! A man will give all he has for his own life. Yet, reach out, pray, Your hand and strike his bone and his flesh. Will he not curse You to your face?” And YHWH said to the Adversary, “Here he is in your hands. Only preserve his life.” And the Adversary went out from before YHWH’s presence. And he struck Job with a grievous burning rash from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head (Job 2:1–7).

“Rabbi Yoḥanan said: [And you incited Me against him to destroy him for nothing (Job 2:3)]—were it not written in the verse we would not dare say it: Like a man whom others incite, and is incited [against his better judgment, cf. Deuteronomy 13:6]. A Tanna taught: [The Adversary] he descends and leads astray, ascends and arouses wrath, obtains authorization and seizes the soul. And the Adversary answered YHWH and said, “Skin for skin! A man will give all he has for his own life. Yet, reach out, pray, Your hand and strike his bone and his flesh. Will he not curse You to your face?” And YHWH said to the Adversary, “Here he is in your hands. Only preserve his life.” And the Adversary went out from before YHWH’s presence. And he struck Job (Job 2:4–7).

Rabbi Yitsḥaq said: The Adversary’s torment was worse than that of Job. A parable: Job was like a servant who is told by his master, ‘Break the cask but do not let any of the wine spill.’ Resh Laqish said: The Adversary, the evil impulse, and the Angel of Death are all one. He is called הַשָּׂטָן (ha-satan), the Adversary, as is written, And the Adversary went out from before YHWH’s presence (Job 2:7). He is called the evil impulse: [we know this because] it is written in another place, [“And YHWH saw that the evil of the human creature was great on the earth and that every scheme of his heart’s devising] was only perpetually evil. [And YHWH regretted having made the human on earth and was grieved to the heart] (Genesis 6:5), and it is written here Only against him do not reach out your hand (Job 1:12). He is also the Angel of Death, since it says, [“Here he is in your hands.] Only preserve his life” (ibid. 2:6), consequently his very existence is in his hands.

Rabbi Levi said: [In acting as adversaries] both the Adversary’s and Peninah’s intentions were for the sake of Heaven. The Adversary, when he saw the blessed Holy One inclined to [favor] Job said, ‘Perish the thought that He should forget the passion of Abraham!’ Of Peninah it is written, And her rival would torment her sorely so as to provoke her [(to prayer) because YHWH had closed her womb] (1 Samuel 1:6). When Rav Aḥa son of Ya’aqov expounded [this teaching] in Papunia, the Adversary came and kissed his feet.

With all this, Job did not offend with his lips (Job 2:10)—Rava said: With his lips he did not offend, but he did offend within his heart. What did he say? The earth is given in the wicked man’s hand, the face of its judges He veils. If not He—then who else? (ibid. 9:24). Rava said: Job sought to turn the dish [i.e., the world] upside down. Abayye said: Job was referring only to the Adversary” (BT Bava Batra 16a).

“[Bewildering and beguiling,] the Adversary dances among them” (BT Megilah 11b, cf. BT Berakhot 33a; Pesaḥim 112b).

“What is And they came to Elim where there were twelve springs of water and seventy date palms, and they encamped there by the water (Exodus 15:27)? What is so great about seventy date palms? In one of the smallest spots there are a thousand! But they were worthy of being their example, and there they were likened to date palms, as is written, And they came to Marah and could not drink water from מָרָה (marah), Marah, for they were מָרִים (marim), bitter (ibid., 23). Teaching that a מַעֲרָבִית (ma’aravit), western, wind was preventing [them], as is written, And he cried out to YHVH, and YHVH showed him a tree, and he flung it into the water, and the water turned sweet (ibid., 25)—immediately the blessed Holy One laid His hand upon the Adversary, diminishing him a bit, as is written, There did He set him a statute and law, and there did he test Him (ibid.). Teaching that at this time, the Adversary clung to them in order to blot them out from the world, as is written, And the people murmured against Moses, saying ‘What shall we drink?’ (ibid., 24), continuing to accuse Moses until he cried out to YHVH, and YHVH showed him a tree. YHVH showed him a tree—why? To teach that the Tree of Life was around the water. The Adversary came and removed it from there in order to accuse Israel and cause them to offend their Father in Heaven. He said to them: Now you assemble in the wilderness? Yet these [bitter] waters you take up are good, for you will be content with them, but in the wilderness you will not find [enough] even to wash your hands and faces. Then, naked, you will die of hunger and thirst, entirely in want! 

They came to Moses and told him such and such, but he dismissed them. [The Adversary] saw that he was unable to overpower Israel and Moses, and so the people came to Moses and the people murmured against Moses: Here we are without water, what is there to drink in the wilderness?—the Adversary came and feigned their words to Moses in order to cause them to offend. As soon as Moses saw the Adversary, He cried out to YHVH, and YHVH showed him a tree—the very Tree of Life the Adversary had removed. And he flung it into the water, and the water turned sweet. And the blessed Holy One came to the Adversary [with] a statute and law; and there did he test Him—Israel. And the blessed Holy One warned Israel, saying: If you really heed the voice of YHVH your God (ibid., 26) and so forth.

A parable: A king had a lovely daughter and others were lusting for her. The king knew of it but could not fight with those who exposed his daughter to bad ways. He came to his house and warned her, saying, “My daughter, give no regard to the words of these enemies and they will not be able to overcome you. Do not leave the house, but do all your work at home. Do not sit idle, even for a single moment. Then they will not be able to see you and harm you. There is a certain quality in them which departs from a good way and chooses every bad way. When they see man directing himself along a good way, they hate him.” 

And what is it? The Adversary. Teaching that the blessed Holy One has a quality whose name is רָעָה (ra’ah), Evil; and it is to the north of the blessed Holy One, as is written, From the north הָרָעָה (ha-ra’ah), evil, will be let loose on all the inhabitants of the land (Jeremiah 1:14). That is to say, any evil that comes to all the inhabitants of the land (ibid.), comes from the north.

What is this ‘certain quality’? She is the shape of a hand. She has many messengers, and the name of them all is רַע רַע (ra ra), evil! evil! Some are big and some are small, but they all bring guilt upon the world since תֹּהוּ (tohu) is on the north side. Tohu—none other than Evil, מְתָהֵה (metaheh), bewildering, inhabitants of the world until they sin. Every יֵצֶר הָרָע (yetser ha-ra), evil impulse, in man is from there. And why was he given to the left? Because he has no authority, nor any place in the world, except in the north; he is not accustomed to being anywhere except the north, he does not want to be anywhere except the north. If he remained in the south until he learned from the way of the south, how could he lead astray? He would be detained those days unable to make them miss the mark (Judges 20:16). Therefore, he is forever in the north, to the left. And this is For the יֵצֶר (yetser), devisings, of the human heart are evil from youth (Genesis 8:21)—he is evil from his youth and he does not incline other than to the left, for he is already accustomed to her. Of this the blessed Holy One said to Israel: If you really heed the voice of YHVH your God, and do what is right in His eyes, and hearken to His commands (Exodus 15:26)—not to the commands of the evil impulse; And keep all His statutes (ibid.)—not the statutes of the evil impulse [all the sickness that I put upon Egypt I will not put upon you,] for I am YHVH your healer (ibid.).

Why is the evil impulse enriched? A parable: To what can the matter be compared? A king appointed officials (Esther 2:3) over his kingdom and his trade—each one had a surplus. [There was an official appointed] over the storehouses of foodstuff and goods, and one appointed over a storehouse of stones. All the world came to buy from the storehouses of goods. This one appointed over the storehouse of stones came. He saw that they were not buying from him, [and] he envied [this]. What did he do? He commanded all of his brothers to destroy the weak houses—for they were unable [to destroy] the strong ones. He said, ‘In any case, [when] you strive to destroy [one] house from among the strong ones, twenty of the weak ones will be destroyed, and they will all come and buy [stones] from me. And I will not be less than my competitor!’ Thus it is written: From the north evil will be let loose on all the inhabitants of the land (Jeremiah 1:14). It then continues, ‘For I am about to call forth all the clans of the kingdoms of the north,’ says YHWH,’ and they shall come and each set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem [and against its walls all round and against all the towns of Judah] (ibid., 15). Evil will be a trade to her, also the evil impulse strives perpetually [cf. Genesis 6:5]. And what is the import of שָׂטָן (satan), ‘adversary’? Satan, adversary—in other words מֻטֶּה (mutteh), skewed justice (Ezekiel 9:9); that מַטֶּה (matteh), he tips, the world toward the scale of guilt. And it is written, וַיֵּט (Va-yet), And he turned aside, to her by the road, [and said, ‘Here, pray, let me come to bed with you…’](Genesis 38:16), and it is translated, וּסְטָא (u-seta), and he turned aside, to her. And it is written, שְׂטֵה (Seteh), turn away, from him and pass on (Proverbs 4:15)” (Bahir §§107–110).

By His Anger He is Really Known

“Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yose: How do we know that the blessed Holy One מִתְפַּלֵּל (mitpallel), prays? As is said: I will bring them to My holy mountain and give them joy in My house of prayer (Isaiah 56:7). Not their house of prayer, but My house of prayer, therefore the blessed Holy One prays. What does He pray? Rav Zutra son of Toviah said in the name of Rav: ‘May it be My will that My mercy overcome My anger, and that My mercy prevail over My [over] qualities, so that I may deal with My children with the quality of mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of harsh judgment’ [cf. BT Gittin 56b].

It was taught: Rabbi Yisham’el son of Elisha says: I once entered into the innermost part [of the Sanctuary] to offer incense and saw אַכְתְּרִיאֵל יָהּ (Akhtri’el Yah), Mighty Crown of Yah, YHWH of Armies, seated on a high and exalted throne (Isaiah 6:1). He said to me: Yisham’el, My son, bless Me! I replied: May it be Your will that Your mercy overcome Your anger and Your mercy prevail over Your other qualities, so that You may deal with Your children according to the quality of mercy and may, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of harsh judgment! And He nodded to me with His head. Here we learn that the blessing of an ordinary person must not be considered lightly in your eyes.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yose: How do you know that we must not try to placate a man in the time of his anger? As is written: My presence shall go, and I will grant you rest (Exodus 33:14). The blessed Holy One said to Moses: Wait till My enraged face passes and then I will grant you rest [cf. Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 12:25]. But is there anger before the blessed Holy One? Yes. For it has been taught: [Elohim exacts justice for the righteous] and El utters doom each day (Psalms 7:12) [cf. BT Avodah Zarah 4a ad loc.].

And how long does this rage last? One moment. And how long is one moment? One fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-eighth part of an hour. And no creature has ever been able to fix precisely this moment except the wicked Balaam, of whom is written: And knows what Elyon knows (Numbers 24:16). Now, he did not even know the mind of his animal; how then could he know the mind of Elyon? Only that he knew how to fix precisely this moment in which the blessed Holy One is angry. And this is just what the prophet said to Israel: My people, recall, pray, what Balak king of Moab devised and what Balaam son of Beor answered him… that YHWH’s bounties would be known (Micah 6:5). What is that YHWH’s bounties would be known? Rabbi El’azar says: The blessed Holy One said to Israel: See now, how many righteous acts I performed for you in not being angry in the days of the wicked Balaam. For had I been angry, not one remnant would have been left of the enemies of Israel [i.e., Israel]. And this too is the meaning of what Balaam said to Balak: What can I hex that El has not hexed, and what can I doom that YHWH has not doomed? (Numbers 23:8). This teaches us that He was not angry all these days. And how long does His wrath last? רֶגַע (Rega), A moment. And how long is a rega? Rabbi Avin said (or according to some, Rabbi Avina), ‘As long as it takes to say rega.’ And how do you know that He seethes for a moment? For it is said: But a moment in His wrath, life in His favor (Psalms 30:6). Or if you wish, say: Hide but a moment until the wrath passes (Isaiah 26:20). And when does He seethe? Abbaye said, ‘Within those first three hours [see Zohar 1:182b], when the comb of the rooster is white and it stands on one foot. It stands this way each hour? In each other hour it has red streaks, but at this moment it has no red streaks at all” (BT Berakhot 7a).

“Rabbi Shim’on son of El’azar said in the name of Ḥilfa son of Agra in Rabbi Yoḥanan son of Nuri’s name: He who tears his garments in his anger, he who breaks his vessels in his anger, and he who scatters his money in his anger, regard him as an idolater, because such is the craft of the evil impulse: Today he says to him, ‘Do this’; tomorrow he tells him, ‘Do that,’ until he tells him, ‘Go and serve idols,’ and he goes and serves [them]. Rabbi Avin said: What verse [alludes to this]? There shall be among you no foreign god and you shall not bow to an alien god (Psalms 81:10); who is the alien god that is a person’s body? Say, the evil impulse! This is only necessary where he does it in order to instill fear in his household, as Rav Yehudah pulled the threads [of his garment;] Rav Aḥa son of Ya’aqov broke broken vessels; Rav Sheshet threw fish-brine at his maidservant’s head; Rabbi Abba broke a lid” (BT Shabbat 105b).

“Son of Zoma said: Who is strong? One who masters his [evil] impulse, as is written, Better patience than a warrior, and he who governs his spirit, than a conqueror of towns (Proverbs 16:32)” (M Avot 4:1).

“Rabbi Shemu’el son of Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: He who loses his temper all the torments of Hell rule over him, as is written: And remove כַּעַס (ka’as), anger [or: worry], from your heart, and take evil away from your flesh (Ecclesiastes 11:10). Now evil can only mean Hell, as is written, Each act of YHWH has its own end; even the wicked, for an evil day (Proverbs 16:4). And not only that, he is made to suffer from hemorrhoids, as is written, And YHWH will give you there a quaking heart and a wasting away of the eyes and an anguished spirit (Deuteronomy 28:65). Now what causes a wasting away of the eyes and an anguished spirit? Certainly hemorrhoids.

When ‘Ulla went up to the land of Israel, he was joined by two inhabitants of Ḥozai, one of whom arose and slew the other. The murderer asked of ‘Ulla: ‘Did I do well?’ ‘Yes, and open the place of the slaughter,’ he replied. When he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, he asked him, ‘Perish the thought, maybe I have strengthened the hands of transgressors?’ He replied, ‘You have saved your life.’ Then Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered: And YHWH will give you there a quaking heart—Babylon [and surely not the holy land of Israel]? ‘Ulla replied, ‘We had not yet crossed the Jordan.’ Rabbah son of Rav Huna said: He who loses his temper, even שְׁכִינָה (Shekhinah), the Divine Presence, is unimportant in his eyes, as is written, The wicked sought not in his towering wrath—’There is no God’ (Psalms 10:4)—God is not in all his thoughts. Rabbi Yirmeyah of Difti said: He forgets his learning and waxes ever more stupid, as is written, [Better a thing’s end than its beginning; better patience than haughtiness. Do not be rash in your mood to be angry,] for anger rests in the lap of fools (Ecclesiastes 7:9); and is written, [Every shrewd man acts through knowledge,] but a dullard broadcasts folly (Proverbs 13:16). Rav Naḥman son of Yitsḥaq said: It is certain that his crimes out number his merits, as is written, [An angry man stirs up strife,] and a hothead abounds in crime (ibid. 29:22)” (BT Nedarim 22b).

“Rabbi Yehudah opened, ‘Desist from a human, whose breath is in his nostrils, for of what account is he? (Isaiah 2:22). This verse has been established, but what is the meaning of Desist from a human? Is Scripture warning a person to avoid other people? Then they would act the same toward him, and consequently people would never approach one another! Rather, they have established this as referring to one who immediately upon rising in the morning goes to the door of his friend to greet him. We, however, have based this upon another verse, as is written: One who blesses his fellow loudly, rising early in the morning, [shall have it reckoned to him as a curse] (Proverbs 27:14). Although all is fine, still, what is the meaning of Desist from a human, אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ (asher neshamah be-appo), whose breath is in his nostrils?

Here the blessed Holy One commands a person and warns him to be wary of those who pervert their ways from good to evil, and defile their souls with that alien defilement. But when the blessed Holy one created the human being, He fashioned him in a supernal image, and breathed into him a holy spirit comprised on three, as they have established: nefesh, ruaḥ, neshamah. Highest of all is neshamah, for she is a supernal power, by which to know and observe the commandments of the blessed Holy One. If one conducts that holy neshamah into alien worship, he defiles her and abandons the worship of his Lord; for these three powers are all one—nefesh, ruaḥ, neshamah, participating as one, becoming one, patterned entirely on supernal mystery.

If we see a person who possesses all these rungs—though his status and identity are still uncertain—how can we determine whether to approach him or avoid him? By his anger he is really known, and recognized for who he is [cf. BT Eruvin 65b]. If, in a moment of anger, he maintains that holy neshamah—not uprooting her from her place so as to supplant her with that alien god—then this is a fitting human being, this is a servant of his Lord, this is a consummate man. And if that person does not maintain her—uprooting this supernal holiness from its place, to supplant it with the Other Side—then this is surely a person who rebels against his Lord, and it is forbidden to approach him or associate with him. This one is called he who tears his soul in his anger (Job 18:4)—tearing and uprooting his soul on account of his anger, and enabling an alien god to dwell within in. Thus it is written: Desist from a human אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ (asher neshamah be-appo)—who tears and defiles that holy neshamah on account of appo, his anger; who exchanges neshamah for his anger.

For בַמֶּה (va-meh), of what, account is he? (Isaiah 2:22)—this person is accounted an idol. Whoever associates with him or speaks with him is like one who associates with a real idol. Why? Because real idolatry dwells within him. Moreover, he has uprooted supernal holiness from its place and supplanted it with idolatry, an alien god. As, regarding an alien god, it is written: Do not turn to the idols (Leviticus 19:4), it is similarly forbidden to look at his face.

Now, you might say, ‘But what about anger of the Sages?’ Well, anger of the Sages is good in all aspects, for we have learned that Torah is fire, and Torah inflames him, as is written: ‘Is not My word like fire?’ declares YHWH (Jeremiah 23:29). Anger of the Sages, over words of Torah; anger of the Sages, to honor Torah—all in the service of the blessed Holy One. But if over other matters, this is not service of the blessed Holy One; for no other sin committed by a person is real idolatry, and it is forbidden to approach him.

Now, you might say, ‘This was only for a moment, for it passed and then he returned.’ Not so! For once he has uprooted the holiness of his soul from himself and from its place, and that alien god usurps that place, it entrenches itself and will not leave him. Except when a person purifies himself completely and eradicates it permanently, and then strives to sanctify himself and to draw holiness—then, oh that he could become holy!

Rabbi Yose said to him, ‘He really does become holy!’ He replied, ‘Come and see: When he uproots the holiness of his soul and supplants it with that alien god, that person is defiled and called ‘impure,’ and he defiles whoever approaches him, and that holiness flees from him. If it has fled once, how much must a person do until it returns to its place!’ He said, ‘If so, what about all the defiled who are purified?’ He replied, ‘Any other defilement is different, not being so effective, but this one is unique, defiling the whole body, inside and out, and the soul and everything. Other defilements of the world affect only the outer body. Therefore it is written: Desist from a human אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ (asher neshamah be-appo)—who has exchanged the holiness of his Lord for appo, his anger; for this is defilement defiling all. For בַמֶּה (va-meh), of what, account is he? בָּמָה (Bamah), a cult site—idolatry, surely—he is accounted” (Zohar 2:182a–b).

“Come and see what is written: They said, a man to his brother (Genesis 37:19)—Simeon and Levi, who were truly brothers in every respect, for they issued from the side of harsh judgment, so their wrath was murderous, as is written: Cursed be their anger, so fierce (ibid. 49:7).

Come and see the mystery of the matter: There is wrath, and then there is wrath! There is wrath blessed from above and below, called blessed, as has been said, for it is written: [And Abram heard that his kinsman was taken captive…. And he and his servants with him fanned out against them by night and he struck them and pursued them…. And he brought back all the substance, and also Lot his kinsman and his substance he brought back, and the women and the other people as well…. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine, for he was priest to God the Highest. And he blessed him, and he said,] Blessed be Abram by God the Highest (ibid. 14:9), as they have established [cf. Zohar 2:243a]. And there is wrath cursed above and below, as has been said, called cursed as is written: Cursed are you among all animals and among all beasts of the field (ibid. 3:14). Cursed be their anger, so fierce.

Upon this mystery stand two mountains, as is written: You will give the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal (Deuteronomy 11:29), corresponding to these two rungs, so this is called cursed and that is called blessed. Simeon and Levi issue from the side of harsh judgment, and from the side of harsh, fierce judgment issues accursed wrath.

Come and see: From the aspect of harsh judgment issue two aspects, one that has been blessed and one that has been cursed, one blessed and one cursed. Similarly, from the side of Isaac issued two sons: one blessed and the other cursed, above and below, one branching inward and the other to his side, one dwelling in the Holy Land and the other on Mount Seir, as is written: a skilled hunter, a man of the field—this one’s domain in wilderness, ruin, and desolation; this one dwelling in tents (Genesis 25:27), all as it should be. So there are two rungs: blessed and cursed, each on its own side. From this one issue all blessings of the world above and below, all joy and goodness, all radiance, all deliverance and redemption. From that one issues all curses, all war, all bloodshed, all desolation, all evils, and all defilement” (Zohar 1:184a–b, cf. ibid. 3:18b).

The Nation by Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag (Ba’al ha-Sullam)

Jerusalem, 4 Sivan, 5700 (10 June, 1940)

Our intention

This newspaper, הַאֻמָּה (ha-ummah), The Nation, is something novel on the Jewish street. It is an “inter-partisan” paper. You may ask, “What is an ‘inter-partisan’ paper, how can there be a paper serving all parties, in spite of all their opposition and differences?” Indeed, it is an entity born in dire straits, through tortuous labor-pains, from amidst the venom of hatred that afflicted the nations of the world to wipe us off the face of the earth, the destruction of millions of our brethren, and they are prepared to do even more. Their sadistic urge is insatiable, and the disaster is twofold, since we must not delude ourselves believing that all this is but a passing, transitory phenomenon, as with our past experiences in history, that when a certain nation erupted over us, we found a substitute in another.

Now things are very different. Not only are we simultaneously attacked from all directions, but even the most developed nations have shut their doors to us without any sense of mercy or compassion, and in such a ruthless way that is without precedent in the whole of human history, even in the most barbaric of times. It is clear, save for relying on miracles, that our existence as individuals and as a nation teeters between life and death. And the rescue is if we find the required tactic, a great scheme whose path is only found in imminent danger, and which can tip the scale in our favor—to give us a safe haven here [in the land of Israel] for all our brethren in the diaspora, as everyone says it is, at present, the only place of refuge. Then a path to life will be open to us, to somehow carry on in spite of the hardship. And if we miss the chance and do not rise as one, with the tremendous effort required in a time of danger, to ensure our staying in the Land, then the facts on the ground pose a great threat, since things are progressing in favor of our enemies, who seek to wipe us off the face of the earth.

It is also clear that the tremendous effort that the rugged path ahead demands of us mandates unity that is as hard as steel, from every part of the nation, without exception. If we do not go out with united ranks toward the mighty powers standing in our way to harm us, we will find that our hope is doomed from the outset. And after all this, each individual and faction sits carefully guarding its own possessions without any concession. And under no circumstances do they desire national unity in a way this grave hour necessitates for us all. Thus, we are sunk in indifference, as though nothing has happened.

Try to imagine that if some nation showed us the door—as is so common these days—it is then certain that none of us would consider our factional allegiance, since the hardship would mold us all into one clump, in order to defend ourselves or to get up and flee by land or sea. Had we sensed the real danger we would undoubtedly be united properly without any difficulty. Under these circumstances we met here [in the land of Israel], a small group of us, from every stream, people who feel a terrible whip against their backs as though it had already materialized. We have undertaken to publish this paper, which we believe will be a trustworthy channel through which to convey our feeling to the entire nation, in every stream and faction, none excluded. By so doing, the differences and the narrow-minded factionalism can be nullified. More precisely, they would be silenced and give way to what precedes them [i.e., a history of national unity], and we will then all be able to join together into a single solid body politic, capable of protecting itself at this critically important time.

And although this danger is known to us all, perhaps it is yet to sufficiently develop in the public, as it truly is. If the public had felt it, they would have shaken off the dust of factionalism long ago to the degree that it obstructs the unification of our ranks. If this is not so, it is only because this is still not felt by the majority. Therefore, we have undertaken the publication of this paper, to stand guard, warn of the trouble, explaining it to the public, until all segregating elements are silenced, and we will be able to face our enemy with united ranks, and give it its due response in time. Moreover, we are confident that among us there are still those who probe hearts, who can provide a successful plan to unite all factions in the nation. From experience, we have learned that specifically those people go unnoticed and have no audience. In this paper, we are willing to make room for anyone who carries a promising solution for uniting the nation, to publicize it and give it a voice.

In addition to what has already been said, by publishing this paper, we aim to preserve our ancient culture of two thousand years, since before the ruin of our country. We hope to reveal it, removing the accretion of many years in exile among the nations, so that our noble and pure Jewish nature will be recognized again, as it was long ago. This will bring us the greatest benefit: we will be able to find a way of connecting our diaspora mode of thinking with that [former] glorious time, and redeem ourselves from having to borrow from others.

Individual and nation

We human beings are social creatures. Since we cannot satisfy our vital needs without assistance from others, the partnership of many is necessary for our existence. This is not the place to explore the development of the nations, but we can suffice with examining reality as it appears to our eyes. Indeed, it is a fact that we cannot satisfy our needs by ourselves, and we need a social life. Hence, individuals were forced to unite into a union, called “nation” or “state,” in which everyone engages in his own trade, some in agriculture, and some in crafts. They connected through the trade of their products. Thus nations were formed, each with its unique character—in material life and in cultural life.

Observing life, we can see that the process of a nation is just as the process of an individual. The function of each and every individual within the nation is like the function of organs in a single body. There must be absolute harmony among the organs of each individual: the eyes see and the brain is assisted by them to think and to confer, then the hands labor and the legs walk. Thus, each stands guard, awaiting its function. Similarly, the organs that comprise the body of the nation—counselors, employers, workers, deliverers and so forth—should function in absolute harmony. This is vital for a nation’s normal life and continued existence.

As the natural death of an individual results from disharmony of one’s organs, a nation’s natural decline results from some obstruction that occurs among its organs, as our Sages testify, “Jerusalem was destroyed only because of the שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם (sinat ḥinnam), groundless hatred, that existed in the generation” (Tosafot, Bava Metsi’a 2). At that time, the nation was plagued and died, her organs scattered in every direction. Therefore, it is a must that every nation be firmly united within, that every individual within her be attached to one another by instinctual love. And every individual should feel that the well being of the nation is one’s own well being, and the nation’s flourishing is one’s own flourishing. One should be willing to give his all to the nation whenever needed. Otherwise, the right to exist as a nation in the world is doomed from the outset.

This does not mean that everyone in the nation must be so without exception. Rather, it means that the people of a given nation, who sense the harmony, are the ones who constitute the nation, and the measure of the nation’s well being and sustainability are measured according to their quality. After a critical mass of individuals is secured for the ongoing existence of the nation is found, there can be a certain number of loose limbs, which are not connected to the body of the nation to the aforementioned degree, since the foundation is already secured without them. Hence, in ancient times, we do not find unions and societies without kinship among their members, since the primal love necessary for the existence of society, is found only in families that are the offspring of a single father. However, in successive generations there were already societies united under the “state,” without any familial or racial ties. Now the only connection of an individual to the state is no longer a natural, primal connection, but rather stems from a common need where each individual joins with the collective making a single body, which is the state. And the state protects the body and the possessions of each individual with all the power of a state.

Indeed, the transition in which successive generations moved from a natural nation to an artificial state—from ties that stem from primal love, to ties that stem from a common need—does not require anything from the conditions necessary in a natural ethnic state. The rule is that as every healthy individual has complete control over his organs, which is based solely on love, because the organs cheerfully obey without any fear of punishment, the state should totally dominate every individual within it with respect to their general needs, based on a love and instinctual devotion of individual for collective. This is the most expedient force, sufficient to move individuals toward the needs of the collective.

However, domination based on coercion and punishment is too weak a force to move every individual enough to guard the public’s needs. The public, too, will weaken and will not be able to carry out its commitment of guarding and securing each and every individual’s body and possessions. And we are not concerned with the form of governance of the state, whether autocratic, democratic, or socialist. They do not alter the essence whatsoever of the establishment of the power of social unity. A nation cannot be founded, much less persist, except through ties of social love.

It is a bitter shame to admit that one of the most precious merits we lost to exile, indeed the most important of them, is the loss of an awareness of [our] nationality, meaning that natural sense which connects and sustains any nation. The threads of love that connect the nation, which are so natural and primitive in all nations, have decayed and detached from our hearts—they are gone. And worst of all, even the little we have left of a national love is not instilled in us positively, like it is in every nation. Rather, it exists within us on a negative basis, in the common suffering that each of us endures being a member of this nation. This has embedded within us a national awareness and closeness, as with fellow-sufferers. This is an external cause. As long as this external cause joins and blends with our natural national awareness, an odd sort of national love is engendered, sparked as it is from this jumble, unnatural and incomprehensible. And most importantly, it is totally unfit for its task. Its measure of warmth suffices only for a short burst, but without the capacity with which we can be rebuilt as a nation that is self sufficient. This is because a union that relies on an external cause is not a national union whatsoever.

In this sense, we are like a pile of nuts, united into a single body from the outside by a sack that wraps round and unites. Our measure of unity does not make us a united body, and each movement applied to the sack produces tumult and separation in them. Thus, they consistently form new unions with only limited cooperation. The fault being that they lack the inner unity, and their whole power of unity comes from external accidents. This is very painful to the heart for us [cf. Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 7, p. 338].

Indeed, a spark of nationalism was preserved within us to its fullest measure, but it has dimmed and become inert. It has also been greatly harmed by the admixture it received from outside, as we have said. It does not yet enrich us, and the reality is very bitter. Our only hope is to thoroughly establish a fresh national education, to reveal and ignite once more the natural national love that has dwindled within us. To revive once more the national muscles, as it were, which have not been active in us for two millennia, with every means suitable to this end. Then we will be assured that we have a natural, reliable foundation to be rebuilt and to continue our existence as a nation, qualified to carry itself like all nations of the world.

This is a precondition for any action. In the beginning, the foundation must be built in a manner sufficiently sound to carry the load it is meant to. Then the construction of the structure begins. But it is a shame on those who build structures without a sufficiently solid basis. Not only do they not building anything, they put themselves and the others near them at risk, for the structure will fall with the slightest movement, its parts scattering in every direction. Here I must stress the aforementioned national education: Although I intend to plant great love among individuals of the nation in particular and for the entire nation in general—to the utmost degree—this is not at all similar to chauvinism or fascism. We abhor them, and my conscience is completely free of them. Despite the apparent similarity in language, since chauvinism is nothing but excessive national love, they are in essence as far from one another as black is from white. 

In order to easily perceive the difference between them, we can compare them with the measures of egoism and altruism in an individual. As was stated above, the process of the nation is very similar to the process of the individual with all of his particular details. This is a general key by which to see all the national laws without turning right or left, even a hair’s breadth. Clearly, the quality of egoism inherent in every creature is a necessary condition for the actual existence of that creature. Without it, it would not be a separate and distinct being in itself. Yet, this should not deny the quality of altruism in a person whatsoever. The only thing needed is to mark distinct boundaries between them: The law of egoism must be kept in all its power, to the extent that it concerns one’s minimal existence. And concerning any surplus of that quality, permission is granted to waive it for the well-being of one’s fellow.

Naturally, anyone who acts in this manner is to be considered exceptionally altruistic. However, one who gives up his minimal share, too, for the benefit of others, and thus risks his life, this is totally unnatural and cannot be kept, save perhaps once in life. The excessive egoist, who has no regard at all for the well-being of others, is abhorrent in our eyes, as this is the substance from which pillagers, murderers, and all who are corrupt are made. It is similar with national egoism and altruism: the national love, too, must be embedded in all the individuals in the nation, no less than the egoistic love in a person for his own needs, sufficient to sustain the existence of the nation as such, in order to carry itself. And the surplus of that minimal amount can be dedicated to the well-being of the whole of humanity, without any distinction of nation or race.

Conversely, we utterly despise the excessive national egoism that shows no regard for the well-being of others. They that plunder and murder other nations for their own pleasure, which is called chauvinism. Thus, those who completely retire from nationalism and become cosmopolitan for humane, altruistic motives are making a fundamental error, since nationalism and humanism are not at all contradictory. It is therefore evident that national love is the basis of any nation, just as egoism is the basis of any individual. Without it, it would impossible to exist in the world. Similarly, national love among the citizens of a nation is the basis of any nation’s independence. This is the sole reason for it’s continued existence, or it’s ceasing to exist.

For this reason, this should be the first concern in the revival of our nation. This kind of love is not presently in our midst. We have lost it in our wandering among the nations for the past two thousand years. Only individuals have gathered here, without any ties of pure national love among them. Rather, this one is connected through a shared language, that one through a shared homeland, another through a shared religion, and yet another through a shared history. They all want to live here according to the manner by which they lived in the nation from which they came. They do not take into account that there it was a nation founded by its own members before he entered it, and which he took no active role in establishing.

However, when a person goes up to the land of Israel, where there is no predetermined order that will suffice for a nation to function on its own, we have no other national substance on which we can rely—[sadly] we have no wish for it. Rather, here we must rely entirely on our own building. And how can we acheive this when there is no natural national connection to unite us for this task? These loose ties—language, religion, and history—are important, and no one denies their worth. However, they are still totally insufficient to rely on as a basis for the independent existence of our nation. In the end, all we have here is a gathering of strangers, descendents of cultures of the seventy nations, each making a stage for himself, his spirit, and his inclinations. There is nothing basic that unites us all from within into a single whole.

I know that there is one thing that is common to all of us: the escape from bitter exile. However, this is only a superficial union, like the sack that holds nuts together, as we said already. This is why I say we must establish special education for ourselves by means of widespread circulation, in order to instill in each of us a feeling of national love, both between individual to individual, and from the individual to the whole. To rediscover the national love that was instilled in us since the time we were on our land as a nation among nations.

This endeavor precedes all others because besides being the foundation, it affords stability and success in any other undertakings that we wish to perform in this field.

The name of the nation, the language, and the land

We should look at the name of our nation. We have grown accustomed to calling ourselves עִבְרִי (‘ivri), “Hebrew,” while our usual names, יְהוּדִי (yehudi), “Jew,” or יִשְׂרָאֵל (yisra’el), “Israel,” have fallen out of use. So much so that to distinguish the jargon from the language of the nation we call the language of the nation עִבְרִית (‘ivrit), “Hebrew,” and the jargon, יְהוּדִית (yehudit), “Jewish.”

In the Bible we find the name “Hebrew” employed only by the nations, especially the Egyptians: See, he has brought us אִישׁ עִבְרִי (ish ‘ivri), a Hebrew man, to play with us (Genesis 39:14); or, And there was with us נַעַר עִבְרִי (na’ar ‘ivri), a Hebrew lad (ibid. 41:12); or, This is one of the children of הָעִבְרִים (ha-’ivrim), the Hebrews (Exodus 2:6). The Philistines also use this name: Lest הָעִבְרִים (ha-’ivrim), the Hebrews, make sword or spear! (1 Samuel 13:19). We also find it used between the nations and us, such as in the war of Saul with the Philistines, when he declared, Let the Hebrews hear! (ibid., 4), and וְעִבְרִים עָבְרוּ (ve-’ivrim ‘avru), and Hebrews had crossed, the Jordan (ibid., 7) [cf. Joshua 24:2; see Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav, Liqqutei Moharan 1:64b]. We also frequently find the name “Hebrew” in close proximity to slaves, such as a Hebrew slave or a Hebrew slavegirl and so forth. However, in truth, we will never encounter the name “Hebrew” in the Bible but only one of the two names, yisra’el, “Israel,” or yehudi, “Jew.”

There was most likely a famous ancient nation that went by the name “Hebrew,” as is written, Shem, the father of all the sons of עֵבֶר (‘ever), Eber (Genesis 10:21)—indicating Noah’s son as the father of that nation. Abraham the patriarch was from that nation, which is why the nations called him Abram the Hebrew, as is written, And told Abram the Hebrew (ibid. 14:13). For this reason, before Israel became a nation among nations, they were called “Hebrews,” after the nation of Abraham the patriarch, the Hebrew.

Although the Israelites were distinguished in Egypt as a separate nation, as is written: Look, the people of the sons of Israel is more numerous and vaster than we. Come, let us be shrewd with them lest they multiply (Exodus 1:9). That name, however, is the name of a tribe, and not a nation, for they became a nation only after they entered the land of Israel. From this we must conclude that this is why the nations did not wish to call us the nation of Israel even after we had entered the Land, so as not to admit our existence as a nation. They emphasized this by calling us “Hebrews,” as they had called us prior to entering the Land.

It is not by chance that the name “Hebrews” is not found in the Bible and in subsequent literature, except in relation to slaves and slavegirls, to whom the name “Hebrew” is always attached. But we never encounter a “slave of Israel” or a “Jewish slave.” This juxtaposition is probably a relic of the Egyptian bondage, which we are commanded to remember: And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15).

Even today most nations refer to us as “Jews” or “Israelis,” and only the Russian nation still calls us “Hebrews.” Supposedly, those haters of Israel among them employ this term with the intention of rejecting [Jewish] nationalism, just like the ancient peoples. It seems they delved into the meaning of this name far more than we who have foolishly adopted it due to it’s being employed in the Russian language. It follows from all of this that if we want to respect ourselves we should stop using the name “Hebrew” with regards to any free person among us.

Indeed, with regards to the name of the language, if we had an historic source, a language that the ancient Hebrew nation spoke, then perhaps we could call it “Hebrew.” Yet, I have not found any proof that this ancient nation spoke this language. Thus, we should consider the Talmud, which is closer to the source than we are by fifteen centuries. For them, it was unanimously accepted that the ancient Hebrews did not use this language at all. They said, “Originally Torah was given to Israel in כְּתָב עִבְרִי (ketav ‘ivri), paleo-Hebrew script, and in the holy language; later, in the times of Ezra, Torah was given in כְּתָב אַשּׁוּרִי (ketav ashuri), [square] Assyrian script, and Aramaic language. [Finally,] Israel selected the Assyrian script and the holy language, leaving the paleo-Hebrew script and Aramaic language for the commoners…” (BT Sanhedrin 21b). Thus, we learn from their words that only the letters have come to us from the Hebrews, but not the language, because they said, “Assyrian script and the holy language,” and not “paleo-Hebrew script and language.”

Also, we do find: “[A scroll containing] Hebrew text written in תַּרְגּוּם (targum), Aramaic translation, or an Aramaic translation written in Hebrew, or [either] in paleo-Hebrew script [and not Assyrian script], does not defile the hands” (BT Megillah 8b). Thus, they emphasized, “Aramaic translation written… in paleo-Hebrew script.” They are not saying, “Aramaic translation written in Assyrian script, and in paleo-Hebrew script,” as the Mishnah says (see M Yada’im 4:5). This teaches us that only the [paleo-Hebrew] script is attributed to the Hebrews, and not the language. Also, there is no evidence from the words of the Mishnah because it seems that here there was Roman censorship of the text. And when they were rehearsing Mishnah [i.e., committing to memory], they were fittingly precise.

Conversely, we find that several times the Tanna’im referred to the language as “the holy language.” As is written, “Whoever lives in the land of Israel and says the recitation of Shema morning and night, and speaks the holy language is a son of the world to come” (Sifre Deuteronomy 333). Also, we learn from Rabbi Me’ir, “whoever is permanently in the land of Israel and speaks the holy language…”.

Even if we assume that we can find some ancient source that the Hebrews spoke this language, it does not obligate us to name this language after them, since there is not a trace of this nation among the living. As we have already stated, this name does not add to our national dignity, only our enemies have attached it to us, to reject and make light of our image and our national treasures. Therefore, we should also avoid taking after the English language, which calls the nation “Jews,” and the language “Hebrew.” We should also determine which name suits us best: “Jews” or “Israelis.” The name, “Israel,” stems from our father, Jacob, who, as is written, is named as an expression of power and honor: Not Jacob shall your name hence be said, but Israel, for you have striven with God and men, and won out (Genesis 32:29). It is after him that we are called Israel.

However, after King Solomon, the nation split in two: the ten tribes, which ordained Jeroboam son of Nebat, and the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, which remained under the kingship of Rehoboam, son of Solomon. The name, “Israel,” remained with the ten tribes, and the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, took for themselves the name, “Jews,” as we find in the story of Esther: There was אִישׁ יְהוּדִי (ish yehudi), a Jew, in Shushan the capital, and his name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite man (Esther 2:5). Thus, the tribe of Benjamin also called themselves יְהוּדִים (yehudim), “Jews.”

The ten tribes were exiled from the land long before the exile of Judah, and since then there has been no trace of them. The exile of Judah, who were exiled to Babylon, returned to the Land after seventy years of exile and rebuilt the Land. This is why throughout the period of the Second Temple, the name “Jews” is mentioned most often, and the name “Israel,” is mentioned only rarely, under special circumstances. We, the descendants of the exile of the Second Temple, are also called mainly by the name, “Jews,” since we are from the exile of the Second Temple, the descendants of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, who gave themselves the name, “Jews.” Accordingly, we should judge that the name of our nation is “Jews” and not “the nation of Israel” or “Israel,” which is the name of the ten tribes.

And concerning the language, we should certainly choose the “Jewish language,” and not the “language of Israel,” for we do not find in the Bible this construct state of “Israeli language,” as opposed to the mentioning of “Jewish”: did not know how to speak יְהוּדִית (yehudit), Judahite (Nehemiah 13:24), and also, Speak, pray, to your servants Aramaic, for we understand it, and do not speak Judahite in the hearing of the people who are on the wall (2 Kings 18:26).Rather, we should emphasize that this is why they called their language yehudit, Judahite, since the people of King Hezekiah were called yehudim, “Jews,” as well as those who came from the exile in Babylon. But the ten tribes, which were called יִשׂרְאֵלִים (yisrelim), “Israelis,” also called their language שָׂפָה הַיִשׂרְאֵלִית (safah ha-yisrelit), “the Israeli language.” And yet, even if we assume that it is so, it is still no reason for us, the descendants of Judah and Benjamin, to call our language “Israeli.” In summary, both the nation and the language must be given only the name Judah. The nation should be called “Jews,” and the language, “Jewish.” The jargon language should be called אִידִּישׁ (yiddish), “Yiddish.” Only the land should be called “the land of Israel,” since it is the inheritance of all the tribes.

A critique of Marxism in light of the new reality: a solution to the question of the unification of the nation above its factions

I have been asked to offer a solution, according to my view, regarding the painful problem of uniting all streams and factions on one basis. And immediately I must admit that I have no solution to this question in the way it was asked—it will never have a solution. Wise men of all nations and throughout the ages have probed it, but have not found a natural solution that is accepted by every stream among them. Many have suffered, indeed many will yet suffer, before they find the golden path that does not conflict with the currents among them. The difficulty of the matter is that man cannot give up his ideals whatsoever, since he can make concessions when it comes to his material life, to the extent that it is necessary for his physical existence, but it is not so with ideals. By nature idealists will give all that they have for the triumph of their idea. And if they must give up their ideals, even a bit, it is not an honest concession. Rather, they remain alert, waiting for a time when they can reclaim what is theirs. Therefore, such concessions cannot be trusted.

It is even more so with an ancient nation—a civilization that is thousands of years old. Its ideals have already developed in it far more than in recently developed nations. Thus there is no hope that they are be able to concede, even a bit. It is unwise to think that in the end the more just idea will defeat other ideas, since over time they are all right, for “[(Son of Azzai) used to say: Do not scorn any person and do not disdain anything;] for there is no person who does not have his hour, and there is no thing that does not have its place” (M Avot 4:3).

Because of this ideas keep reemerging, ideas that were ruled out in ancient times reemerged in the Middle Ages, and having been ruled out in the Middle Ages, they have been revived in our generation. This shows that they are all correct, yet, none of them is everlasting. Although the nations of the world suffer terribly from this clash, they still have a strong back allowing them to endure this terrible burden. Somehow it does not immediately threaten their existence. But what can a poor nation do when its entire existence depends on the crumbs and leftovers that the nations throw them according to their mercy once they are fully satiated? Their back is too weak to bear the weight of this, especially during this fateful time when we are standing on the very edge of the abyss—it is not a time for vanity, disputes, and internal strife among brothers.

Due to the urgency of the hour, I have a genuine solution to offer, which I think is worthy of being accepted, and which will unite all the factions among us into a single bloc. However, before I present my solution I would like to put the minds of readers at ease who undoubtedly want to know my own political bias. I must admit that I see the socialist ideal of equal and just division as the truest. For our planet Earth is rich enough to provide for all of us. Why do we battle a tragic life which has ruined our lives for generations? Let us divide the labor and its produce equally and put an end to all the troubles! After all, what pleasure do even the millionaires among us derive from their possessions if not financial security for themselves and their descendants? Amd with a government of just division they will also have the same certainty, to an even greater extent.

And should you say that they will not have the honor that they had while they were property owners, that, too, is nothing. For those staunch property owners are still capable of procuring honor in another field since the gates of competition and honor will never be locked. Indeed, as truthful as this ideal is I do not promise its recipients even an iota of paradise. On the contrary, a tremendous hell is guaranteed to them, and the living proof that is Russia has already taught us. And yet, this does not negate the veracity of this ideal. Its only fault is that for us it is unripe. In other words, our generation is not yet capable of digesting this [form of] government—of just and equal division—since we have not had enough time to develop morally in order to accept the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Critique of the Gotha Program). This is like the offence of first man: our ancient sages have explained that the offence was because he ate of fruit before it had ripened sufficiently [see Zohar 1:73a]. For that small offence the entire world was sentenced to death. Teaching us that this is the cause of every detriment in the world.

People do not know how to mind and watch every thing to see if it has ripened sufficiently. Although the content of a matter may be beneficial, we must still probe more deeply to see if it is ripe, and if the recipients have grown sufficiently to digest it. While they are still developing what is truthful and beneficial becomes harmful and deceitful in their stomachs. Thus, they are doomed to die, for he who eats unripe fruit dies for his offence. In light of these matters, the Russian entanglement has not proven that the socialist ideal is unjust at its core, since they need more time to accept the truth and justice of this [ideal]. As yet they are incapable of behaving according to it. They are only harmed by their lack of development and qualification for this ideal [cf. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 250–51].

It is worthwhile to give heed to the words of comrade M. Botkovsky (see Davar, № 4507). He asks, “Why would a politician, a member of the Socialist movement, not do as the physicist, who when faced with some contradiction in the ironclad laws of his theory does not shy away from abandoning it? First, he carefully tries to amend it, but in the end when he can no longer square it with reality, he is ready to abandon it.” And he explains, “During the ruin of the international Labor Movement, we must purge biases. When facts spell out defeat, we must return to the school bench and examine the way forward and its principles; we must soberly recognize the burden on the shoulders of those who carry on. This is the scientific approach when hemmed in by contradictions between the new reality and the theory that explained the old reality. Only a conceptual breakthrough enables new science, and a new life.” He concludes, “Unless we ignore our conscience, we must declare that the time has come for a fundamental debate—a time of labor pains. Now is the time for the leaders of the movement to stand up and answer the question: ‘What does socialism mean today? What is the way the camp must go?’” I doubt if anyone in the movement will answer him, or even appreciate his words. It isn’t easy for a hundred-year-old who has so far been successful in his research to all at once stand up, cross out his prior theory, sit at the desk, and take up his research again like that physicist, as comrade Botkovsky rightly demands of the socialist movement.

Yet, how can you ignore his words? While it is possible to sit idly by the ruin of the international Labor Movement, since they are not facing immediate destruction, they are still secured the minimum standard of living of indentured servants and slaves. And it is not so concerning the Hebrew Labor Movement and the danger it faces. They are truly on the brink of annihilation under the slogan of the enemy To destroy, to kill, and to wipe out [all the Jews, from young lad to old man,] babes and women, [on a single day] (Esther 3:13) as it was during the time of Queen Esther.

We must not compare our state of ruin with the ruin of the movement internationally. If we were only sold to slavery and indentured servitude, we would keep still, like they do. Yet, we are denied even the security of the life of slaves. Thus, we must not let the moment escape us. We must attend school once again, reexamine the socialist ideal in light of the facts and contradictions that have surfaced in our days and not fear tearing down ideological fences, since nothing stands in the way of saving lives.

To that end, let us briefly review the evolution of socialism from its earliest stages. In general, there are three eras: The first was humanistic socialism based on the development of morality. It was aimed solely at exploiters. The second was based on the recognition of justice and injustice. It was aimed primarily at the exploited, to make them realize that workers are the true owners of the labor, and that the produce of society belongs to them. Since the workers are the majority in society, they were certain that once they realized that they are just, they would rise as one and take what is theirs, and establish a government of just and equal division in society. The third is Marxism, which succeeded more than any of them, and which is based on historical materialism. The great clash of creative-forces, of the workers and those who exploit them, the employers, necessitates that a society ultimately come to the brink of destruction. Then comes a revolution in production and distribution. The capitalist government is forced into ruin in favor of a proletariat government. In his view, this government was to emerge by itself, by way of cause and effect. But in order to usher in the end and the ensuing revolution still sooner, counsel must be sought, and obstacles must be placed before the bourgeois government.

Before I critique his theory, I must admit that of all its predecessors his theory is most just. After all, we are witnessing the great success it had, both in quantity and quality, throughout the world before it came to practical implementation among the many millions in Russia. Until then, almost every leader of humanity was drawn to it, and this is true testimony to the fitness of his theory. Besides, even theoretically, his words have merit, and no one has been able to contradict his view of history, that humanity is progressing slowly and gradually upward, as if on a ladder [cf. the rabbinic concept of יְרִידַת הַדוֹרוֹת (yeridat ha-dorot), decline of the generations]. Each step is but the negation of its former, hence each step that humanity has taken in political government is but a rejection of its preceding state.

The duration of every political phase is merely the time it takes to reveal its failures and wickedness. While exposing these, it makes way for a new state, free of these faults. Thus, the impediments that emerge in a given situation and demolish it are the very forces of human evolution, as they raise humanity to a more corrected state. And the faults in the next state bring humanity to a third and better state. Thus, the persistent negative forces that emerge in each state are the cause of human progress. Through them, humanity climbs the rungs of the ladder. [Negative forces] faithfully perform their duty, delivering humanity to the ultimate most desirable state, purified of any disgrace or blemish.

According to this historic process, [Marx] shows how the feudal government revealed its faults and was demolished, making way for the bourgeois government. Now it is time for the bourgeois government to reveal its faults and be demolished, making way for a government which is better still—the government of the proletariat, according to him. However, on this last point, where [Marx] promises that after the demolition of the bourgeois government a proletariat government will be established straightaway, here is the flaw in his theory. The current reality in front us denies it. He thought that the proletariat government would be the next step toward a bourgeois government, and thus predicted that by nullifying the bourgeois government, a proletariat one would be established straightaway. Yet, reality proves that the step following the demolition of the present government is that of Nazis or fascists.

Evidently, we are still in the intermediate stages of human development. Humanity has yet to reach the highest rung of the ladder. Who can guess how many rivers of blood are yet to be shed before humanity reaches the desired rung? In order to find a way out of this conundrum, we must thoroughly understand the aforementioned law of gradual development upon which [Marx] based his entire theory [see dialectical materialism]. We should know that this law comprises all of Creation. All of nature’s systems are based on it, organic and inorganic alike, up to the human species with all its ideal and base qualities.

With all that was said above, there is nothing that does not obey the ironclad law of gradual development resulting from the competition of these two forces with one another: a positive creative force, and a negative destructive force. They form and perfect all of reality, in general and in particular, through their harsh and perpetual battle with one another. As was already stated, the negative force appears at the end of every political phase, elevating it to a better state. Thus, these states unfold from one another until they reach their ultimate perfection.

Let us take planet Earth as an example: At the outset, it was merely a ball of fog-like gas. Through the force of gravity, over time, it concentrated its atoms into a narrow חוּג (ḥug), ring. As a result, the ball of gas became a liquid ball of fire. Over eons of terrible battles between these two forces the cooling force in Earth was finally triumphant over the force of liquid fire, and a cool thin crust hardened around the Earth. However, the planet had not yet become still due to the battle between the forces, and after some time the liquid force of fire overpowered, erupting into a great tumult from the bowels of Earth, rising and shattering the cold, hard crust to pieces, turning the planet back into a liquid ball of fire. Then an era of new battles began until the cooling force overpowered the force of fire once more, and a second cool crust hardened around the ball, thicker and more durable against the outbreak of fluids from within the ball. This time it lasted longer, but in the end, the liquid forces overpowered once again and erupted from the bowels of Earth, shattering the crust in pieces. Once more all was destroyed, becoming a liquid ball.

Thus was the dialectic interplay down through the eons, and each time the cooling force prevailed, the crust it made grew thicker. Finally, the positive forces overpowered the negative ones and assumed a total harmony: The liquids took their place in the bowels of Earth, and the cold crust became thick enough around them to enable the formation of organic life upon it, as it is today.

All organic bodies develop in the same way. From the moment they are planted until the end of their ripening, they undergo several hundred phases such as has been described with regard to Earth. It is these battles which yield the ripening of the fruit. Similarly, every living thing begins with a tiny drop. By means of gradual development and constant struggle, it finally becomes a big ox, fit for every manner of work, as it were, or a great man, fit for all his tasks.

However, there should be yet another distinction between the ox and man: Today, the ox has long since reached its final phase of evolution [cf. BT Bava Qamma 65b: “Rava said: A one-day-old ox is called ‘ox,’ as is written: When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born (Leviticus 22:27)”; Zohar 3:91b]. For us, however, the physical power is insufficient to deliver us to perfection since we also possess cognitive power thousands of times more valuable than our physical power. Thus, for humanity there is a sequence of gradual development, unlike any animal: the gradual evolution of human thought.

Also, being a social creature individual development is not sufficient. Rather, one’s ultimate perfection relies on the development of all members of society. With regards to the development of one’s intelligence, namely one’s ability to discern what is good or bad for him, though we must not think that man is still at the rung of primitive man, it is quite clear that we have yet to attain perfection. Rather, we are still in the midst of our development, still given to the battle between the positive and negative forces of Creation, which are faithful messengers in their mission of delivering humanity to its ultimate perfection.

As I have stated, since the socialist ideal is the most just of all, it requires a highly developed generation to realize it properly. Since today humanity is on the middle rungs of the ladder of development, still caught between the battle of the positive and negative forces of Creation, it is unfit for this lofty ideal. Rather, it is premature, like unripe fruit. Therefore, not only is it bitter to taste, but the negative force in it is also harmful, even poisonous. This is the predicament of that nation [Russia], and the reason it suffers so, since they are untimely and lack the basic qualities needed to actualize this just form of government.

Do not suspect that I have any spiritual concept of this matter, for Marx himself says the same thing: He admits that on the first rung of society, flaws are unavoidable. However, he promises that “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program).

Thus, he, too, admits that it is hopeless to wait for a totally just form of government before humanity attains the highest rung, before labor itself becomes a vital need, meaning the life principle, and not for the purpose of provision. However, he concludes that while society is on a lower rung, it should still be conducted by communism—even with all its flaws. But as stated above, this is the stumbling block in his theory. Soviet Russia has already proven that an insufficiently developed society will turn communism into the worst form of government in the world. Moreover, he assumed that the subsequent state would be the workers’ government, but reality has demonstrated that the subsequent government is a Nazi or fascist government. This is a serious error. And worst of all it threatens specifically the Jewish People, without any differentiation of class. Indeed we must learn from history. First, the question arises: Such a leader who has shaken the world with his theory, how did he make such a serious error? What was his stumbling block? Indeed, this necessitates careful and sober consideration of his words.

As was stated above, the basis of his theory is historical materialism, in which society develops through competing forces by way of cause and effect, from state to state. When the negative force prevails, it demolishes that state, and a better state emerges in its place through the positive force. They continue to battle each other until eventually the positive force fully emerges. However, this means that the perfection of society is guaranteed by default, since the negative force will not retreat until it delivers it to perfection. It follows that we can sit idly by, waiting for the anticipated self-development. So why should he burden us with this tactic of his?

Indeed, it is a silly question since this is the difference between man and beast: animals rely entirely on nature. They are utterly incapable of elevating nature, or supporting themselves without it. Not so with man. He is endowed with an intellectual capacity through which he becomes free of the shackles of nature, elevating it. His way is to emulate Nature’s work and do likewise. He does not wait for chicks to hatch naturally, for the hen to come and warm the eggs. Instead, he builds a machine for himself that warms the eggs and hatches the chicks, as a hen does.

And if he does this with specific things, he will certainly do it with regard to the development of the whole of humanity. He will not rely on the competing forces, with him becoming victim to their clashing. Rather, he will advance Nature and thoroughly emulate its work in this development. He arranges a technique for himself in order to bring about the desired outcome in less time and with less effort.

This is what Marx wanted with his tactic: The organization, the class conflicts, and implementing obstacles to undermine the capitalist government. His tactic would ease the pains of the suffering subjects, and stomping on their backs. It would invigorate them to be their own subjects, and hasten the end of the backward regime to make room for the happy rule of the proletariat. In a word, the Marxist tactic turns the objects into subjects, establishing for them development as they wish. In summary, the basis is the nature of human development through causality, which we see is a natural engine for development. The tactic is a sort of artificial engine of human development, similar to a natural engine. The benefit of the tactic is saving time and minimizing misery.

Now we can begin the critique of his theory in a simple way. It is clear that when we want to produce a machine that replaces the work of Nature, we first need to closely observe Nature’s mechanism. Then we can set up an artificial mechanism, similar to the natural. For example, if we want to produce a machine that replaces a hen’s belly, which warms the eggs and hatches the chicks, we must first thoroughly understand Nature’s forces and manner of development, which operate in the hen’s belly. We observe them and produce a device similar to a hen’s belly, which can likewise hatch chicks.

So too concerning our matter. When we want to produce a device that will replace the engine of natural human development, here, too, we must first examine those two forces—positive and negative—that operate in nature. It is an engine by which nature performs the procedure of development. Then we, too, will know how to establish a tactic that is similar to the mechanism of Nature’s natural engine of development, and which will be just as successful in developing humanity. Clearly, if we misunderstand the mechanism of the natural engine, our substitute will be useless, since the whole idea is to mimic the natural ways of Creation and adapt artificial ones in their place.

To define the matters in original terms that will prevent any mistakes by any party, we should define the two forces—positive and negative—operating in the engine of human development by two names: “egoism” and “altruism.” I am not referring to moral terms which we use ordinarily. Rather, only to their material sense, meaning the extent to which they are embedded in the human body to the point that one can no longer liberate oneself from them. That is, with respect to their being active forces in a person: The egoistic force functions in him like קַרְנִי סֶנְטרוֹפֶּיטְלִים (qarni sentropetlim), centripetal rays, drawing inwards and concentrating within the body itself. And the altruistic force functions in him like קַרְנִי סֶנטרוֹפוּגלִים (qarni sentrofuglim), centrifugal rays, flowing from within the body outwards.

These forces exist in every fragment of reality, each according to its essence. They also exist in man, according to his essence. They are the determining factors of all our actions. There are actions that are caused by a force that serves an individual’s existence. This is a force which attracts to its center anything external which is of benefit. Were it not for this force the object itself would not exist. This is “egoism.”

Conversely, there are actions that are caused by a force which flows outward to the benefit of what is external. This force works to advantage of others, and it can be called “altruism.” Accordingly I have named the two forces that struggle with one another on the path of human development. I shall call the positive force, an “altruistic force,” and I shall call the negative force, an “egoistic force.” By the term, “egoism,” I am not referring to egoism according to its original meaning. Rather, I am referring to a narrow egoism. That is, originally egoism is nothing but self-interest, all of a person’s positive, individualistic power of existence. In that respect, it is not at odds with the altruistic force, although it does not serve it. However, it is the nature of egoism to hate and exploit others in order to make one’s own existence easier. Also, it is not abstract hatred, but one that appears in abusive acts toward one’s fellow for his own benefit. Growing ever darker by deceiving, cheating, robbing, and murdering. This is called “narrow egoism,” and in that respect it is at odds with—and the complete opposite from—love of others. It is a negative force that destroys society.

Its opposite is the altruistic force. This is society’s constructive force, since all that one does for another is done only by the altruistic force, as stated above. And it ascends in its rungs: the initial expression of this constructive force is having children and family life. The next [such expression] is benefiting relatives. The third is benefiting the state, and fourth is to benefit the entire world. The entire cause of social structuring is the altruistic force. As was already stated, these are the elements that operate in the natural engine of the development of humanity—the egoistic force, which is detrimental to society, and the altruistic, positive force, which is beneficial to society. In his emulation of the natural engine of development, Marx regarded only the results of these negative and positive forces, which are the building or destruction that take place in society. He planned his tactic according to them, but overlooked what causes these results.

This is similar to a physician not diagnosing the root cause of an illness, but healing the patient only according to his superficial symptoms. This approach always does more harm than good, since you must take both into account: the cause of the illness and the illness itself, and only then prescribe a successful remedy. That same deficiency exists in the Marxist tactic—he did not take into account subjective forces in society, but only what is constructive or flawed. As a result, the direction of his tactic was counterproductive, for while the productive is altruistic, the direction of the tactic was to the contrary. It is clear that the socialist government must be conducted in an altruistic direction, since the very words, “just division,” contain a purely altruistic ethos, and is totally devoid of egoism.

Egoism aims to exploit others entirely. As far as it is concerned, there is no justice as long as reality is not working to its own advantage. The very word, צֶדֶק (tsedeq), righteousness, means “social justice,” which is a concept in favor of the other. And to the same degree that it acknowledges the entitlement of the other, it necessarily abandons its own self-entitlement. It turns out that the very notion of “just division,” is an altruistic one. Realistically speaking, it is impossible to mend the rifts of a society with just division, unless through an exaggerated altruism. This is so since the reward for spiritual work is greater than that of physical work, and the work of the quick is more rewarding than the work of the slow, and a bachelor should receive less than one who has a family. Also, the hours of labor should be equal for all, and the produce of the labor should be equal for all. Indeed, how do we mend these rifts?

These are the main rifts, but they split into myriad more rifts, as appears before us in the Soviet play. The only way to mend them is through good altruistic expression, where the spiritual workers relinquish some of their share in favor of the physical workers, and the bachelors in favor of the married… or as Marx himself put it, “The labor itself becomes an imperative and not merely a means of provision.” This is nothing less than total altruism. And because a purposeful government must be altruistic by nature, it is necessary that the tactic that aims toward that objective should also be aimed in the same direction as the target, namely towards altruism.

However, in the Marxist tactic, we find the narrowest egoism. This is the opposite the direction of the target: nurturing hatred of the opposite class, implanting obstacles, demolishing the old regime, and cultivating in the workers a feeling that the entire world enjoys on the back of their work. All these overly intensify the narrow egotism among the workers. It completely deprives them of the altruistic feeling naturally inherent in them. And if the tactic moves in the opposite direction of the target outcome, how will one ever reach it? This engendered the contradiction between his theory and the new reality. He thought that the stage following the bourgeois government would be a socialist workers’ regime, but in the end we are living witnesses that if the democratic bourgeois government were to be demolished now, a Nazi and fascist regime would rise in its place straightaway. Also, it will not necessarily be through the present war, but whenever the democratic government is demolished, a fascist Nazi regime inherits it.

There is no doubt that if this happens the workers will be set back by a thousand years. They will have to wait for several regimes to arise by cause and effect before the world returned to today’s democratic bourgeois government. All this emerges from the egoistic tactic that was given to those subjects that should be the workers’ governance, and took the movement in an opposite direction from the intended outcome.

We should also take into account that all those who are ruining the natural process of just governance actually came from the proletariat and emerged from their midst, and not necessarily the Soviets, but the majority of Nazis were also initially pure socialists, as well as the majority of fascists. Even Mussolini himself was initially an enthusiastic socialist leader. This completes the picture of how the Marxist tactic has led the workers in the total opposite direction of the intended outcome.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand how such a straightforward matter could be overlooked by the creator of Marxist theory, especially since he himself determined that there is no remedy for communist society until “after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished.” Thus, it is clear that he was aware that a communist society without the members’ complete surrender of their shares in favor of the comrade is unsustainable.

And since he was aware of that altruistic element necessary for society, I assert that he did not intend to offer us a meaningful procedure by his tactic whatsoever. Rather, he intended primarily to hurry—through this tactic—the end of the present unjust government, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to organize the international proletariat and prepare them to be a strong, decisive force when the bourgeois government is [finally] demolished. These are fundamentals stages in facilitating the government of a communist society.

In that respect, his tactic is an invention of genius, the likes of which we do not find in history. And concerning the establishment of a happy society, he relied on history itself to complete it, for it was clear to him that in dire times, when the bourgeois government starts to die, the proletariat organization will find itself unprepared to assume government. At that time the workers will have to choose one of two options: one, either to destroy themselves and let the true destroyers, the Nazis and fascists, seize the helm of government, or two, find a good tactic by which to qualify the workers to take governance into their own hands. 

In his mind, he was certain that when we reach a state where the international proletariat forms a decisive power in the world, we will thank him for the validity of his theory, which has brought us thus far, and we ourselves will seek the way to continue moving toward the goal. Indeed, there has never been a inventor who did not leave the completion of his work to his successors.

If we delve further into his theory we discover that, in fact, he could not invent for us the tactic by which to complete the qualification of the workers, as they are two procedures that contradict one another. To create the fastest movement and destroy abusive governments, he had to employ the procedure in the direction of the narrowest egoism, meaning to develop profound hatred towards the class of abusers in order to increase the negative power into an instrument capable of demolishing the old government in the quickest possible time, and to organize the workers along the strongest ties. For this reason, he had to uproot and neutralize the altruistic force in the proletariat, whose nature is to tolerate and concede to its abusers. To qualify the workers in “practical socialism,” so they could assume the government de facto, he had to use the procedure in the altruistic direction, which contradicts the “organizational procedure.” Thus, he must have intended to leave this work for us.

He did not doubt our understanding or ability since the matter was so straightforward that a cooperative government is feasible only on an altruistic basis, so we would have to adopt a new tactic in the direction of altruism and qualify the workers to take governance into their own hands in a practical and sustainable manner. However, to comment on it, he found it necessary to depict for us the form of just government of the proletariat in the abbreviated words, “society [will] inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Thus, even a completely blind person would find these words to mean that just government is inconceivable except in an altruistic society in the fullest sense.

From this perspective, Marxism has not encountered any opposition due to the failed Russian experiment. And if Marxism has been arrested, it is only because its role in the first phase has been completed, namely organizing the international proletariat into a force. Now we must find a practical way to qualify the movement to actually acquire the government in its own hands. As stated before, the current procedure must be in the completely opposite direction from the previous tactic. Where we had cultivated excessive egoism, which was very successful in the first phase, we must now cultivate excessive altruism among the workers. This is utterly mandatory for the social nature of a socialist government. Thus, we will lead the movement with confidence in its practical role of acquiring the government into its own hands in its final form.

I am aware that it is not an easy task to completely reverse the direction of the movement so that all who hear it will be burned by it as if by boiling water. Yet, it is not as bad as it is seems. We can gain recognition for the movement through proper explanation that the interest of the class depends on this, “whether it persists or perishes,” whether to continue the Marxist movement or hand over the reigns of government to the Nazis and fascists—the most dangerous forces for a government of the workers, which pose a risk of being setback by a thousand years.

When the masses understand this, it is certain that they will easily adopt the new, practical tactic leading them to actual acquisition of the government. Who does not remember how the whole world anxiously awaited the successful end of the Soviet regime? And were they not successful, the whole world would undoubtedly be under the reins of a socialist government. Indeed, the Russians could not possibly succeed because the organizational direction to which the masses are accustomed is an egoistic one, which is necessary in the first phase, and by nature, it is a power that destroys the socialist government.

Before the theory is accepted, it is too soon to speak in any detail about the practical program of this direction, especially since my essay has become too long already. Briefly, we can say that we must set up such dissemination, scientifically and practically, that will be certain to impress in the public opinion that any member who does not excel in altruism is like a predator that is unfit to be among human beings, until he senses himself within society a murderer and a robber. If we systematically engage in circulating this matter using the appropriate manners, it will not require such a long process. Hitlerism has proven that within a short amount of time, an entire country has been turned upside down through propaganda, accepting his bizarre notion.

Now that facts of history have clarified the right way forward henceforth, I urgently appeal to our workers. As was already stated, the nations of the world may wait, especially now that there is global upheaval and we must first be rid of the Hitlerian danger. But we have no time to waste. I ask that you will promptly pay attention to this new theory that I have proposed, and which I call “practical socialism,” for until now the role of socialism, in my view, was merely “organizational socialism,” as stated above.

If my theory is accepted, we should also change the outward tactic, where instead of the old weapon of class hatred and hatred of religion, they will be given a new weapon—hatred of excessive egoism within. It is fit for its task from every vantage because not only will the opposite class be unable to defend itself using the dense shields of moral and religious dogmas, it will also uproot along the way various harmful weeds of Nazism and fascism that have taken root quite strongly among the proletariat itself, risking its existence, as stated above.

We should also take into account the beauty of this weapon, which is most enticing and can unite our youth around it. In fact, the change is not so much in the tactic, but rather only in the result. Until now, when they fought against the depriving of the class, the demonstrator always looks through the narrow possessive-egoistic perspective, since he is protecting his own possession. Thus, along with his battle, the excessive egoistic force expands in him, and the social justice warriors themselves are caught up in the same bourgeois perspective.

It is also very unlike the [property] owners’ approach, for they believe in their complete entitlement from every side, by law, religion, and ethics, protecting themselves by all the means. However, when fighting against the egoism of the owners using the broad perspective of an altruistic outlook, the result is that the power of altruism grows within them in proportion to the level of their struggle. Thus, the entitlement of the owners becomes very flawed and they cannot defend themselves, for this type of war relies heavily on the ethical and religious perception in the owners themselves.

Thus, my theory holds the key for national unity, for which we are so thirsty at this time. History itself has already broken many of the political divides among us, for now we can no longer distinguish between anti-Zionists, religious Zionists, secular Zionists, territorial ones and so forth. Now that all the hopes of breathing free air outside our country have been shattered, even the most devout anti-Zionists have become, by necessity, complete practical Zionists. Thus, in principle, the majority of rifts in out midst have been mended.

However, we are still suffering from two terrible divides: class divide and religious divide. We must not slight these whatsoever, nor can we hope to ever be rid of them. However, if my new theory of “practical socialism,” which I have suggested, is accepted by the movement, we will be rid once and for all of the class divide, too, which has been stuck in the nation’s back.

As was already stated, the new tactic takes much from religion, and does not aim at abusing offenders, but only at their offenses—only at the contemptible egoism within them. In truth, the same war will unfold in part within the movement, too, which will necessarily abolish class hatred and religious hatred. We will have the ability to understand one another and attain a complete unity of the nation with all its factions and streams, as this grave hour necessitates for us all. This is the guarantee of our victory on all fronts.

Writings for the Future Generation by Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag (Ba’al ha-Sullam)

The basis of my entire commentary is the רָצוֹן לְקַבֵּל (ratson le-qabbel), desire to receive, that is embedded in every creature, and which is in שִׁנוּי הַצוּרָה (shinui ha-tsurah), disparity of form, with the Creator. Thus, the soul has separated from Him as a limb is separated from the body, since disparity of form in spirituality is like a cutting axe in material reality. It is therefore clear that what the Creator wants from us is שִׁוּוּי הַצוּרָה (shiuui ha-tsurah), parity of form, when we cleave to Him once more, as before we were created.

Our Sages said: Cling to His qualities, as He is merciful and so forth [see BT Shabbat 133b; Sotah 14a]. Meaning that we must transform our nature, which is the desire to receive, and adopt the quality of the Creator, which is only [a desire] to give, so that all our deeds will be only to give to our fellow and benefit him as best we can. Through this we come to the goal of דְבֵקוּת (devequt), cleaving, to Him, which is parity of form. What one is compelled to do for himself, namely the necessary minimum for himself and for his family’s sustenance, is not considered disparity of form, as “Necessity is neither to be condemned nor praised” (Rabbi Shelomoh ibn Adret, Ḥiddushei Aggadot ha-Shas on BT Niddah 16b). This is the great revelation that will only be revealed entirely in the days of the Messiah. When this teaching is accepted, we will be rewarded with complete redemption.

I have already said that there are two ways to find perfection: The path of Torah and the path of suffering. Hence, the Creator has bestowed technology on humanity, until we have invented the atom and the hydrogen bombs. If the total ruin that we are destined to bring upon the world is still not evident to the world, we can wait for a third world war, or a fourth. The bombs will perform their function and those remaining will have no choice but to take this work upon themselves, in which both individuals and nations do not serve themselves more than is necessary for their sustenance, while everything else they do is for the good of others. If all the nations of the world agree, there will be war no more, since no individual will be concerned with his own welfare whatsoever, but only with the welfare of others.

This law of parity of form is the Messiah’s teaching. Of this is said And it shall happen in future days… many nations shall go and say: Come, let us go up… for from Zion shall תוֹרָה (torah), teaching, come forth.… And He shall judge among many peoples (Micah 4:1–2)—the Messiah will teach them the service of the blessed Holy One through parity of form, which is the תּוֹרָה וּמִשְׁפָּט (torah u-mishpat), teaching and law, of the Messiah. And be arbiter to vast nations (ibid., 3)—he will teach them that if they do not take this service of the blessed Holy One upon themselves, all nations will be eradicated by war. However, if they do accept his teaching, it is said, And they shall grind their swords into plowshares [and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not raise sword against nation, nor shall they learn war anymore] (ibid.). If you take the path of Torah, and accept the antidote, very well. And if you do not, you will tread the path of suffering [see BT Shabbat 88a]. Wars will break out with atom and hydrogen bombs, and the entire world will seek counsel to escape war. Then they shall come to the Messiah, to Jerusalem [see BT Bava Batra 75b], and he will teach them this law.

Before I treat this matter, I will present a short introduction concerning human qualities, and say that people are divided into two categories: egoists and altruists. “Egoists”—meaning that all that they do they do for themselves [see BT Bava Batra 10b]. And if they ever do something for another, they must have a fine reward in return for their service, be it money, respect, and so forth. “Altruists”—meaning that all their days they sacrifice for the welfare of others, without any reward. Rather, they perpetually neglect their own needs to help others. Furthermore, among them there are those who give their very self for the benefit of others, such as those we find among volunteers who go out to war for their fellow countrymen.

More generally, we also find altruists among those who give their heart and soul to aid the primitive of every nation of the world. For example, communists who fight for the benefit of the oppressed among every nation. They are willing to pay for it with their very life. Egoism is embedded in the nature of every person, as in any animal. Altruism, however, goes against human nature. And yet, there are a select few imparted this nature, I call them “idealists.” Yet, the majority of any society or state is made up of simple flesh and blood folk, meaning egoists. Only a few, ten percent at most, are altruists.

Now I shall get to the point: For that reason—altruists being so few in every society—the first communists, before Karl Marx’s day, were unsuccessful in spreading communism to the world, as is said, “One swallow does not a spring make.” In addition, some of them even established communal settlements like the kibbutzim in our country [Israel], but they failed because they could not subsist. This was because each member of a communal society must be an altruistic idealist, like the founders themselves. Since ninety percent of any society, even the most developed, are egoists, they could not maintain the conduct of a cooperative society, which is purely altruistic by nature. This continued until the time of Karl Marx, when a very successful plan for the expansion of communism was devised, namely to incorporate the oppressed themselves in the war of communism so that shoulder to shoulder they would fight against the capitalist bourgeois government. Since the oppressed are interested in this war only for their own good, namely egoistic reasons, they immediately accepted the plan, and thus communism spread to every strata of the primitive and the oppressed.

Now since the primitive are the majority in [any] society, it is no surprise that today communism has succeeded in encircling a third of the world. However, this coupling of the altruist communists with the egoistic proletariat, though it was successful in overthrowing the bourgeois government, hateful to both, that coupling still fails to maintain a cooperative government with just division. The reason is very simple: A person does not budge unless there is some reason which necessitates that movement, like fuel for a machine. For example, one does not move his hand an inch unless he thinks that he will be more comfortable. That seeking of a more comfortable place for his hand is the fuel, as it were, pushing his hand from one place to another.

Needless to say, a worker who works all day must have fuel for his exertion. Reward for his work is the fuel that motivates him in his hard labor [cf. Rabbi Ya’aqov Emden, Birat Migdal Oz, 138b]. Thus, if no reward is given, or if he has no need for that reward, he will not be able to work. He is like a machine without fuel—even the most gullible person in the world does not believe this machine will ever move. Hence, in a purely communistic regime, where the worker knows that he will not be given more if he works more, or receive less if he works less, and all the more so in light of the absolute slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (Critique of the Gotha Program)—the worker is neither to be rewarded for his diligence, nor fear his own negligence. Thus, he has no fuel propelling him in his work. The workers’ productivity then drops to zero, until they ruin the entire regime. No schooling in the world will help in inverting human nature to be able to work without fuel—without reward. The exception to this rule is the natural born altruistic idealist for whom the best reward is the benefit of another. This altruistic fuel is entirely sufficient in propelling him in his work, like the egoistic reward for all other people. However, idealists are few. Their number is a weak foundation for society. Thus, you see that communism and altruism are one and the same.

I know there are ways to compel workers to complete their share of the work which their supervisors give them. This is the conduct of a bourgeois government in which each is rewarded according to his productivity. In addition, harsh punishment can be imposed on the negligent, as in Soviet countries. However, in no way is this communism. Needless to say, it is not the paradise that the communist regime hoped to bring about, one worthy of giving one’s life to. Furthermore, a government such as this is far worse than the bourgeois government for obvious reasons that I will soon give. Had that coercive government been a step toward a perfect communism, it would still be acceptable and tolerable. However, that is not the case: no schooling in the world will invert human nature from egoism to altruism.

Therefore, the oppressive regimes in Soviet countries are eternal regimes that can never be changed. And should they desire to change it into a truly cooperative regime, the workers run out of fuel. They are unable to work and destroy the government. Thus, egoism and anti-communism are one and the same—identical. Furthermore, a coercive communist government is completely unsustainable, since a government which relies on the bayonet cannot persist, the majority will ultimately rise against it and abolish it. The idealist ten percent will not be able to rule over the egoistic anti-communist ninety percent forever. This is what we find in Soviet and eastern countries.

Even that handful of communist idealists which lead these countries today are not guaranteed to remain that way for generations, because ideals are not hereditary [see M Avot 2:17: “Prepare yourself to study Torah, for it does not come to you as an inheritance”]. Although the fathers are idealists, there is no guarantee that their sons will do the same. Thus, how can we be certain that the leadership of the second or third generation will be in the hands of communist idealists as it is today? You may say that a majority will always elect them from the public, but this is a serious error. The majority of the egoistic public will elect only those who are close to them in spirit, not their opponents. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that today’s leaders were not elected by the public at all. Who can make sure that the elected representatives of the public will always be idealists? When the egoists are in power, they are sure to abandon that government immediately, or at least turn it into a kind of national communism—הערען פעלקער (herren folker), Herrenvolk [i.e., “a nation of masters,” a locution of Max Weber (see for example Political Writings, 129, 269), later to be misappropriated by Hitler in his notion of a “master race”].

All that I have said—when I proved that communism and altruism are the same, and that egoism and anti-communism are the same—is my own view. Since if you ask the communists themselves, they will vehemently deny it. They will claim the opposite: We are far from any bourgeois ethics, we possess no sentimentalism. It is only justice that we seek, that no man exploit another. In other words, it is according to the quality, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours” (M Avot 5:10), which, in fact, is the quality of egoists. Hence, I must see things from their perspective, and review now this justice that they seek and to which they devote their lives.

First, according to the development of the communist regimes, I find that “bourgeois” and “proletariat” are no longer sufficient terms to explain that economic history, we need more general terms. It is more accurate to divide society into a class of “industrious” and a class of “primitive.” In bourgeois regimes, the industrious are capitalists and the middle class. The primitive are the workers who labor for them. In communist regimes, the industrious are managers, supervisors, and intelligentsia, and the primitive are the workers who labor for them. The majority in any society is always primitive. The industrious are no more than thirty percent of society. It is a natural law that the industrious class exploit the primitive class as best they can, like fish of the sea, where the strong swallow the weak [cf. BT Avodah Zarah 4a: “Just as big fish swallow up small fish, so people would swallow each other up alive if not for fear of the rulers”]. It is of no consequence whether the industrious are capitalists and merchants, as in bourgeois regimes, or whether the industrious are managers, supervisors, intelligentsia, and administrators, as in communist regimes.

Eventually, the industrious exploit the primitive workers to the best of their ability, taking no pity on them; the industrious always extract the butter and the cream, leaving the workers meager whey. The only question is what remains for the workers after the ruthless exploitation by the industrious—the degree of enslavement the industrious impose on them—and the degree of freedom and human liberty the industrious allow them. It is only by these scraps, which the industrious leave for the primitive, that we can evaluate any regime and choose which one is preferable.

Let us mention once more what we have already said: Like a machine, one cannot work without a reward serving as fuel. In a non-altruistic communist regime, the workers must be rewarded for their work, and be heavily punished for their negligence. Yet, many supervisors are required to watch over them, for without sufficient supervision, the rewards and punishments are certain to be insufficient. However, there is no more difficult work than standing over people and tormenting them, since “no one wants to be a hangman.” Therefore, even if you place inspectors, appointees over the inspectors, and still higher appointees to watch them, they will all be negligent in their supervision, they will not sufficiently torment the workers [cf. Ecclesiastes 5:8]. There is no remedy for this except to provide plenty of fuel to the functionaries, enough to reward such hard labor—work of the “hangman.”

In other words, they must be paid several times more than a simple worker. Thus, do not be surprised if functionaries in Russia are paid ten to fifty times more than a simple worker—their work is ten to fifty times more difficult than that of a simple worker. If they are not sufficiently rewarded, they are compelled to neglect their office and the state is ruined. Now try to calculate in our country’s currency. Let us say that a simple worker earns a hundred Israeli pounds a month. This means that the lowest functionaries would receive a thousand pounds a month, ten times more. Thus, over one year, he earns 12,000 pounds, and over ten years 120,000 pounds. If we deduct ten percent from that for his sustenance, he is left with 108,000 pounds. Evidently we must call him a respectable capitalist. It is even more so with the higher functionaries. Thus, within a few decades, the functionaries become millionaires, at no risk, but strictly through the exploitation of the workers.

As I have said, contemporary society should no longer be divided into “bourgeois” and “proletariat,” but rather into “industrious” and “primitive.” You might say that this is but a phase toward pure communism, meaning that through education and public opinion, the public will be trained until “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Then there will be no need for inspectors and supervisors. This is a serious error because this slogan is a strictly altruistic slogan. Wherever one can work for the benefit of society without any “fuel,” it is unnatural, unless altruism is the reason and the “fuel” for the work, as I have shown. Thus, we must not expect any change for the better. Quite the contrary, we must fear that that handful of idealist communists who lead today will not bequeath their leadership to other idealists. The egotism of the people will gradually prevail and they will choose leadership according to their egotistic spirit—reinstating capitalism. At the very least, they will turn communism into a kind of national Communism, a “Herrenvolk,” as Hitler did. They have no inhibitions about exploiting other nations to benefit themselves, if they have the power.

You might say that through education and public opinion the nature of the masses can be transformed into altruism, but this is also a serious error. Education can achieve no more than public opinion, meaning that public opinion will respect the altruists and despise the egoists. As long as public opinion upholds altruism by means of honor and shame, education will be effective. However, if a time comes when a proficient speaker gives a daily speech that is contrary to public opinion he will undoubtedly succeed in changing public opinion as he wishes. We already have such a bitter example from history in that villain who turned a well-mannered people like the Germans into wild animals through his daily “sermons.” Several hundred years of education vanished like a soap bubble, since public opinion had changed, and education had nothing more to rely on, as education cannot exist without the public’s support.

Evidently there is no hope to transform this coercive government. Also, there is no hope that the masses will ever achieve true communism, according to the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Rather, the workers must remain perpetually under the dreaded rod of the managers and supervisors, while the managers and supervisors inevitably suck the blood of the workers, like bourgeois capitalists do, if not much worse than them. After all, in the coercive regime of the communists, the workers do not even have the right to strike. Famine and destruction will always hang over their heads, as the Soviet case teaches. Moreover, if the coercive government is ever abandoned, society is certainly ruined immediately, since the workers run out of fuel.

Indeed […] it is said that in a communist regime it is worthwhile for the proletariat to suffer, since they suffer for themselves, as they are the owners of the means of productivity, the property, and the surplus, and no one can exploit them. And, in a capitalist regime they only have their daily bread, with all the surplus going to the capitalists. How lovely these words are on the surface. Nevertheless, if there is an ounce of truth in these words they apply to the industrious—the functionaries and managers who, in any case, take all the pleasures of the coercive regime. Indeed, regarding the proletariat, namely the workers and the “primitive,” these are entirely idle words.

Let us take our own railroads, for example. They are state property, meaning that the ownership of the railroad is in the hands of all the citizens of the state. I ask, do any of us citizens feel our right to ownership of the railroad? Do we have any greater benefit when traveling on a nationalized railway compared to traveling on a private, capitalist railway? We can also take a cooperative owned entirely by the proletariat, like Solel Boneh owned solely by the workers. Do the workers who work on their own property have any additional benefit than when working for a foreign capitalist property? I fear that one who works for the foreign entrepreneur will feel much more at home than one working for Solel Boneh, even though he is seemingly a co-owner. Only a handful of managers has the entire ownership, and they do with the national property as they see fit. A private citizen is forbidden to even inquire what they are doing and for what. Thus, the proletariat takes no delight in the property of the state and the means of productivity that is under the hands of the executives and the functionaries, who always oppress and humiliate them like dust of the earth. What then is the surplus that they have in a coercive communist regime—what more than their daily bread?

I do not envy the proletariat whatsoever. In a coercive communist regime, they are, and always will be, under the harsh burden of the functionaries and inspectors who torture them with every kind of atrocity. The world and public opinion is oblivious, since all the means of advertising are in possession of the clerks. No one is able to expose their wicked deeds in public. Furthermore, everyone is under their thumb, unable to escape the country, just as our ancestors were imprisoned in Egypt, where no slave could leave for freedom. Because all the workers leave the surplus of produce for the state, how can they let them leave, when the state loses their surplus? In a word, a non-altruistic communist regime must always consist of two classes: The “industrious,” who are the managers, functionaries, and intelligentsia, and the “primitive” class, who are the productive workers, the majority of society.

For the functioning of the state, the class of the industrious must, willingly or unwillingly, enslave, tantalize, and humiliate the working class mercilessly and shamelessly. They exploit them ten times more than the bourgeois exploit them, for they are utterly defenseless, as they do not have the right to strike. They are unable to expose the wicked deeds of the employers in public, and they derive no pleasure whatsoever in the ownership of the means of productivity that the functionaries have acquired.

One more thing, and this is the most important: communism must fix more than just the economic order. It must also ensure the subsistence of the people of the world. In other words, it must prevent wars so that nation not destroy nation. I have already screamed like a banshee over this back in 1933 in my pamphlet Peace, warning that wars today have reached such drastic proportions that they endanger the life of the entire world. The only counsel to prevent this is by all the nations adopting the regime of perfect communism, meaning altruistic. Needless to say, today, after the discovery and use of atom bombs, and the discovery of hydrogen bombs, it is no longer doubtful that after one, two, or three wars, human civilization will be totally ruined, leaving no trace.

Modern egoism cannot secure peace in the world. For even if all nations of the world adopt this communist regime, there will still not be a compelling reason for nations rich in means of production, raw materials, and civilization, to share the raw materials and means of production equally with poor nations. For example, the nations in [North] America will not want to equalize their standard of living with the Asian or African nations, or even with the European nations. A single nation might have the power to equalize the standard of living of the rich and middle class—the owners of the means of production—with the proletariat, by inciting the poor masses, the majority of society, to destroy the rich and middle class and take their property.

However, this counsel will be to no avail in compelling a wealthy nation to share its property and means of production with a poor nation, as the rich nation has already prepared arms and bombs to safeguard itself from its poor neighbors. Thus, what good has the communistic regime done in the world? It leaves a state of envy among the nations intact just as with a capitalistic regime, without any relief. A just division within each nation for itself will not assist to just division among the nations whatsoever. Hence, while basic sustenance is under such immediate risk it is a waste of time to improve the economic government. They would be better off using that time seeking counsel to save the very life of all humankind.

You see that the whole problem with today’s communistic regime is the lack of adequate reward, which is fuel for the workers. Hence, it is impossible to employ them successfully except with the fuel of reward and punishment. Hence, we require inspectors, supervisors, and managers to take upon themselves the hard task of supervising the workers, and ruthlessly suck their blood and sweat, making their lives endlessly bitter with hardship and enslavement. In return for this hard task they must also be given adequate reward, which is no less than to make them millionaires, for they will not want to live the life of “hangmen” by their own free choice for anything less than that, as we see in the Soviet country.

In addition, we must not hope for this reign of terror to ever end, as the optimists promise. Neither bayonets, nor education, nor public opinion will be able to transform human nature to work willingly without adequate fuel. Hence, it is a curse for generations [cf. Genesis 3:19]. When the coercive government is abandoned, the workers no longer yield a produce that suffices for the sustenance of the state. There is no remedy for this except to place faith in spiritual reward and punishment from above into the hearts of the workers, from He who knows all mysteries.

Thus, through the right education and promotion spiritual reward and punishment will be sufficient fuel for their work. They will no longer need managers or supervisors over their shoulders, but each and every one will work willingly and wholeheartedly for society, to merit his reward from Heaven.

The positive Communism is an ideal, meaning moral. The goal “to work according to one’s ability and receive according to one’s needs” testifies to that. Every moral must have a basis that necessitates it; education and public opinion are a very unsound basis, and the proof of this is Hitler. Because any concept of the majority is sure to triumph, it is needless to say that the implementation of a corrected communism is by the majority of the public. Thus, it is necessary to establish the moral level of the majority of the public on a basis that will necessitate and guarantee that the corrected communism will never be corrupted. A preordained ideal in humans is insufficient, as too few possess it, and they are insignificant compared to the majority of the public.

Religion is the only basis sure to raise the level of the collective to the moral level of “working according to the ability and receiving according to the need.” Communism must be turned away from, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours” (M Avot 5:10), which is the quality of Sodom, to “what’s mine is yours, and what’s yours is yours” (ibid.), meaning absolute altruism. When the majority of the public accepts this rule de facto, it will be time to “work according to the ability and receive according to the need.” The sign would be that everyone would work like a contract-worker.

It is forbidden to nationalize property before the public reaches this moral level. Before there is a reliable moral element in the public, the collective will not have “fuel” for work. The entire world is one family. The framework of communism should ultimately encircle the entire world in an equal standard of living for all. However, the actual process is a gradual one. Each nation whose majority accepts these basic elements practically, and has guaranteed “fuel,” may enter the framework of communism right away.

The economic and religious form that guarantees communism will be the same for all nations. Except for religious customs, which do not concern the economy, each will have one’s own custom, which must not be changed at all. The world must not be corrected in religious matters before economic correction is guaranteed for the entire world.

There should be a detailed program from all the aforementioned rules and the rest of the necessary rules in this regard. Anyone who comes under the framework of communism must take a solemn oath. First, there must be a small establishment whose majority are altruists to the aforementioned extent. It means that they will work as hard as contract-workers, ten to twelve hours a day and more. Each and every one working according to his strength and receiving according to his needs. It will have all the forms of the government of a state. In this manner, even if the framework of this foundation comprises the entire world, and the brute-force regime is abandoned completely, nothing will need to be changed in governance or work. This foundation will be like a global focal point with nations and states surrounding it to the farthest corners of the earth [see Isaiah 49:6: It is too little a thing that you are My servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and bring back Israel’s survivors. I shall make you a light for the nations, that My rescue reach then end of the earth]. All who enter this framework of communism will have the same agenda and the same leadership as its center. They will be as one nation in profits, losses and results.

It is absolutely forbidden for anyone from the foundation to turn to any of the judicial establishments, etc., or any of the forms existing in a brute-force regime [i.e., Mesirah, see for example BT Bava Qamma 58a, 117a. Cf. BT Gittin 88b in the name of Rabbi Tarfon]. All conflicts are to be resolved among themselves, meaning between the concerned parties. Public opinion, which condemns egoism, will condemn the guilty party for exploiting the righteousness of his fellow.

It is a fact that the Jews are hated by most nations and are made fewer by them [see Sifrei Bemidbar, 59: “Rabbi Shim’on son of Yoḥai taught: It is a well-known halakhah: Esau hates Jacob”]. It is true for the religious, the secular, and the communists. There is no tactic to fight against it except to bring true altruistic morale into the heart of the nations, to the point of cosmopolitanism.

If one is forbidden to exploit one’s fellow, why should a nation be allowed to exploit its fellow nations? What justifies one nation enjoying the land more than other nations? Therefore, international communism must be established. As there are individuals who have been privileged by diligence, chance, or ancestral inheritance to a greater share than the negligent, quite so is it among the nations. Hence, why should war on individuals be greater than against nations?

If you lived on an island of savages that you could not bring to law and order except through religion, would you doubt it and let them destroy one another? Similarly, with regard to altruism, they are all savages, and there is no tactic they will accept unless through religion. Who would hesitate to abandon them to destroy each other with hydrogen bombs?

There are three bases to the expansion of faith: First: satisfaction of desires; second: proofs; third: propaganda. Satisfaction of desires: is like the perpetuation of the soul, reward, as well as national reward, which is the glorification of the nation; Proofs: the world cannot exist without it, much less in the days of the atom [bomb…]; propaganda: this may also be used instead of proof, if it is done with diligence.

Because of the craving for possessions, it is impossible to build altruistic communism unless egoistic communism comes first, as demonstrated by all the societies that wished to establish altruistic Communism prior to Marxism. However, now that a third of the world has already laid down the rudiments on an egoistic communist regime, it is possible to begin to establish a durable altruistic Communism on a religious foundation.

Altruistic communism will ultimately completely nullify the power of government. Rather, Every man will do that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25) [cf. 1 Samuel 8:5–11. For an appraisal of anarchism, see Rav Avraham Yitsḥak Kook, Shemonah Kevatsim 1:89–90: “Anarchism stems from a foundation more exalted than socialism”]. This should not be surprising, as it was inconceivable that children could be trained through explanation, but rather, only by the rod [see Proverbs 23:13: Do not hold back reproof from a lad, when you strike him the rod, he won’t die]. However, today most people have accepted [not to do] this and minimize the forceful rule over children. [Now,] this concerns children who are without patience or knowledge.

All the more so with people, a kibbutz of educated, knowledgeable people brought up in altruism. They certainly will not require a brute-force regime. Indeed, there is nothing more degrading and humiliating for a person than being subjugated to naked power. Even courthouses will not be necessary, unless some unusual incident occurs, in which the companions are unable to influence an exceptionally [ornery] individual. In that case, special teachers will be needed to turn that individual around through argumentation and explanation of the benefit of society, until that individual is brought back in line.

If one is stubborn, and it is all to no avail, then the public will turn away from that person as though from an outcast, until that individual turns back to the conduct of society. It turns out that after there is a kibbutz established on altruistic communism, with a majority of people who have actively taken these rules upon themselves, they will immediately decide not to bring each other to any court, governmental agency, or any other kind of power [i.e., Mesirah, see for example BT Bava Qamma 58a, 117a. Cf. BT Gittin 88b in the name of Rabbi Tarfon]. Rather, everything will be done by gentle persuasion. Hence, no individual is to be accepted into the society until he is tested to see if he is so crude that he cannot be trained in altruism.

It is important to make such a correction that no person will demand his needs from society. Instead, there will be selected people who will examine the needs of every person and provide for every single person. Public opinion will denounce one who claims something for oneself, such as today’s thief and scoundrel. Thus, everyone’s thoughts will be devoted to giving to his fellow, as is the nature of any edification that calculates it, even before one feels his own needs. If we want to jump on a table, we must prepare ourselves to jump much higher than the table, and then we will land on the table. However, if we want to jump only as high as the table, we will fall down.

Admittedly, egoistic communism is but a step on the way to justice, a sort of “Not for its own sake… to for its own sake” (BT Pesaḥim 50b). But I say that the time for the second phase, namely altruistic communism, has arrived. First, it must be established in one country, as a model. After that the countries in the first phase will certainly accept it. Time is of the essence, since the shortcomings and brute-force used in egoistic communism deter the majority of the cultured world from this method altogether. Thus, the world must be introduced to the perfect communism, and then most civilized countries in the world will undoubtedly accept it. It is of great concern that imperialism will abolish communism from the world, but if our perfect method will actually be publicized, imperialism will certainly be left as a king with no armies.

Clearly, no stable and proper social life is possible except when controversies among members of society are resolved by the majority. It therefore follows that there cannot be a good regime in a society unless the majority is good. A good society means that the majority in it is good, and a bad society means that the majority of it is bad. As I have said above (3), that communism must not be established before the majority of the people in society operate with a desire to give.

No circulation can secure a coercive rule over future generations, and neither public opinion nor education will help in this case, for they naturally tend to grow weaker. The exception is religion, which naturally grows stronger. We see from experience that nations that have accepted religion first coercively and compulsively, observe them willingly in the following generation. Moreover, they are dedicated and devoted to it. We must understand that although the fathers took upon themselves altruistic communism because they were idealists, there is no guarantee that their children will follow them in this regime. Needless to say, if the fathers adopted communism by coercion, as is the manner in egoistic communism, it will not endure for generations, but will ultimately be overpowered and abandoned. A regime cannot be imposed except through religion.

When I say that a communistic regime must not be instated before there is an altruistic majority, I do not mean that they will be willingly idealistic. Rather, it means that they will keep it for religious reasons, in addition to public opinion. This coercion is one that will last for generations, for religion is the primary motivation.

We must remember all the suffering, poverty, corruption and war, and widows and orphans in the world, seeking rescue from altruistic communism. At that time, it will not be difficult for one to dedicate his entire life to rescue them from ruin and dreadful pain. It is even more so with a young person, whose heart has not been confounded by their own shortcomings. That person will certainly support it with his heart and soul.

The negative If there is nationalization before the public is ready for it, meaning before each one has a sound basis, and secured cause for “fuel” to work, it is as though one ruins his small house before he has the means to build another house.

Public equality does not mean flattening the level of the talented and successful to the level of the negligent and oppressed [i.e., Equality of Outcome]. This would completely ruin the public. Rather, it means allowing each person in the public a middle class standard of living. Thus, the negligent, too, will enjoy their lives as much the middle class. The freedom of the individual must be protected if it is not harmful to the majority of the public. The detrimental ones must not be pitied, and must be made harmless.

Currently communism endures because of the idealists who lead it. They were idealists before they became communists. However, the second generation, when leaders are elected by the majority of the public, will gradually be repealed, taking on the form of Nazism or turning back to domination. This is because nothing will stop them from exploiting other, negligent nations.

Egoistic communism holds no war-preventing element, since the basis of all the wars is living territory, in which each wants to build on the ruin of the other, whether justly, or because of envy that the other has more. Communism based on “mine is mine” in a framework of equal division does nothing to remove the envy of the nations with each other, much less the nations’ lack of living space. It is also hopeless that the rich nations will give from their share to be level with the poor since “mine is mine, and yours is yours” does not necessitate it. Only communism of “mine is yours, and yours is yours” will resolve it.

Even today we see that there is a global power which has overthrown and conquered all the communist countries, behaving there as in its own home, just as ancient Greece and Rome. There is no doubt that this power will subdivide in the future, and we already have Tito. When they split, they are certain to fight each other, for how does Russia govern Czechoslovakia, or the others, if not by the sword and the spear?

With communism, employers strive to decrease the consumption of the workers and increase their productivity. In imperialism, the employers want, and act to increase the consumption of the workers, and to equalize his productivity to consumption. The rulers’ and supervisors’ class will ultimately create a sort of exile in Egypt over the working class since all the workers leave their surplus in the hands of the rulers, who take the greater part from them. Hence, they will not let a single worker get away from under their hands to another country. Thus, the workers will be caged, guarded like Israel in Pharaoh’s Egypt.

The ruling class is destined finally to put all the old and handicapped in the working class to death, arguing that they eat more than they produce and they are parasites on the country. No one will die a natural death. If communism spreads throughout the world, it will put to death every nation that eats more than it produces. If the profiteers and the merchants become allotters, the buyers will become receivers of charity from the allotters, and the allotters will do with them as they see fit, or as much as they are afraid of the inspectors.

A regime cannot exist on spears forever
Communism does not exist over an anti-communist society because a regime supported on bayonets and spears is unsustainable. Eventually, the majority in society will prevail and overthrow that government. Hence, an altruistic majority must be established first, and the government will be supported on will.

The habit of waves of hatred and envy will later turn against the primitive Communism that is built on waves of hatred and envy will only succeed in overthrowing the bourgeois, not in benefiting the primitive. On the contrary, the same ones that have grown accustomed to hatred and envy will turn the arrows of hatred against the primitive once the bourgeois are gone [cf. Hannah Arendt, The New Yorker (12 September 1970): “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution”].

Egoistic Communism will always be at war with the public
The communist regime will be compelled always to be at war with the anti-communists by its very nature. This is because each person naturally tends to be possessive. People naturally tend to take the cream and leave the meager whey for others. Nature does not change by education or public opinion. It is unimaginable that one will ever willingly agree to just division, and army bayonets cannot invert our nature, much less education and public opinion. Natural born idealists are few. If you should say that theft and robbery are well guarded in the capitalistic regime, I shall tell you that it is because the law permits legal competition. It is comparable to a person who gathers an association where the majority is murderers and robbers, and wants to rule over them and compel them to keep the law. But regarding the annulment of property, everyone is a robber.

Israel is qualified to set an example to all nations
Altruistic communism is seldom found in the human spirit; hence, the nobler nation must take upon itself to set an example for the entire world.

The country is at risk: altruistic communism will bolster the ingathering of the exiles The nation is at risk because each will flee to a different place before the economy is stabilized. This is because not every person can endure the test while there is a way to live comfortably. With altruistic communism the ideal will shine upon all people, giving them satisfaction that will make the suffering worthwhile. Moreover, it will draw the ingathering of the exiles from all the countries because the worries and survival wars everyone experiences overseas will motivate them to return to their land and live peacefully and justly.

The philosophy is ready—Kabbalah based on religion Each practical method also requires a renewed idealistic nourishment to contemplate, meaning a philosophy. As far as this is concerned, there is already a complete and ready-made philosophy, meaning Kabbalah, though it is intended only for the leaders.

Why are we the chosen people for it? We must set a good example to the world because we are better qualified than all other nations. It is not because we are more idealistic, but because we have suffered from tyranny more than all other nations [cf. Nietzsche, Daybreak, 3:205]. For this reason, we are more prepared to seek counsel that will end tyranny from the land.

Ownership and control are not identical. For example, the owners of the railway are the shareholders, and the control is in the hands of the managers, though they have only a single share, or nothing at all. The same applies to the shipping company, whose shareholders have no right to control or advise. Take warships for example. They are owned by the state, yet no civilian is permitted aboard them. In addition, if the state should be in the hands of the proletariat by way of ownership, the management will ultimately be in the hands of the same managers as now, or others of likewise temper. The proletariat will have no greater foothold or benefit than they do now, unless the rulers are idealists, caring for the good of every single individual. In a word, with respect to the government, it makes no difference whether the ownership is given to capitalists or to the state. In the end, it is the managers who will control them, not the owners. Hence, the correction of society should relate primarily to the executives [Bertrand Russell, Power: A New Social Analysis, The Taming of Power, 214].

And likewise, said Avniel in the Knesset. In Israel, the gap between the lowest functionary to the highest one is times 1.7. In England, it is times ten, and in the rest of the countries it is more or less the same. But in Russia it is times fifty. Thus, in a proletarian state the functionaries and the managers waste their energy much more than in capitalistic countries. This is because the government is oligarchic, and not democratic. In simple words, it is because the communists control anti-communists. There must be oligarchy. This will never change since communism means idealism, which is not in the majority.

Such a state, where the communists rule over anti-communists is obliged to be in the hands of a group of autocratic executives in absolute dictatorship. All the people in the country will be in their hands as though they are nothing. They must always keep the sword in their hands for killing, incarceration, concealed and revealed punishments, food deprivation, and all sorts of punishments, according to each executive’s arbitrary decision. All this is in order to keep the anti-communists in dreadful terror and fear, so they work for the state and not ruin it inadvertently or maliciously. In such a state, the executives must make sure the citizens cannot choose a democratic management, since the majority of the country is anti-communistic.

In such a state, where the communists rule over the anti-communists, the managers must see that the citizens have no possibility for advertisement, or to disclose the dreadful injustice that is done to the people of the state or to the minorities in the state. In other words, the printers are not to print and the administrators of the lecture halls must watch over the speakers so they do not criticize their deeds. They must punish harshly anyone who plans, or even thinks of criticizing their acts. Thus, the government will have full control to deal with them arbitrarily, and there will be no one to detain them (Power, … 21).

Ethics cannot rely solely on education and public opinion, because public opinion necessitates only what is in the public’s favor. Hence, if one comes and proves that morality is harmful to the public and vulgarity is more beneficial, they will immediately discard morality and choose vulgarity, as Hitler testifies. The egoistic communism based on waves of envy and hate will never be rid of them. Rather, when there are no bourgeois, they will cast their hate on Israel. We must not be mistaken that communism will cure the loathing of Israel from the nations. Only altruistic communism can be expected to bring that remedy.

Debate

Clearly, the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” is absolute altruism. When this is applied, the majority of the public, or all of it, will be armed with the quality “mine is yours.” Hence, do tell, which are the elements that can bring the public to this desire? Today’s elements, namely the hatred of the capitalists and every sort of animosity extending from it, will only bring one the opposite. It will instill the quality of “mine is mine, and yours is yours” in people, which is the quality of Sodom, the opposite of love of man. I have nothing to say to those who go with the flow, only with those who have their own mind and the strength to criticize [cf. Rabbi Avraham Yesha‘yahu Karelits, Ḥazon Ish, Emunah u-Bitaḥon 4:5: “(Man’s fundamental evil trait is) allowing his natural life to flow along its natural course”].

Engels’ fundamental concept, in the name of Marx, states, “The oppressed and exploited class cannot be liberated from the oppressive and exploitative class without also liberating all of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all.” This is in contrast to contemporary communist conduct to slaughter and degenerate all the bourgeois parts of society. This powerful hostility will never be effaced from their children. It is also in contrast with the fact that they are establishing a sovereign, governing class, monitoring the working class. There is no more painful and regrettable class struggle than this. They suck the fat from the workers’ marrow and leave them the residue, along with constant fear of death, or of being sent to Siberia. Where is the salvation here? They have replaced the bourgeois class, which was not at all so terrible—in fact, its shadow has been lifted from them since the workers have the power to strike against them—and they have substituted it with a sovereign class, governing and ruling a class of exploited slaves who are constantly terrorized by a punishment far worse than they had in their war against the bourgeois.

The country is divided into two classes: the industrious, and the primitive. The industrious are the employers and the leaders; the primitive are the workers and those led. It is a natural law that the industrious will exploit the primitive. The only question is how much freedom, equality, and standard of living do they leave for the primitive. Also, how much labor the industrious will demand of them. The primitive are always the vast majority in society. The industrious are but ten percent of it, which is the exact amount needed to operate society. If the percentage is increased or decreased, there is a crisis. These are the crises in the bourgeois society. Crises in the communist society take on a different form, but with the same degree of pain. The name “industrious” also includes their heirs and those who bribe the industrious. The name “primitive” relates also to industrious who for some reason have been thrown into the primitive class.

Regarding religion: “The permanent moral state does not stem from religion, but from science” (Lenin, Empirio Criticism, 324). Morality based on public benefit exists in social animals, too. However, this is not enough since it becomes vulgar and is harmful to society, such as the great patriotic murderer, carried on the shoulders of the nationalists. Thus, only religion-based morality is enduring, valid, and indispensable. We find the same among “savage nations,” whose level of morality is far greater than civilized nations.

A society cannot be good unless its majority is good. However, some stun or entice the wicked majority with all sorts of marketing until they are compelled to choose good leadership. This is what all democracies do. Alas, the majority finally learns, or others teach them, and they choose an wicked leadership that matches their ill will. We must understand why Marx and Engels decided that perfection of communism means working according to ability and receiving according to needs. Who forced it upon them? Why was it not enough to receive according to one’s productivity, and not to equalize one with a negligent, or with one who has no sons? The thing is that communism will not endure by way of egoism, but by the way of altruism, for the aforementioned reasons.

News
In the very same way they exterminated the capitalists, they were also compelled to exterminate the farmers. In addition, in the sense of the joy of life, they will always be forced to destroy the proletariat. Although Marx and Engels were the first to place the correction of the world on the proletariat, it did not occur to them to do it coercively, but rather democratically. For this reason, the workers had to be the majority, and then establish a proletarian government where the leaders of the regime would gradually reform until they come to abstract altruism—each according to his deeds, and each according to his needs. Lenin added to it the establishment of the communist regime through forcing the minority opinion over the majority, hoping that afterwards, altruism would be conducted among them too. All that was needed for this was an armed camp of proletariat. Since the property owners are scattered, the government could take it by force, and then come and defeat the weak and unorganized property owners. In that, he disagreed with Marx and said that it is quite the contrary: In the primitive countries it is easier to defeat them, as all that is needed was to turn the soldiers into communists and destroyers of the property owners, and to seize their property. It is easier to incite soldiers to kill and loot the property owners in a primitive country.

That is why he understood that he would not find a cruder multitude than in his own country, and therefore said that his country would be first. However, when he saw that in fact, it was not enough to destroy the capitalistic ten percent, but that millions of farmers must also be destroyed, he grew tired, because it is impossible to destroy half a nation. Then came Stalin, who said that the end justifies the means, and took upon himself the task of destroying the farmers, too. He was successful. However, not one of them also considered that in the end, they need the goodwill of the proletariat, so that they would work, and to instill the conduct of altruism in them, which would bring them to this slogan. This is utterly impossible. Nature cannot be changed so that not only would one work for his needs, but for his fellow’s needs. This is utterly impossible without coercion and enforcement. Ultimately, the majority rises and abandons the regime. Liars are those who say that idealism is either natural or a result of education. Rather, it is a direct result of religion! As long as religion was not sufficiently spread throughout the world, the entire world was barbaric without inhibition. Only after servants of the Creator spread, did the offspring of the agnostics become idealists. Thus, the idealist is only so due to his ancestral imperative. However, it is an orphaned imperative, meaning without one to necessitate.

If religion were to be annulled altogether, all governments would then become like Hitler. Nothing would restrain them from increasing the country’s benefits incessantly. Even today, governments know no sensitivity. However, there is still a limit to their deeds between the still and the idealists in the country. When religion is annulled, it will not be difficult for rulers to uproot the remaining idealists, as it was not hard for Hitler and Stalin. The difference between the idealist and religious is that the idealist’s deeds are baseless. He cannot convince anyone of his preference for justice, and who so necessitates it. Perhaps it is but faintness of heart as Nietzsche said [see Daybreak: Thoughts 3:163. Cf. Plato, Gorgias, 483b–d]. He will not have a single intelligent word to utter, which is why Hitler and Stalin overpowered them. However, the religious will boldly counter that it is so commanded by the LORD, and would give his life for it […].

If my words yield benefit, good. If not, the final generations will know why communism was annulled, that it was not because it could not be sustained, as capitalists say, but because the leaders did not understand how to establish that regime. They erected a regime of egoism where they should have established a regime of altruism.
If anyone should disagree with me and say that education will suffice for that, I permit him to establish for himself a society based solely on education, but I will not partake in it. I know all too well that these are idle things. Thus, might he assist me in establishing a religious society?

Appendices and drafts

Section One
“Critical communism has never refused, or refuses now, to welcome the abundance of ideological, ethical, psychological, and educational ideas that may be reached by studying the various forms of Communism” (Antonio Labriola).

“Were we to wish to think today as Marx and Engels did, at a time when if they themselves were here today, they would be thinking otherwise… defending the dead letter of the latter,” etc. (Georgy Plekhanov, Introductions to the Communist Manifesto).

The positive
Evidence for altruistic communism
For the rules of a altruistic communist society
For an international communism
For a beneficial religion
Promoting the expansion of religion
Egoistic communism precedes altruistic communism
For the keeping of Judaism.

The negative [….]

Section two (for the Introduction)

I already conveyed my basic outlook in 1933. I have also spoken to the leaders of the generation, but at the time, my words were not accepted, though I was screaming like a banshee, warning about the destruction of the world. Alas, it made no impression. Now, however, after the atom and hydrogen bombs, I think the world will believe me that the end of the world is coming rapidly, and Israel will be the first nation to be burned, as in the previous war. Thus, today it is good to awaken the world to accept the only remedy, and they will live and exist.

We must understand why Marx and Engels necessitated the ultimate communism, where each works according to his ability and receives according to his needs. Why do we need this strict condition, being the quality of “mine is yours, and yours is yours,” the absolute altruism?
In that regard, I have come to prove in this article that there is no hope for communism to exist, if it is not brought to this end, which is complete altruism. Until then, it is nothing but phases in communism. Once I have proven the correctness of the slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” we must see if these phases can yield this outcome.

Today, the definitions, “bourgeois” and “proletariat,” no longer suffice to explain the history of economy. Rather, we need more general terms: the “industrious” class and the “primitive” class (above in the section Debate, item 4). After twenty-five years of experience, we are baffled regarding the complete happiness that the communist regime had promised us. Its opponents say it is absolutely evil, and its supporters say that it is heaven on earth. Indeed, we must not cast off the words of the opponents at a stroke, because when one wants to know another’s properties, he must ask both his friends and his enemies. It is a rule that the friends know only the virtues and not a single flaw, for Love covers up all misdeeds (Proverbs 10:12). The enemies are the opposite: They know only of the faults, for “hate covers up all virtues” [paraphrasing Proverbs 10:12: Hatred foments strife].

Thus, one knows the truth when hearing the words of both. I wish to examine communism thoroughly, and explain its advantages and disadvantages. Mostly, I wish to explain the corrections, how all its shortcomings can be corrected so that everyone will see and admit that this regime is indeed the regime that brings both justice and happiness. How happy we were when communism came to practical experimentation in a nation as big as Russia. It was clear to us that after a few years the government of justice and happiness would appear before the entire world, and thus the capitalist government would vanish from the world in the wink of an eye. Yet, that was not the case. Quite the contrary, all the civilized nations speak of the Soviet communist regime as a terrible aberration. Hence, not only was the bourgeois regime not annulled, it rather grew twice as strong as before the Soviet experiment.

Section three
Why did communism have to assume the form of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?” A communist government cannot endure over an anti-communist society, since a government supported on bayonets is unsustainable. Communism built on waves of envy can only overthrow and ruin the bourgeois, but not benefit the primitive proletariat. Conversely, when the bourgeois are annihilated, the arrows of contempt will aim at the primitive. Nothing can guarantee a powerful government over the future generations except religion. Even if the fathers are idealists, and have assumed the communism, it is not certain that their sons will pursue it. All the more so, if their fathers had taken it on it by force and coercion, as is the manner of egoistic communism, they ultimately rise and demolish it. A communist regime cannot exist atop an anti-communist society. It would have to fight the anti-communists throughout its existence. This is because every person is naturally possessive—one cannot work without motivation. The army’s bayonets will not turn man’s nature around, and the idealists are few. Several thousand years of penalties rest on the heads of the thieves, the robbers, and the fraudulent, yet they have not changed their nature even though they can obtain everything legally. It is much the same as one coming upon a society of thieves and murderers, wanting to lead them and restrict them to legal ways by force. It must explode.

Double, double, double
Because the majority opinion is guaranteed to prevail, it is all the more so with the implementation of communism. It will not persist except through the majority of the public. Hence, we must perpetuate the moral level of the majority of the public in such a way that it will never be corrupted. Religion is the only sound basis that will persist for generations. Communism must be transposed to the register of “mine is yours, and yours is yours,” meaning absolute altruism. After the majority of the public attains it, they will observe, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Before the majority of the public attains this level of morality, it is forbidden to nationalize the property for the aforementioned reasons.

Section four
Nationalization before the public is ready for it is similar to tearing down one’s dilapidated house before one has the means to build a solid one. Just division does not mean lowering the industrious to the primitive. This would be disastrous for the public. Rather, it means raising the primitive to the industrious. Egoistic communism exists now through a group of idealists that lead it. Yet, in future generations, the public will not elect idealists, but only the most capable, who are not limited by the ideal, and then communism will take on the form of Nazism. With egoistic communism, the employers wish to decrease the consumption of the worker, and increase productivity, which will always be questionable if sufficient. Imperialism is better than that, since the employers want to increase the consumption of the worker and level productivity to consumption.

Section five
The definitions, “bourgeois” and “proletariat,” are no longer sufficient to explain history. Instead, it should be divided into a “industrious” class and “primitive” class. It is a natural law that the industrious class will exploit the primitive class, like fish in the sea, where the strong swallow the weak. It makes no difference if the industrious are bourgeois, or the functionaries of the communistic government. Rather, the question is how much freedom and enjoyment do they leave for the primitive. The industrious class is ten percent, and the primitive class led by them is ninety percent of society. There is no reformation of the primitive unless they themselves elect the industrious to govern them. If they do not have this power, they end up being exploited by the industrious without inhibition.

Section six
The industrious class—the rulers and inspectors—are bound to create an exile such as in Egypt over the primitive class, who are the workers. This is because the rulers accumulate all the surplus of the workers in their hands, and take the lion’s share. Moreover, for purposes of the benefit of the public, they will not let any worker escape from under their grip to a different country, they will guard them like Israel in Egypt. No slave leaves them to be free. Ultimately, the industrious class will put to death all the elderly and handicapped who eat and do not labor, or even if they eat more than they can labor, as it is detrimental to society, as is known that they have no inhibition. When merchants and brokers become administrators, the consumers become recipients of charity from their hands. Their fate is determined by the mercy of the administrators, or as much as they fear the inspectors, should they take interest in that.

Since ownership and control are not the same, for example, with a ship that belongs to the state, every citizen has ownership over it, yet no right of entry, but only as the administration that controls it sees fit. Also, even if there is a proletariat government, they will have no preference in government property than they have now in the bourgeois property. This is because all the control will be held by the executives alone, which are today’s bourgeois, or those like them. Such a state, where communists govern anti-communists, must be in the hands of oligarchy, in complete dictatorship, in which all the citizens are regarded as nothing, subject to brutal punishment according to the whim of each and every executive. Otherwise, they will not secure the sustenance of the needs of the state. In such a regime, the government must ensure that there are no democratic elections since the majority of the public are anti-communists.

Egoistic communism does not liberate the proletariat whatsoever. On the contrary, instead of bourgeois employers, who are lenient with the workers, they will establish a class of executives and supervisors who will enslave the proletariat by coercion and harsh and bitter punishments. The oppression and the exploitation is doubled, and it is not easier on them in any way, if the exploitation is for the good of the country, because in the end, the employers and the oppressors take the cream, and the workers get the meager whey. In return, they are placed under constant fear of death, or punishment harsher than death. In such a state, where communists rule over anti-communists, the executives must see that the citizens cannot discover the burden and oppression they are under. Thus, after all the works are in their hands, they will forbid the printers from printing, and the speakers from speaking, so they do not criticize their deeds whatsoever. Instead, they will be compelled to lie and cover up for them, and depict a heaven on earth, and their plight will never become known.

It will be even more so with minorities who are not favored by the executives for whatever reason. They will be able to annihilate them without shame or fear that it will become known outside. And what will become of the Jews, whom the majority of the world hates? Indeed, it is the absolute truth that there cannot be a good and complete society unless its majority is good because the management depicts the quality of society, and the society is elected by the majority. If the majority is bad, the management will necessarily be bad, as well, for the wicked will not place over them rulers of whom they do not approve [i.e., majority tyranny].

We need not deduce from the modern democracies, as they use various tactics to deceive the constituency. When they grow wiser and understand their cunningness, the majority will certainly elect a management according to their spirit. And their main tactic is that they first sanctify people with good reputation, and promote them either as wise or as righteous, and then the masses believe and elect them. But a lie does not persist forever. This explains Hitlerism. What happened to the Germans is one of nature’s wonders. They were considered among the most civilized nations, and all of a sudden, overnight, they became savages, worse than even the most primitive nations in history. Moreover, Hitler was elected by the majority’s vote. In light of the above, it is very simple: Indeed, the majority of the public, which is essentially evil, possess no [meaningful] opinions, even among the most civilized nations. Rather, they deceive the majority of the public. Hence, even though the majority of the public is evil, there can be a good leadership.

However, should an evil person, capable of uncovering the deceit that the managers employ with the famous people they create, come and present the people that should be elected according to their spirit and desire, as did Hitler (and Lenin, and Trotsky), it is no wonder that they overthrow the fraudulent, and elect evil leaders according with their spirit. Thus, Hitler was indeed elected democratically, and the majority of the public united behind him. Afterward, he subdued and uprooted all the idealistic people, and did with nations as he wished, and as the people wished [in the final two free elections before Hitler’s rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively—a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin. Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote. It is true that after Hitler was already ensconced as chancellor, the Nazis subsequently won the March 1933 elections. But this was in the wake of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed an emergency law that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). Thus, it is difficult to claim that these were “free and fair” elections]. This is the whole novelty. Since the dawn of time, it has never happened that the majority of the public governed a state. Either the autocrats did, who, at the end of the day, do have some measure of morality, or the oligarchy, or the deceitful democrats. The majority of the simple folk ruled only in the days of Hitler, who, in addition, promoted turpitude toward other nations. He elevated public benefit to the level of devotion since he understood the frame of mind of sadists. When given room to discharge their sadism, they would pay for it with the lives.

Section seven
Egoistic communism cannot prevent wars, since the industrious nations, or the ones rich in raw materials, will not want to share equally with the poor and primitive nations. Hence, once again we must not hope for peace, except by means of the prevention of wars, meaning by preparing arms to guard against the envy and odium of the poor and primitive nations, just as today. Even more so, there will be even more wars due to changes in ideals, such as Titoism and Zionism. I have already spoken and wrote about it in 1933, and I have screamed like a banshee that today’s wars will destroy the world, but they did not believe it. But now, after the atom and hydrogen bombs, I think that everyone will believe me that if we are not saved from wars, it will be the end of the world.

Section eight
If communism is just toward each nation, then it is just toward all the nations. What prerogative and ownership over raw materials in the soil has one nation over others? Who legislated this property law? All the more so when they have acquired it by means of swords and bayonets! Also, why should one nation exploit another if it is unjust to every individual? In a word: As abolition of property is just for the individual, so it is just for every nation. Only then will there be peace on earth. Consider this: If property laws and rules of inheritance do not permit possession rights to individuals, why would they permit an entire nation? As just division is applied among individuals within the nation, there should also be internationally just division in raw materials, means of productivity, and accumulated property for all the nations equally [cf. BT Sanhedrin 98a on Ezekiel 36:8]. There should be no difference between white and black, civilized and primitive, just as among individuals within a single nation. There should be no division whatsoever among individuals, a single nation, or all the nations in the world. While there is still discrimination wars will not end. There is no hope of reaching international communism through egoistic communism. Even if America, India, and China should adopt a communistic regime, there is still nothing that will compel Americans to make their standard of living equal to the savage and primitive Africans and Indians. All the “cures” of Marx and Lenin will be to no avail here, inciting the poor class to rob the wealthy class, since the wealthy have already made arms to guard themselves. Thus, if it is to no avail, then the entire egoistic communism was in vain, for it will not prevent wars whatsoever.

Section nine
It is a fact that Israel is hated by all nations, whether for religious, racial, capitalist, communist, or for cosmopolitan reasons and so forth [see Sifrei Bemidbar, 59: “Rabbi Shim’on son of Yoḥai taught: It is a well-known halakhah: Esau hates Jacob”]. It is so because the hatred precedes all reason, each merely resolves his loathing according to his own psychology. No counsel will help here, except to initiate international, moral, and altruistic communism among all nations. Israel must be the first among the nations to assume international altruistic communism. It must be a model demonstrating the good and beauty of this government. Because they suffer, indeed will suffer, from the tyranny of the nations more than all other nations, they are like the heart that burns before all the other organs [see Rabbi Yehudah ha-Levi, Kuzari 2:36, cf. Zohar 3:221b]. Hence, they are better suited to adopt the proper, ideal government first. Our very existence in the state of Israel is in danger since according to the present economic order, it will take a long time before our economy is stabilized. Very few will be able to endure the experience of the ordeal in our country while they can immigrate to other, wealthy countries. Bit by bit, they will escape the discomfort until too few remain to merit the name “State,” and they will be swallowed among the Arabs. But if they accept the international altruistic communist regime, not only will they have the satisfaction of being the avant-garde for the delivery, rescue, of the world, for which they will know that it is worth the suffering, but they will also be able to control their souls and lower the standard of living when needed. They will be able to work hard enough to secure a solid economy for the state. It is even more so with kibbutzim, whose very existence is built on idealism, which will naturally wane in future generations, as ideals are not hereditary. Undoubtedly, they will be the first to ruin.

Section ten
Religion is the only sound basis to raise the moral level of society until each person works according to his ability and receives according to his needs.

[…]
If you lived on an isle of savages, whose lives you could not save, preventing them from ferociously exterminating themselves, except by means of religion, would you then doubt ordering their lives with a religion that would suffice to save this nation from eradication from the world?
With respect to altruistic communism, everyone is savage. There is no ploy to impose such a regime on the world, except by means of religion, for religious compulsion becomes agreeable in the progeny, as we have seen happen in nations that have accepted religion by force and coercion.
However, in coercion through education and public opinion, which is not hereditary in the progeny, it only diminishes in time. Hence, would you say that it is better that the entire world destroys each other than to impose on them a certain cause to lead them to life and happiness? It is hard to believe that any sane person would hesitate here. It is impossible to have a stable democratic society except by means of a society whose majority is good and honest, since society is led by the majority, for better or for worse. Hence, the Altruistic Communist regime must not be established unless the majority of the public is ready to commit to it for generations. That can only be secured through religion because the nature of religion is that even though it begins coercively, it ends voluntarily.

Religion and idealism complement each other. Where the ideal cannot be in the majority, religion forcefully rules the primitive majority, incapable of ideals due to its possessiveness, and its desire to work less than his friend and receive more. It is impossible to erect the altruistic communism before the egoistic communism expands. However, now that a third of the world has assumed the egoistic communism, the power of religion can be used to establish altruistic communism. Humankind will not suffice with dry decrees without accompanying them with reasonable explanations that support and strengthen such conduct, meaning a philosophic method. In that regard, there is already an entire philosophy concerning the desire to give, which is the altruistic communism, sufficient to contemplate for one’s entire life, and thus strengthen oneself through acts of giving.

Section eleven
Egoistic communism will ultimately adopt the form of pure Nazism, but in the appearance of national communism. However, this difference of names does not inhibit anyone from the satanic acts of Hitler. Thus, the Russians will be the “Master Nation,” and the entire world their submissive servants as in Hitler’s way. In the bourgeois regime, free competition is the primary fuel for success. The industrialists and the merchants play in it; the winners are very happy, and those who do not win suffer a bitter end. In between them is the proletariat, having no share in this game. It is seemingly neutral, neither rising nor falling. However, because of its ability to strike, its standard of living is secured. Ultimately, in both the communist and the bourgeois governments, the primitive are unfit for leadership, although they are the majority of the public. Rather, they must elect leaders from among the industrious. However, because they are elected by them, they can be hopeful of not being exploited so much. Conversely, in the egoistic communist government, the managers are not elected by the majority of the public, since they are anti-communists, as in Russia and the others, where the elected are only from among the communists.

Hence, they face a bitter end indeed, since the proletariat does not have a single representative in the leadership. All the above adheres to the rule that the proletariat are anti-communists by nature. The proletariats are not idealists; they are the primitive majority of society, and think that “just division” means that they receive an equal share with the industrious. The industrious will never want that. My words relate only to the proletariat, meaning to the primitive, who are the majority of society. The industrious and the intelligentsia will always suck the cream, either in a communist government, or in a bourgeois government. It is reasonable to think that many of them will be better off in a communist regime, since they will not fear criticism, as is written in item […].

Only you, the primitive proletariat, will be the worst off in a communist regime. However, the industrious class will have a different name: managers and supervisors. They will be better off because they will be rid of the competition, which takes its toll on the bourgeois, and will receive their share persistently and abundantly. The primitive have no counsel and contrivance to terminate the fear, unemployment, and ignominy, except for altruistic communism. Hence, my words are not aimed at the industrious and the intelligentsia, as they will certainly not accept my words, but only at the proletariat and the primitive . They will be able to understand me, and to them I speak, as well as to those who spare the lives of the primitive and sympathize with their anguish. It is one of man’s freedoms not to be tied to one place, like plants, which cannot leave their habitat. Hence, each country must ensure that it does not inhibit citizens from moving to another country. It must also be ensured that no country closes its gates before strangers and immigrants. A government of altruistic Communism must not be instigated before the majority of the public is prepared for giving to one another.

Ultimately, altruistic communism will encircle the entire world, and the entire world will have the same standard of living. However, the actual process is slow and gradual. Each nation, whose majority of the public has been educated in giving to one another, will enter the international communistic framework first. All the nations that have already entered the international communistic framework will have an equal standard of living. Thus, the surplus of a rich or industrious nation will improve the standard of living of a primitive or poor nation in raw materials and means of productivity. The religious form of all the nations should first obligate its members to giving to each other to the extent that the life of one’s companion will come before one’s own life, as in love your fellow as yourself (Leviticus 19:18) [cf. BT Bava Metsi’a 62a: “Your life takes precedence over the life of your companion”; Naḥmanides on Leviticus 19:18]. One will not take pleasure in society more than a primitive companion. This will be the collective religion of all the nations that will come within the framework of communism. However, besides that, each nation may follow its own religion and tradition, and one must not interfere in the other. The rules of the equal religion for the entire world are as follows:

One should work for the wellbeing of people as much as one can and even more than one’s ability, if needed, until there is no hunger or thirst in the entire world. One may be industrious, but no person shall enjoy the society more than the primitive. There will be an equal standard of living for all. Though there is religion, tokens of due honors should be imparted according to the religion; the greater the benefit one contributes to society, the higher the decoration one shall receive.

Refraining from showing one’s diligence toward the benefit of society will induce punishment according to the laws of society. Each and every one is committed to the labor of raising ever higher the living standard of the world society, so all the people in the world will enjoy their lives and will feel more and more happiness. The same applies for spirituality, though not everyone is obligated to engage in spirituality, but only unique people, depending on the need.

There will be a sort of high-court. Those who will want to dedicate their service for spiritual life will have to be permitted to do so by this court [see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah]. Elaborating on the other necessary laws: Anyone, individual, or a group, who comes under the framework of the altruistic communism, must take a solemn oath to keep all that because the Lord has so commanded [see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Melakhim u-Milḥamot, 8:14 (11): “Anyone who accepts upon himself and carefully observes the Seven Commandments is of the righteous of the nations of the world and has a portion in the World to Come. This is as long as he accepts and performs them because it was the blessed Holy One who commanded them in the Torah, and that is was through Moses our teacher we were informed that the sons of Noah had already been commanded to observe them. But if he observes them because he convinced himself logically, then he is not considered a resident convert and is not of the righteous of the nations of the world, but (or: nor) one of their wise”].

At the very least one must pledge to teach one’s children that the Lord has so commanded. Those who say that the ideal is enough for them should be accepted and tested. If it is so, they may be accepted. However, they must still promise not to pass their heretical ways to their children, but hand them over to be educated by the state. If one accepts neither, he should not be accepted whatsoever. He would corrupt his friends and he would lose more than he would gain. First, there must be a small establishment, whose majority of the public is willing to work as much as it can and receive as much as it needs for religious reasons. It will work as hard as contract-workers, even more than the eight-hour workday. It will contain all the forms of government of a complete state. In a word, the order of that small society will be sufficient for all the nations in the world, without adding or subtracting. This foundation will be like a global focal point for nations and states surrounding it to the farthest corners of the world [see Isaiah 49:6]. All who enter this framework shall assume the same leadership and the same agenda as the foundation. Thus, the entire world will be a single nation, in profits, losses, and results.

Judgments relying on force will be completely abandoned in this foundation. Rather, all conflicts among the members of society shall be resolved among the concerned parties. General public opinion shall condemn anyone who exploits the righteousness of his friend for his own good. There will still be a courthouse, but it will only serve to sort out doubts that will come between people, but it will not rely on any force. One who rejects the court’s decision will be condemned by public opinion, and that is all. We should not doubt its sufficiency, as it was unbelievable that children could be educated only by explanation, but only through the cane. However, today, the greater part of civilization has taken upon itself to refrain from beating children, and this upbringing is more successful than the previous method. If there is one who is exceptional in society, he must not be brought before a court relying on force, but must be reformed through argumentation and explanation. If all the counsels are to no avail, the public will turn away from that person as though from an outcast. Thus, he will not be able to corrupt others in society.

It is important to make such a correction that no person will demand his needs from society. Instead, there will be appointees who will go from door to door, examining the needs of everyone, and they will provide for him by themselves. Thus, everyone’s thoughts will be devoted to giving to his fellow, and he will never have to think of his own needs. It is based on the observation that in consumption we are like any other animal. In addition, every loathsome act in the world stems from consumption. Conversely, we see that every joyous deed in the world comes from the quality of giving to his fellow. Thus, we should economize and reject thoughts of consumption for the self, and fill our minds only with thoughts of giving to our fellow. This is possible in the above manner. The freedom of the individual must be kept as long as it is not harmful to society. However, one who wishes to leave the society in favor of another must not be detained in any way, even if it is harmful to society, and even that, in a way that the society is not ruined altogether.

Section twelve

Circulation
There are three rudiments to the expansion of religion: satisfaction of desires, proof, and circulation.

Satisfaction of desires
In every person there is an unknown spark which seeks—indeed, demands—to unite with God. And occasionally they are aroused and crave to know God, or deny God which is the same thing. If someone generates the satisfaction of this desire in that person, they will agree to anything. To that we must add the matter of immortality of the soul, reward in the next world, glory of the individual, and glory of the nation.

Proof
There is no existence to the world without it, all the more so in the days of the atom and the hydrogen bombs.

Circulation
People must be hired to circulate the above words in public. Egoistic communism precedes altruistic communism, for once it has control so as to abolish property, it is possible to educate that abolishment of property will be due to the love of others.

The second phase of communism, being altruistic communism, must be hurried, since the shortcomings and force used in egoistic communism, deter the world from this method altogether. Hence, it is time to uncover the final stage of altruistic communism, which possesses all the pleasantness, and has no blemish. We must also fear, lest the third war breaks out first, and communism will vanish from the world. In a word, there is no harder blow to the capitalist government than this above-mentioned perfect form of communism.

We are already witnessing that the capitalist regime is strong and the proletariat of the capitalist countries loath the communist regime. This is happening because of the coercion and the force necessitated in it because of the control of a small group of communists over an anti-communist society. Hence, we are not to expect that the regime will be nullified by itself. Quite the contrary, time works in their favor. As long as communist governments will surround the world, coercion and subjection entailed in it will be revealed, and which every ordinary person utterly loathes, since one will sacrifice everything for one’s freedom.

There is another thing: Since communism is not spreading in civilized countries, but in primitive ones, eventually, there will be a society of rich countries with high living standard and capitalistic government, and a society of poor countries with a low standard of living and a communist government. That will be the end of communism. Not a single free person will want to hear of it; it will be abhorred as the concept of slaves sold for life is abhorred today. For expansion and circulation: We must remember that all the agony, poverty and slaying, etc., cannot be corrected except through altruistic communism. In that event, it will not be hard for a person to give his life for it.

Judaism must present something new to the nations. This is what they expect from the return of Israel to the Land. It is not in other teachings, for in that we never innovated. We have always been their disciples. Rather, it is the wisdom of religion, justice, and peace. In this, most nations are our disciples, and this wisdom is attributed to us alone. If this return is annulled, Zionism will be annulled altogether. This country is very poor, and its residents are destined to endure much suffering. Undoubtedly, either they or their children will gradually leave the country, and only an insignificant number will remain, which will ultimately be swallowed among the Arabs.

The solution for it is only altruistic communism. Not only does it unite all the nations to be as one, helping one another, it also endows each with tolerance to one another. Most importantly: communism produces great power to work; hence, productivity will compensate for the disadvantages of poverty. If they assume this religion, the Temple can be built and the ancient glory restored. This would certainly prove to the nations the propriety of Israel’s return to their Land, even to the Arabs [cf. Qur’an 5:20–21 (6)]. However, a secular return such as today’s does not impress the nations whatsoever, and we must fear lest they will sell Israel’s independence for their needs, needless to mention returning Jerusalem—this would even frighten the Catholics.

Section thirteen
Thus far, I have shown that communism and altruism are one and the same, and also, that egoism and anti-communism are the same. However, all this is my own doctrine. If you ask the communist leaders themselves, they will deny it unreservedly. Instead, they would maintain that they are far from any sentimentality and bourgeois morality, and seek only justice by way of “mine is mine and yours is yours” (all this has come to them because of their connection with the proletariat). Thus, let us examine things according to their perception, and scrutinize this justice that they seek. According to the development of today’s governments, the definitions “bourgeois” and “proletariat” are no longer sufficient to explain history. We need more general definitions. They should be determined by the names “industrious” (which in the second regime are the capitalist, and in the communist regime), and “primitive.”

Any society is divided into industrious and primitive. Some twenty percent are industrious, and eighty percent are primitive. It is a natural law that the industrious class exploits the primitive class, like fish at sea, where the strong swallow the weak. In that regard, it makes no difference whether the industrious are bourgeois capitalists, or managers, supervisors, and intelligentsia. In the end, the same industrious twenty percent will always suck the cream, and leave the meager whey to the primitive. But the question is how much they exploit the primitive, and which kind exploit the primitive more—the bourgeois, or the managers and supervisors.

Section fourteen
The basis of this entire explanation is the manifestation of the substance of creation, spiritual and material, being nothing but the desire to receive, which is existence from absence. However, what this substance receives extends existence from existence. Thus, it is clearly known what is good, and what the Lord demands of us, namely, parity of form. By the nature of its creation, our body is but a desire to receive, and not [a desire] to give whatsoever. This is opposite to the Creator, who is all giving, and [having] no [desire] to receive whatsoever, because from whom would He receive? It is in this disparity of form that creation has become separated from the Creator. Hence, we are commanded to deeds in Torah and mitsvot that satisfy our Maker, and to give to one’s fellow. This is in order to acquire the form of give, and cleave once more to the Creator as before creation.

The difference between me and Schopenhauer He perceives it as an essence on its own, while I perceive it as a type and a predicate. Its essence may be unknown, but whatever it may be, it extends existence from existence. He perceives the desire itself as an ambition that no goal can end, but is rather a constant ascent and perpetual drive. With me, however, it is limited to receiving certain things, and can be satiated, meaning directed. However, attaining the goal increases the desire to receive, as in, “He who has one hundred wants two hundred…” [see Ecclesiastes 5:9; Qohelet Rabbah on 1:13 and 3:10: “None leave the world with (even) half of his desires in his hand”]. Prior to that, the desire to receive was limited to obtaining only one hundred; it did not want two hundred. In this manner, the perpetual desire is expansion of the desire; it is the desire to receive itself.

He does not differentiate between the desire to give and the desire to receive. With me, only the desire to receive is the essence of the creature, while the desire to give in it is a divine light, ascribed to the Creator, not to the creature. He perceives the desire itself as an object, considering it a form and an occurrence in the object. With me, the emphasis is rather on the form of the desire, meaning the desire to receive, but the carrier of the form of the desire to receive is an unknown essence.
1) […] since he considers the desire the subject, he must define some general, formless desire. Thus, he chooses the endless aspiration for materials, and what it wants is the form. Yet, in truth, there is no endless yearning here, but a growing desire, which grows according to the direction, and it is a form and a case in the desire.
A. In his method, it is an essence; in mine, a form.
B. In his method it is a never-ending desire; in mine, it is limited in its direction.
C. In his method, there is no difference between giving and receiving; in mine, the desire to give is a spark of the Creator.
D. In his method, the yearning is a substance, and the quality of the reception, the form; in mine, the quality of reception is the substance of creation and the subject of the quality is unknown. Whatever it is, it is existence from existence.

Leaders of the generation
The masses tend to believe that the leader has no personal commitments and interests, but that he has dedicated and abandoned his private life for the common good. Indeed, this is how it should be. If the leader harms a member of the public due to personal interest, he is a traitor and a liar. Once the public learns of it, they will immediately trample him to the ground. There are two kinds of personal interests: Material interests and abstract interests. There is not a leader in the world who will not fail the public for abstract interests. For example, if one is merciful, and hence refrains from uprooting evildoers or warning about them, then he ruins the public in favor of a personal interest. He might also fear vengeance, even the vengeance of the Creator, and thus deter from making necessary corrections. Thus, if he wishes to annul material interests, he will not wish to annul the idealistic or religious interests in favor of the public, though they may be only his own personal feelings. The general public may have no dealings with them, for they notice only the word “interest,” since even the most idealistic thing does not stand in the way of “interest.”

Action before thought
As in desire and love, the exertion over an object creates love and appreciation toward the object. In much the same way, good deeds beget love for the Creator, love begets cleaving, and cleaving begets intelligence and knowledge.

Three axioms
Seemingly free, seemingly immortal, seemingly […]. They are relative to the practical reason (ethics), to the most sublime good.

Truth and falsehood
It is known that thought and matter, [i.e.,] desire, are two modifications [differences of form] of the same thing. Thus, the psychological counterpart of material absence and existence is truth and falsehood. In this manner, truth, like existence, is the thesis, and falsehood, like absence, is the antithesis. The desired synthesis is the offspring of both [see Hegel].

Personal opinion and public opinion
The opinion of the individual is like a mirror where all the pictures of the beneficial and detrimental acts are gathered. One looks at those experiences, sorts out the good and beneficial ones, and rejects the acts that have harmed him. This is called the “memory brain.” For example, the merchant follows in his mind all kinds of merchandise where he suffered losses, and why. It is likewise with merchandise that profited him, and the reasons. They are arranged like a mirror of experiences in his mind. Subsequently, he sorts out the good, and rejects the bad. Finally, he becomes a good and successful merchant. One deals in much the same way with every experience in life. In much the same way, the public has a collective mind—a memory brain, and collective imagination—where all the acts related to the general public are embedded with regard to every person, the beneficial ones and the detrimental ones. And they also choose the beneficial acts and doers, and want those who do them to persist. In addition, all the doers of bad deeds that harm the public are embedded in the imagining and remembering brain, and they loathe them and seek tactics to be rid of them. Hence, they praise and glorify the doers of the beneficial acts, to motivate them increasingly to these acts. This is where ideals, idealism, and every good attribute come from, as well as the wisdom of ethics. Conversely, they will vehemently condemn the doers of detrimental actions, so as to stop and be rid of them. This is provenance of every evil trait, sin, and ignobility in the human species. Thus, individual opinion operates just like public opinion. Yet, this is true only with regard to benefit and harm.

The corruption in public opinion
The corruption in public opinion is that the public is not arranged according to its majority, but only according to the powerful, meaning the assertive. It is as they say, that twenty people rule all of France. In most cases, they are the rich, which are but ten percent of the public, and they are always the ignorant among the people (even in the eyes of the public). They harm the public and exploit them. Hence, the public opinion is not in control of the world whatsoever. Rather, it is the opinion of the detrimental that controls the public. Thus, even the idealists that were sanctified in the world are but demons and evildoers regarding the majority of the public. Not only religion, but justice, too, is favoring the rich alone, all the more so ethics and ideals.

The origin of democracy and socialism
This is where the idea of democracy stems from, so the majority of the public will take the judicial system and politics into their own hands. socialism also, calls for the proletariat to take their destiny into their own hands. In short, the majority wants to determine public opinion, decide between beneficial and detrimental for them, and determine all the laws and ideals accordingly.

The contradiction between democracy and socialism
The contradiction between democracy and socialism, as seen in Russia, is that ten percent control the entire public in absolute dictatorship. The reason is simple: Just division requires idealism. This is not found among the majority of the public. Hence, ultimately, there is no cure for this except through religion, from above. This will turn the entire public into idealists.

Contact with Him
People imagine that a person who has contact with the Creator is a person […] Nature, and that they should fear speaking to him, much less be in His immediate vicinity. It is human nature to fear anything outside the nature of creation. People are also afraid of uncommon phenomena, such as thunder and loud noises. However, He is not so. This is because in fact, there is nothing more natural than coming into contact with one’s Maker, for He has made Nature. In fact, every creature has contact with his Maker, as is written, The fullness of all the earth is His glory (Isaiah 6:3), except we do not know or feel it. Actually, one who is awarded contact with Him attains only the awareness. It is as though one has a treasure in his pocket, and he does not know it. Along comes another and lets him know what is in his pocket. Now he really has become rich. Yet, there is nothing new here, no cause for excitement. In fact, nothing has been added in actuality. The same is true with one who has been granted the gift of knowing that he is the blessed Holy One’s son: nothing has changed in his actual reality, except the awareness he had not had before. Consequently, the person who attains this becomes even more natural, simple, and exceedingly humble. It might even be said that before the endowment, that person and all the people were outside of the simple nature. This is because now he is equal, simple and understands all people, and is very much involved with them. There is no one closer to folk than him, and only he that they should love, for they have no closer brother than him.

Rebuilding the world (see Personal opinion and public opinion, and The contradiction between democracy and socialism)
It has been clarified there that until now public opinion evolved and was built according to the powerful ones in society, meaning the assertive. It is only recently that the masses have evolved through religion, through schools, and revolutions, and have perceived the method of democracy and socialism. However, according to the natural law that a wild ass is born a man (Job 11:12) and man is the descendant of a wild beast, or an ape, like Darwin’s theory and [that of] the Sages [too]. After the [primordial] sin, the human species devolved into monkeys, for “All compared to Eve are like a monkey compared to a human being” [see BT Bava Batra 58a: “Compared with Sarah, all other people are like a monkey to a human being, and compared with Eve Sarah was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with Adam Eve was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with the Shekhinah Adam was like a monkey to a human being. The beauty of Rabbi Kahana was a reflection of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu was a reflection of the beauty of our father Jacob, and the beauty of Jacob was a reflection of the beauty of Adam”]. Indeed, according to the virtue of man, which consists of intellectual preparation, he continued to evolve through incidents and suffering, and adopted religion and the rule of law and order until he managed to finally become civilized. However, this entire evolution was laid on the shoulders of the greater part of society, and the masses followed them since the world is a shapeless mass [lit., כֵּיוָן שֶׁעוֹלָם גּוֹלֶם (keiyan she-olam golem), since the world is a golem].

When the masses opened their eyes to take their fate into their own hands, they were forced to abolish all the corrections and statutes of the powerful, being religion, law, order, and diplomacy [cf. Proverbs 12:1: Who loves reproof loves knowledge, but who hates rebuke is a brute]. All of which was only according to the spirit of the powerful, according to their evolution and for their own benefit (see Personal opinion and public opinion, and The contradiction between democracy and socialism). Thus, they were obligated to build the world anew. In other words, they are like primitive man, the Darwinian ape, since they are not the ones who undergo these experiences which bring their measure of development. Until today, the march of progress was solely on the shoulders of the powerful and not on the masses, who until now, were virgin soil. Thus, the world is now in a state of total ruin. It is very primitive in the sense of political affairs, as in the age of cavemen […]. They have not undergone the experiences and actions that brought the powerful to take upon themselves religion, etiquette, law and order. Hence, if we let the world develop naturally, today’s world must undergo all the ruin and suffering that primitive man experienced, until they are forced to accept a permanent and beneficial state law. The first fruit of the ruin came upon us in the form of Nazism, which is ultimately merely a direct offshoot of democracy and socialism, meaning of the leadership of the majority, once the restraints of religion, manners, and justice have been removed.

Nazism is not an offshoot of Germany
It turns out that the world erroneously believes Nazism a unique offshoot of Germany. In truth, it is the offshoot of a democracy and socialism that were left without religion, manners, and justice. Thus, all the nations are equal in that; there is no hope at all that Nazism will perish with the victory of the allies, for tomorrow the Anglo-Saxons will adopt Nazism, since they, too, live in a world of democracy and Nazism. Remember, democrats too, must renounce religion, manners, and justice like the Marxists, because all these are loyal servants of only the assertive in the public. They always place obstacles before the democrats, or the better part of the public. It is true that the thoughtful among the democrats keep a watchful eye that religion and manners are not destroyed at once, for they know that the world will be ruined. However, to that extent they also interfere with the government of the majority. Once the majority grows smart and understands them, it will certainly elect other leaders, such as Hitler, since he is a genuine representative of the majority of the public, be it German, Anglo-Saxon, or Polish.

The one counsel Unlike the democrats, who wish to nullify religion and manners gradually, and adopt a new politics in a manner that will not ruin the world, the masses will not wait for them at all. Rather, as is said, “A synagogue should not be demolished before another has been built to take its place” (BT Bava Batra 3b). In other words, we are forbidden to let the powerful ones take hold of the leadership before we build religion, conduct, and politics suitable for them, because in the meantime the world will be ruined, and there will be none to speak to.

Nihilism
Not complete nihilism, but nihilism of values (such as Nietzsche with regards to the values of Christianity), meaning all the values in religious conduct, ethics, and politics that have been thus far accepted in the perception of humanism. All these are compromises in the qualities of egoism of the individual, the state, or God’s servant. And I say that any measure of egoism is fallible, indeed detrimental, and there is no other arrangement except altruism, in the individual, the public, and the LORD.

Materialistic Monism
Substance fathers everything, and thought is the result of behavior and the senses, much like a mirror. There is no free will, only freedom of choice. However, not by itself, for wicked deeds induce wicked deeds [see BT Shabbat 104a: “If one comes to defile himself, they open for him; if one comes to purify himself, he is assisted”], and the freedom of deeds is perceived by looking (in the mirror of called upon actions) through another person’s mind. Then one has the freedom to obey it. And he will not be able to choose from his own mirror, or mind, since every man’s way seems right in his own eyes, and his mind always consents.

Beyond this world
Beyond this world we must research and examine only subjectively and pragmatically (practically). This is the conduct of research in this world, though it is [really] beyond it, since it apprehends by means of measurements clothed in the nature of this world, and also according the practical benefit (pragmatically).

What is beyond this world?
Only the Omnipresent is necessary, since “He is the Place of the world, the world is not His place” (Bereshit Rabbah 68:10 on Genesis 28:11). It is He alone that we apprehend, yet He is also beyond this world and nothing else [i.e., transcendent], unlike pantheism. This world is an objective term, which can be comprehended objectively as well. Its first principles are “time” and “space.” Outside of this world, which are the worlds of אָדָם הַקַדְמוֹן (adam ha-qadmon), the Primordial Human, and ABiYA, only subjective comprehension is possible, without touching the object whatsoever. The essence of the objects we define by the names ABiYA follow the assumption that since everyone perceives so without exception (meaning a chosen few in each generation, which are the tens of thousands and the millions that were, and are destined to come). Thus, we have objective attainment there, though we do not touch the objects whatsoever. From here come the four worlds above this world, though by nature they are only subjective, clothing the natures of this world in the two ways—expansion and thought, namely abstract/material correspondence. This is so because we experience any object according to two forms: first material, and next abstract, and they always go together, in a parallel manner. It is known that many in this world, too, perceive the method of “expressionism,” meaning solely by subjective perception. However, I also conform to “impressionism” to explain concepts of this world as objectively as possible, minimizing the interference of subjective reinforcement.

The essence of religion
The essence of religion is only understood pragmatically, as written by James [see William James, The Will to Believe]. The origin of faith is in the need for the truth in it, inasmuch as it satisfies this need. There are two kinds of needs: An abstract need—without it, life would become sickeningly detestable—and a material need. This need appears primarily in the social order, such as in ethics and politics, as Kant had written, “Faith is the basis of morality, and guards it” [see Kant’s “moral faith” in Critique of Pure Reason]. Naturally, sages will come solely from among those with the abstract need, for they also need it objectively. However, the second part will derive satisfaction, namely truth, also subjectively. However, from “Not for its own sake… to for its own sake” (BT Pesaḥim 50b) The need comes before the reason that necessitates faith.

The leaders of the public
For oneself, one may choose between expressionism and impressionism. However, the leaders are not permitted to lead the public in any other way but a positive and pragmatic one, meaning according to expressionism. This is because they cannot harm the public for their personal interest.
For example, they cannot instruct a certain faith to the public in order to understand their own impressionism, thus denying moral conduct and ethics from the public. If one cannot control oneself, he had better resign and not harm the public with his ideals.

Perception of the world
The world was created through הִתפַּתְחוּת בְּסִבָּתִיוּת (hitpatḥut be-sibbatiyut), evolutionary causation, by way of historical materialism, and according to the dialectics of Hegel—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Indeed, the purpose is to sense the blessed Holy One, from mineral, vegetable, animal, and human, up until prophecy—the knowledge of Him [see Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, Kuzari, 1:31–43. Cf. Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag, Panim Meirot u-MasbirotHaqdamah, 3: ‘Mineral, vegetable, animal, human, corresponding to the masses, the affluent, heroes, and sages’]. Pleasure is the thesis, suffering the antithesis, and sensing what is outside of one’s own skin is the synthesis.

The essence of corruption and correction is in public opinion
As private opinion determines one’s own gains and losses and brings one to the most successful business, so public opinion determines the policy, and chooses the most successful. However, there is quantity and there is quality.

Quantity versus quality
Until now, the qualitative [powerful] (who are the assertive), determined and made the views of the entire public, and therefore all the justice and morality. Religion was used to harm the majority, which are 80% of society.

The majority is as primitive as pre-historic man
The majority is as primitive as prehistoric man. This is so because they have not tried to utilize justice, religion, and morality, which were used by others until today. However, of course, all these came to the present state only through great pains in the path of causality and dialectics. The majority paid no heed to it, and at any rate, cannot grasp it.

The quickest action is religion
In order to activate public opinion anew in the majority in an effective manner, there is no faster way than religion, the loathing of any measure of desire to receive, and elevating the beauty of the desire to give to a great extent. This must be done specifically through action. Although the abstract and material are counterparts, still, the material precedes the abstract.

Prodigies
A prodigy is a product of the generation. He has a strong drive to give, and does not need a thing for himself. As such, he is in parity of form with the Creator, and naturally cleaves to Him. He emanates wisdom and pleasure from Him and bestows upon humankind. There are two types of prodigy: One who serves his Maker consciously, and therefore bestows upon humanity, and one who serves unconsciously, meaning that he does not feel and does not know that he is cleaving to the Creator—he cleaves to Him unconsciously. He only bestows upon humanity, thus there is no progress for humanity, except to instill in them the desire to give, and to increase prodigies in the world.

Teleology
Teleology is necessary in Kabbalah, according to the method of anthropocentricity, that the worlds were created for Israel, and they are the purpose. Moreover, the Creator consulted with the souls of the righteous. Their purpose is also brought in the prophecy For the earth shall be filled with knowledge of YHWH (Isaiah 11:9). There is no more specific purpose than this. Maimonides takes after the method of dysteleology, and says that the blessed Holy One has for creation other purposes besides man. It is difficult for him to comprehend that the blessed Holy One created a great creation such as this, with planetary systems in which our planet is as trivial in its existence as a mustard seed, and all this was only for the purpose of the perfection of man. Purpose is imperative for any intelligent person, and the agent without a purpose lacks a mind. By His acts we know Him. He has created the world in mineral, vegetable, animal, and human. The human is the apex of Creation, since he senses others and bestows upon them. Above the human is the prophet, who feels the blessed Holy One and knows Him [see Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, Kuzari, 1:31–43. Cf. Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag, Panim Meirot u-MasbirotHaqdamah, 3]. This is perceived as satisfying Him and His purpose in the entirety of Creation.

Hegel’s question is that necessarily, there are purposeless creatures in Nature, like many things on our planet, and the countless planets that mankind does not make use of whatsoever. The answer is in accordance with the law that, “the unknown does not contradict the known,” and that “the judge has only what his eyes see” (BT Sanhedrin 6b). Perhaps there is mineral, vegetable, animal, and human [lit., speaking] on each and every planet but its purpose is [the category called] “speaking.” So too with the unknown. And how can that contradict the known and familiar in the way of prophecy? This is simple: It is pleasurable for the Creator to create an object that will be qualified for negotiation with Him, and exchange opinions, etc. There is also pleasure in having something that is not of the same kind, and we trust the prophecy completely.

Causality and choice
There is a path of suffering, by which one repays unconsciously according to dialecticism, where each state conceals the absence within. The state exists as long as the absence in it has not appeared. When the antithesis manifests and develops, it destroys the thesis, and brings in its place a more complete state than the first, as it contains the correction of the previous antithesis (this is so because any absence precedes presence). Hence, the second state is called “synthesis,” meaning that it includes and is an upshot of both, the presence and the absence, which preceded this new state. Likewise, truth always follows and is perfected by the path of suffering, which is presence and absence, thesis and antithesis, and always yields truer syntheses until the appearance of the perfect synthesis. But what is perfection? In historical materialism [cf. dialectical materialism], the aforementioned path of suffering is clarified only with relation to economic desires, where each thesis means just governance for its time, each antithesis means unjust division in the economy, and each synthesis is governance that settles the antithesis that has been revealed, and nothing more. For this reason, absence is concealed in it as well. When the absence develops, it destroys that synthesis too, and so forth, until just division manifests.

Path of Torah
The path of Torah is placing fate in the hands of the oppressed. This accelerates the End to the extent that the oppressed watch over it. This is called “choice,” since now the choice is in the hands of the concerned parties. Thus, the path of suffering is an objective act, the path of Torah is a subjective act, and fate is in the hands of the concerned parties. The principle: Giving to others. The governance—a regime that mandates a minimum for life, and good deeds toward society’s standard of living. The purpose and the goal: Cleaving to Him. In my opinion, this is the final synthesis where absence is no longer concealed.

Good deeds and mitsvot
Locke said that there is nothing in the mind that does not come in the senses first. In addition, Spinoza said, “I do not want something because it is good, but it is good because I want it” [see idem. Ethics 3:9: “It is clear that we neither strive for, nor will, neither want, nor desire anything because we judge it to be good; on the contrary, we judge something to be good because we strive for it, will it, want it, and desire it.” Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 3:13]. We must add to this there is nothing in the senses that is not present in actions first. Thus, actions beget sensation, and sensation begets understanding. For example, it is impossible for the senses to take pleasure in giving before they actually giving. Moreover, it is impossible to understand and perceive the great importance of giving before it is experienced [lit., tasted] by the senses. Likewise, it is impossible to taste pleasure in cleaving before one performs many good deeds can affect it, meaning by strict observance of this condition to please Him, or in other words, delight in the pleasure given to the Creator by performing the mitsvah. After one feels the great pleasure in the act, it is possible to understand Him, to the extent of that pleasure. And if […] for eternal and perpetual pleasure from bringing contentment to Him, then he will be rewarded with knowing […].

As seen above, there are two modes to religion: 1) “not for its own sake,” which is pure utilitarianism, meaning aiming to establish morality for one’s own good. One is satisfied when attaining this tendency. And there is a second tendency to religion, being an abstract need to cleave to Him. This is called “for its own sake.” One can be rewarded with the above through actions, and from “Not for its own sake… to for its own sake” (BT Pesaḥim 50b).

Life’s tendency
There are three views in books and in research: either ideas about how to attain cleaving to Him; or to acquire progress, called utilitarianism, or carnal pleasure, called Hedonism. I only wish Hedonism were true. The trouble is that the pains are greater than the little carnal pleasure that one can delight in. Besides the flaw of the day of death, and the method of utilitarianism to bring progress to the world, there is a big question here: Who enjoys this complete progress that I pay so heavily for with pains and torments? It seems that only ideals whose tendency is man’s happiness, thereby improving all the abstract forces, impart to one respect in life and a good name after his death. Kant mocked this method of establishing a moral thesis on an egoistic tendency and instructed doing in order to not receive reward. Modern science has chosen for itself utilitarianism, but only for the common good, meaning to give. This is also similar to “in order not to receive reward,” and who would want it? There is also the question: What will this progress bring to the generations, for which I work with so much pain to give this? At the very least, I have the right to know what is required of progress, and who one will enjoy it. Who would be so gullible as to pay so heavily without knowing its effect? The whole trouble is that pleasure is brief, and the suffering, long.

Life’s purpose
From all that was said you will find that life’s purpose is to attain cleaving to Him, strictly in order to benefit the Creator, or to merit the public to attain cleaving to Him.

Two enslavements in the world
There are two enslavements in the world, either enslavement to the Creator, or enslavement to His creatures. One of them is a must. Even a king and a president necessarily serve the people. Indeed, the taste of complete freedom is only to one who is enslaved to the Creator alone, and not to any being in the world. Enslavement is necessary, for reception is obscene; it is beastliness. And giving, the question is “to whom?”

Section One

Pragmatic communism
Accepting the religion of love your fellow as yourself (Leviticus 19:18)—literally. Just division of the profits, where each will work according to his ability, and receive according to his needs. Property is kept, but its owner is forbidden to receive from the profits more than he actually needed. One type of property owners will be kept under public supervisors, another type by self-fiduciary, or books. The unemployed will receive their needs equally with the employed. Those who live in communes will earn the same wages as workers who are property owners, and the profits made by the communal life will be made into public property belonging to the members of that collective. There must also be an effort to build communal life for workers in towns.

Advantages
The workers, and even more so those who are afraid of being unemployed, will certainly assume the religion, thus acquiring security in their lives. The idealistic property owners will also assume the religion by indoctrination on a religious basis. Public opinion must be such that one who takes more than one needs is like a murderer. Because of him, the world will have to continue with the slaughter, Hitlerian conduct, and terrible wars. Thus, communism will be promoted. It is possible to make the life of property owners miserable by contracts and strikes, so they assume the religion since they do not touch their property, only the profits. Since the religion will be international, it will be possible to win the hearts of the Arab Sheiks with money and religious influence—so they assume the religion together with us as one unit, and promote it among the Arab workers and property owners. That, in turn, will benefit Zionism. Because they will assume the religion that necessitates love and giving to all of humanity equally, they will not be envious of the “robbing” of the Land, since they will understand that the Land is the LORD’s. The standard of living of the Arabs will be equal to the standard of living of the Jews. This will be a great incentive in winning their hearts.

Section Two

Private opinion and public opinion
As there is private opinion, which is one’s judgmental force where all the good and bad actions are copied, and as one chooses the good and rejects the bad as though looking in a mirror, so is there a collective intellect to the public, where the good actions for society and bad ones are copied. Public opinion sorts out the ones that are good for it, praises their doers, and condemns those who do otherwise. From here emerge ideals, leaders, rules, and preferences.

The corruption in public opinion: the powerful ones
Until today, only the assertive had the judgment and the force to lead, being the better part, as it is said, that twenty people lead all of France, and they make public opinion. They have arranged justice, morality, and religion to their benefit. Since they exploit the majority of the public, the religion, law, and ethics are hence detrimental to the public, meaning to the majority. Bear in mind that the current government of the assertive was quite sufficient until today because the masses did not have any force of judgment. Thus, all the ruins preceding today’s political order were only among the assertive. However, they did not come to the present order within one generation’s time, but through terrible ruins, until they have conceived the religion, ethics, and law that have brought order to the world.

The new structure
In recent generations, due to pressure and necessity, and through democracy and socialism, the masses have begun to open their eyes and assume responsibility for the management of society by the majority. Thus, they have concluded that religion, manners, governance, and justice are all to their detriment, as it is true that it serves the assertive ten percent of the public, and harms all the others. Thus, two images of collective government emerged: either as the Nazis, who have rebelled against religion, manners, and justice, and do as the primitive man, prior to the conduct of life of the assertive, or as the Soviets, where ten percent of the public controls the entire public by dictatorship. This will certainly not last long, in light of the historical dialectic. If manners are abandoned, Israel’s enemies will wipe out everyone. In short, we will necessarily and undoubtedly return to being cave dwellers (the masses, too), until the majority learn the dialectics on their own flesh and bones (as did the powerful ones before them), and finally agree to order.

Thus, Nazism is not a German patent
If we bear in mind that the masses are not idealists, then there is no counsel but religion, from which manners and justice naturally emanate. However, now they only serve the majority. How so? Through the religion of giving. The principle of giving to one’s fellow. The leadership: commitment to a certain minimum, and commandment for a standard of living.

The goal: cleaving to the Creator

Nazism is the fruit of socialism
Idealists are few, and the true carriers, the workers and the farmers, are egoists. If a preacher such as Hitler were to arise in any nation, saying that national socialism is more convenient and beneficial to them than cosmopolitanism, why would they not listen to him?

1) If Nazism and its ruin had been conceived some years back, and if some wise men were to devise a plan to save them through devout religion that would suffice for protection, would it have been forbidden in the name of falsehood?

2) If, after the war, the nations come to an understanding that Israel must be dispersed to the four corners, and drive us out of our land, and a certain person would come and reinstate religion (so as to stand devotedly) between us and the nations, thus making them agree to the opposite, that even the Diaspora would come to Israel, would that have been forbidden?

3) If the Nazis, perish the thought, prevail and rule the world, and wish to destroy the remnant of Jacob, is it permissible to establish religion among all nations in order to save the nation?

Pragmatism
Faith stems from a need; it is true as long as it satisfies that need (William James). Thus, the need is the reason for faith, and the satisfaction of the need is its truthfulness. Two needs: First, a material need to establish social life; this is its trueness. Second, an abstract need, without which life is loathsome; this is “for its own sake.” Of course, the sages of religion come from the abstract need, but from “Not for its own sake… to for its own sake” (BT Pesaḥim 50b) (see Pragmatic truth).

Life’s direction:
1) To bring progress and happiness to society through modern science.
2) By perfecting all of one’s mental powers, one will attain dignity in life and a good name after death. Kant mocks it as egoism, and indicated that only not in order to receive reward. We must understand: If it is not worthwhile to live for myself, is it worthwhile to live for a thousand others like me, or a billion? Thus, the direction must be to benefit the Creator, whether for oneself, or for the entire world, to award them cleaving to Him.

Truth and falsehood
Truth and falsehood are a psychic replica of existence and absence, which are thesis and antithesis, from which stem the “ephemeral truth,” which is a synthesis. This is a pragmatic truth, lasting until the “absolute truth” appears, where there will be no falsehood in one’s conscience.
Example no. 4 (see above): Would ancient, primitive humanity, which slaughtered and killed each other like wild animals, permit the establishment of a religious government?
Example no. 5 (see above): In my childhood I did not want to read novels so as not to deal with lies. I read only history. When I grew up and understood the value of them, that they develop the imagination, they became truth for me.

Necessity
From the perspective of “for its own sake” (BT Pesaḥim 50b) it is an emotional need. Admittedly, they are few, as is written, “saw that the righteous are few… and planted them in every generation,” that they may have demand from birth [cf. BT Ḥagigah 13b]. However, some abhor material life. If they do not accomplish the goal of cleaving, they will commit suicide.

The religious principle: from “not for its own sake… to for its own sake”
Providence has prepared the guidance of people in an egoistic manner, which will necessarily bring about the world’s destruction unless we accept the religion of giving. Hence, there is a pragmatic need for it, and from this one comes to “for its own sake.”

What is an emotional need?
As a blind person cannot perceive color, nor a eunuch the joy of sex, it is impossible to depict this need to one who lacks the emotional need. And yet, it is a must.

Performing mitsvot
Performing mitsvot can become for one an emotional need.

Morality of manners
Morality of manners means good qualities, virtues, not in order to be rewarded, and without external necessity, but based solely on altruism and a sense of responsibility for human society. It is achieved by education. However, education requires public approval to keep and sustain it after one departs from under the authority of the education. But public opinion does not stem from the education, but only from the benefit of the public. The benefit of the public is evaluated only according to the specific state of that public, which is necessarily in contrast with other states and countries. Hence, how will education help in that? The proof is that the manner, and even the religion, sufficient for internationality, has not been created, as killing and looting rule everywhere, without any manners whatsoever. Moreover, the greater murderer one is, the more patriotic and well mannered he is considered. And today, it is international manner that we need.

Public egoism can be corrected only by religion
Public egoism can be corrected only by religion because education that is based on nothing can be easily ruined by any wicked person, and Germany is the evidence. If Hitler appeared in a religious Germany, he would not have done a thing [cf. Heinrich Heine].

Natural egoism
You will not break natural egoism with artificial means such as public opinion and education. There is no cure for that but a natural religion.

Double benefit
The religion of giving is beneficial to both body and mind. Hence, it is necessitated and agreed upon more than any method in the world (see below at length).

Motive power
There are two discernments in it: The attracting force, from before, or the repelling force, from behind. How can education help when one is free, without any motivation for the duties he was brought up on? After all, there is no attracting force in them, and they are also devoid of the compelling force.

The remaining of the soul
This is a given, as it is a part of the blessed Holy One above. However, it is not included in the wisdom of Kabbalah because no object is attainable. Indeed, the soul appears to the person who carries it only through actions, and its actions are only attainments of Him. It is therefore clear that the maxim, “Know yourself and know all,” is from […] philosophical because in Kabbalah the opposite should be said, “Know everything and, attain yourself.” An object is not attained at all, only actions, which are attainments of His names, meaning only subjective.

Five senses
The power in commandments is similar to corporeality, where the actions stimulate the senses. And when the senses remain […] in the memory brain, they become there images of beneficial, detrimental, and property. And when the mind or the will or the guard […] looks in the image of the memory, one gradually scrutinizes the images and brings the truths closer, meaning the beneficial or the property, and rejects the falsehoods, which are the detrimental. Man’s knowledge grows according to the clarity of the scrutiny. And if in mathematics, he should attach to it images that are beneficial for clarity and validity. They also save time because these help him, as in existing property. The same goes for playing music, healing, and an attribute. It is similar with spiritual acts, which […] the mitsvot that cultivate man’s spiritual senses. There are two kinds of senses here: either sight, hearing, smell, and speech, which are ord[inary…] and also Ḥesed, Gevurah, Tifferet and Netsaḥ, Hod of the body. It is so because perpetuation of good deeds from […] in one who serves with the spirit of “love,” and when it accumulates into a sizable amount […] in him the sense of “fear” of sinning and losing the love. And when he is certain […] of himself that he has a sense of love and fear, a sense of boasting […] over his companions who were not rewarded with it is born in him (and this is property).

And following the three senses […] the “eternity” is born in him as a mighty one who directs his spirit. And according to all the sensations of these four senses, “glory” is born in him, as he admits the existence of the Creator. And with each commandment that he adds, the five above mentioned lower senses and the flavors of the commandments intensify in him. When they accumulate to the required amount, the five higher senses, sight-hearing-smell-speech, are born in him, to actually see His glory and hear the voice of the Creator, smell the fear of Him, and speak before Him. And when one is rewarded further, images of the impressions of the five lower senses and the five upper senses remain with him, and he looks as though through the mirror of the brain at these impressions, and sorts out the beneficial and the […] and rejects the detrimental. And according to the clarity of the scrutinies, the knowledge of the Creator will increase.

Luxury and accumulated property
As in corporeality, so in learning […]. In external teachings there is economics […]. And medicine is regarded as scrutinies that help the standard of living for […] as luxury. This is the first degree of property. The second degree is accumulating property, which is not as useful as wealth. This is the science of […] and an attribute, and playing music. Likewise, in spirituality, the scrutinies that can be used […] are for a spiritual standard of living, and a non-accumulating property. There are also higher scrutinies that do not serve for the standard of living, but only as accumulating property and for important possessions such as wealth and the attribute, and philosophy. However, both come from spiritual images that were once absorbed in the senses. And choosing the beneficial for oneself or for others is called “the knowledge of the Creator.” Know that the Wisdom of Kabbalah also contains these three kinds of property.

Abstract/material correspondence
These are two manifestations of the same entity, like thunder and lightning. This is the meaning of “good deeds and Torah.” However, a person first responds to the abstract explanation, and then the material one. It is similar to love, where the giver of the present first feels in his heart-mind that the giver loves him, and then sparks of love flow and spread through him […]. A revealing head is abstract, and inside it clothes […].

The root cause of every error in the world The root cause of every error in the world is an idea—when taking an idea or an image that was once clothed in a body, and presenting it as an abstract object that has never been in a body. That is, it is when it is praised or condemned according to that abstract value. The problem is that once the concept has been stripped of a body, it loses significant parts of its initial meaning while it was clothed in a body. Those who discuss it according to its remaining meaning must necessarily misunderstand. For example, when truth and falsehood work in the body, we praise the truth according to its benefit to the individual or to the […] and we condemn the lie according to its harm to the collective or to the individual. However, once truth and falsehood have been stripped of the bodies and become abstract concepts, they lose the heart of their meaning […] and acquire sanctity or impurity in their abstract form. And according to […] it is possible for the evaluator to praise the truth even when it does great harm to the collective or to the individual, and to condemn […] the lie even when it is extremely beneficial to the individual or to the collective. This is a serious error that harms the […] and one is not free to ask oneself who sanctified this truth, or […] defiled and forbade this lie.

Benefit, in fact, everyone admits it
Those who dispute it, it is […] that they benefit […] and a moral conduct that at times contradicts the material benefit. However, essentially, moral and religion are also utilitarian […] everything, except spiritual happiness, and what is the difference? There is not a fool who will exert without benefit for the body or the mind.

Double benefit
Accordingly, the law of giving to others is necessary for all people in the world […] as it is beneficial for both the body and the soul according to the Wisdom of Kabbalah.

A vague complex that must be resolved one at a time The main problem is that here there is a […] complicated made of several interwoven doubts: First: Even when not taking into account the validity, the question remains whether it is actually beneficial. Second: Even if it is beneficial, is it feasible? Third: Who are the people to be qualified for training the generation to such a sublime matter? Fourth: Perhaps this operation will evoke the public’s contempt and mockery?

Knowledge
Knowledge comes in one of three ways: Empirical—physical observation (i.e., actual experiments); Historical—documentary or mathematical evidence […]. And the Wisdom of Kabbalah is demonstrated more than all three of these ways. There is also a fourth way to knowledge: Philosophical—either by way of deductions or inductions, meaning from the general to the particular, or from the particular to the general. This is strictly forbidden by the Wisdom of Kabbalah, since all that we do not attain, we do not know […].

Section One First, the scrutiny that now, too, we are giving and are not receiving both because we are not taking the surplus we produce to the grave, and second, because if a day’s exertion awards half a day’s pleasure, it is giving. And since by and large there is very little pleasure from the exertions people make, we are all only giving and not receiving. This is a mathematical calculation. Third, The clarification that we exert today due to the enslavement of society at least fourteen hours a day with pain and sorrow, since all our customs come from enslavement to the public.… The clarification that if we use the “governance of the earth,” we can hasten the “future generation [or: final generation]” in our generation, too. Fourth, this matter of competition out of uniqueness, in giving to others is not an abstract fantasy, as it is used in practical life, such as those who give away all their possessions to the public, or the most idealistic members of parties, who neglect and lose their lives for the public’s benefit, etc.

What is this like? It is like a wealthy man who had an old father whom he did not wish to support. He was tried and the verdict was that he would support him at least as respectfully as he supports his own kin, or he would face a harsh punishment. Naturally, he took him into his home and had to support him generously, but his heart was grieving. The old man said to him, “Since you are already giving me every delight that you have on your table, what would you lose if you also had a good intention, which is reasonable in the eyes of every sensible person, to be happy with having the opportunity to honor your father, who had spent all his energy for you and made you a respectable man? Why are you so obstinate that you afflict yourself? Can you rid yourself even slightly because of it?” So it is. At the end of the day, we give to society, and only society gains from our lives, since every person, great or small, adds and enriches the treasury of society. But the individual, when weighing the sorrow and pain that one receives, one is in great deficit. Hence, you are giving to your fellow person, but painfully and with great and bitter suffering. So why do you mind the good intention?

Section Two Each one of them fills his or her role in service of the public in the best way, albeit without seeing it, since public opinion presses a person even secretly, to the point where one feels that deceiving society by mistake is as grave as killing a human being by mistake. Each country is divided into societies where a certain number of people with sufficient means to provide for all their needs connect into a single society. Each society has a budget and work-hours according to the local conditions. Half of the budget is filled by mandatory hours, where each member commits to work a certain number of hours according to one’s strength, and the other half by voluntary hours.
A person who has faltered with self-gain, that person’s entire social status vanishes into the thin air of society as clouds in the wind, due to the profound antagonism that such a person receives from the entire nation.
*
For then each person
1) Each individual makes him or herself willingly available for the service of the public whenever one is needed.
2) Free competition for every individual, but in giving to others.
3) Disclosing any form of desire to receive for oneself is dishonorable and such a great flaw that such a person is regarded as being among the lowest, most inferior people in society.
4) Each person is medium.
*
1) They have many methodical books of wisdom and morals that prove the glory and sublimity of excellence in giving to others, to a point where the entire nation, from small to great, engage in them wholeheartedly.
2) Each person who is appointed to an important position must first graduate a special training in the above-mentioned teaching.
3) Their courts are busy primarily with awarding accolades marking the level of each person’s distinction in giving to others. There is not a person without a medal on the sleeve, and it is a great offence to call a person not by one’s title of honor. It is also a great offence for a person to forgive such an insult to one’s title.
4) There is such fierce competition in the field of giving to others that most people risk their lives, since public opinion tremendously appreciates and respects the accolades of the highest rank in giving to others.
5) If a person is recognized as having done for oneself a little more than what was decided for him by society, society condemns it so much that it becomes a disgrace to speak with him, and he also severely blemishes his family name. The only remedy for this is to ask for the court’s help, which has certain ways by which to help such miserable people who have lost their position in society. But for the most part, they relocate him because of prejudice, since public opinion cannot be changed.
6) There is no such word as “punishment” in the laws of the court, for according to their rules, the guilty ones are always the ones who gain the most. Thus, if one is guilty of not giving all his work hours, then his time is either reduced or made easier, or the way he provides it is made easier for him. Sometimes he is given time to spend at school, to teach him the great merit of “giving to others.” It all depends on the view of the judges.
*
1) The state is divided into societies. A certain number of people, who can fully provide for themselves, may separate themselves and maintain a special society.
2) That society has a quota of work hours according to the conditions in which they live, meaning according to the local conditions and the preferences of the members.

This quota is filled by mandatory hours and voluntary hours. For the most part, voluntary hours are approximately half of the mandatory hours. The work hours come from four types and are divided into works according to strength: The first type is the weak; the second type is the medium; the third type is the strong; and the fourth type is the quick. For the work of one hour of type one, type two works two hours, type three four hours, and type four six hours. Each person is trusted with finding their appropriate type of work which suits his strength.

Section Three
1) Introduction: Humanity’s progress is a direct result of religion.
2) The process of religion in circles comes when at a low point comes the destruction of humanism to the extent of the ruin of religiousness. For this reason, they accept religion against their will, the upward movement begins anew, and a new circle is formed.
3) The size of the circle corresponds to the genuineness of the religion that is regarded as the “basis” at the time of the ascent.

Plan A
Just as we expect actors in the theatre to do their best to make our imagination think that their acting is real, we expect our interpreters of religion to be able to touch our hearts so deeply that we will perceive the faith of religion as the actual reality. The shackles of religion are not at all heavy for those who do not believe, since the demand in mitsvot between man and man is accepted anyhow, and between man and God, a few mitsvot observed in public—such as those at one’s disposal—are enough [see Rabbi Yehudah Ashlag, A Single Mitsvah].

Plan B
הַטֶבַע (Ha-teva), Nature, is numerically equivalent to אֱלֹהִים (Elohim), God [and this serves as a mnemonic, see Rabbi Avraham Abulafia, Get ha-Shemot, 101b (MS Oxford, 1682); Rabbi Ḥayyim Luzzatto, Da’at ha-Tevunot]. Therefore, everything that Nature mandates… [is] the word of the Creator. The benefit of society is the reward and the damage to society is the punishment. Accordingly, there is no point turning God into Nature, meaning […] a blind Creator who does not see or understand the work of His hands. We are better off, and it makes sense to every healthy person, that He sees and knows everything, for He punishes and rewards, since everyone sees that Nature punishes and rewards. And Hitler will prove it.

Plan C
All of the anticipated reward from the Creator, and the purpose of the entire creation, is cleaving to the Creator, like a tower filled abundantly, but no guests [see Bereshit Rabbah 8:6]. This is what they who cleave to Him in love receive. Naturally, first, one emerges from imprisonment, which is emerging from the skin of one’s body by giving others. Subsequently, one comes to the king’s palace, which is cleaving to Him through the intention to satisfy the Creator. Naturally, first one emerges from imprisonment, which is emerging from under their own skin by giving to others. Therefore, the bulk of mitsvot are between man and man. One who gives preference to the mitsvot between man and the Creator is as one who climbs to the second degree before he has climbed to the first. Clearly, he will break his legs.

Faith among the masses
It is said, “The voice of the people is the voice of God” (vox populi, vox Dei). Indeed, this means that according to reality, they have chosen the least of all evils, and to that extent they always follow the good path. However, of course we must change reality so they can accept the utterly complete path. And it is true that the power of keeping in the masses in general chooses for them a way according to the situation. For this reason, once they have corrupted the interpretation of Torah and mitsvot, they have become rebellious. However, it is a sacred duty to find a true interpretation in society, and then it will be to the contrary: The power of keeping in the masses will coerce the keeping of Torah and mitsvot.
*

[…] public of the first degree
To prepare the way he tried (its reason)
1) Nazism: egoism; the international: altruism
2) It is possible to destabilize the Nazis only through a religion of altruism.
3) Only the workers are ready for this religion, as it is a revolution in religious perception.
4) This religious perception has three roles:
a) To undermine the Nazis.
b) To qualify the masses to assume collective governance so they do not fail as the Russians have (this follows the term: The progress of humanity comes only through religion). It is so because the more the worker needs reward for the work, the regime cannot survive, as Marx said.
c) To take religion from the possessors and turn it into an instrument in the hands of the workers.
e) First, it will be accepted by the workers, and through them by the whole of Israel, and the same goes for the international of all the nations, and through them to all the classes among the nations.
f) Revolution in religious perception means that instead of the monks being thus far the destructors of the world, when they assume altruism, the monks will be the builders of the world, since the measure of anxiety can be measured only by the measure of help to society, in order to satisfy his Maker.
g) This concept is clarified over nearly two thousand pages that explain all the secrets of Torah that the human eye cannot see. It will make every person believe in its truthfulness, as they will see that they are the words of the LORD, for secrets of a glorious wisdom attributed to prophecy testifies to their truthfulness.
h) The distributor of religion must be capable of Plan A, to bring as much faith as possible to the people.
In addition, he must bring total sufficiency to the mineral, vegetable, animal, and human [lit., speaking]. Without it, religion is unsustainable. It is as Maimonides said, that it is like a line of blind people headed by one person who sees [see Guide of the Perplexed]. That is, the human must stand at the front of the line in every place and in every generation. Hence, any religion that does not guarantee to inspire one man out of a thousand to become human [lit., speaking], that religion is unsustainable.
i) Spreading the religion of love is done by Torah and prayer that can intensify one’s quality of giving to others. At that time, the Torah and prayer are like he who sharpens his knife, so it can cut and finish his work quickly. Conversely, he who works with a blunt knife believes it is better to not waste time sharpening the knife, and he is misled because his work becomes much longer (it is also clear with the regard to the term that there is no progress for humanity unless through religion).
j) (belongs to item 9) The fourth role is in favor of Zionism, for during the truce, when fates of countries are decided, we will not have those enemies from among the conservatives who think we have no religion, as we learn from Weizmann’s words, and the mediators are bound to be from among those conservatives.

Do not destroy
The frivolous have already grasped that it is possible to be built, but only on the ruin of one’s fellow. This method is what roasts humanity on a fire to this day, since before one finds a vulnerable place in his fellow, he cannot even conceive of building anything. But the minute he finds a weakness in his fellow’s way, he seizes there with his claws and venom until he destroys him entirely, and there he builds his palace of wisdom. Thus, all the palaces of science are built in a place of ruin. And for this reason, every researcher is interested only in destroying, and the more one destroys, the more one is famous and praised. Indeed, this is the way that science develops, and it cannot be denied [cf. Rabbi Pinḥas Horowitz, Sefer ha-Berit, “All the scholars of this last generation arose and contradicted the opinion of recent scholars, since it is their foolish way that one builds while the other demolishes; one dreams while the other solves”]. However, what is this like? It is similar to the struggle that ruled with its terrible destructions for eons before the land had formed over the sea. This, too, was certainly a kind of development. And yet, there is no reason to envy those people who witnessed those upheavals. Rather, we should be more envious of those who came to the world after the making of the peace, after the materials that struggled made peace, and each found its resting place on earth as it is today. And although the struggle persists today, it is nonetheless a minor struggle, and not upheavals where each one destroys its predecessor, who has become entirely exhausted. Rather, they have already understood that it is forbidden to destroy, since “Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those who drowned you will themselves eventually be drowned” (M Avot 2:6) [cf. BT Megillah 31b in the name of Rabbi Shim’on son of El’azar]. Rather, the struggle is more about weakening and restricting, while preserving the life of the weak and avoiding its destruction, for he knows full well that the tide will later turn “and those who drowned you will themselves eventually be drowned.” It is similar to a war that the fighters will keep fighting, which is also for the same reason.

Now, if we really do learn from practical history, we must not overlook the aforementioned principle, and we must take reality into consideration, as in a status quo, and punish one who murders a view just as we punish one who murders a somebody. It is so because a mind without a view is not in the type of emotion of pity, for they are more numerous than all the dunghills and the lakes, and all the air, and because of it they are given to Providence, and we have no tactics by which to assist them. For this reason, we should presume that the land before us is vast, and there is room for all the views to dwell in it, the good as well as the bad. Indeed, one who kills and destroys a bad view is like one who destroys a corrected view, as there is no such thing as an “evil view” in the world. Rather, an unripe view is bad. Therefore, we should judge it as one who kills a bad person, where “the voice of the blood of his descendants, and his descendants’ descendants, we are redeemed from the evildoer. Likewise, a bad view is a seed that is still unripe for eating, but that will eventually grow and develop. We should search for a new place for the palace of wisdom that we want to build, a place vacant of others’ buildings, meaning without hurting any existing method. The mind is deep and broad, and the words of the wise are heard with pleasure, and the method of the abusive and of the abused is regarded by everyone to be bad. Hence, this alone should be uprooted because it is obsolete and loathsome, according to everyone. At the same time, we should keep all the manners of life in status quo, and maintain the freedom of the individual, since they are not required for our new building because in the end, it is merely an economic structure. It is similar to a merchant who wanted to open his own grocery store but feared the competition, so he burned all the stores in town along with the gold, jewels, gemstones, and clothes. He is too foolish because he will not grow any richer by burning the jewelry stores. Rather, grocery stores only would have been enough for his ruin, and let the keepers keep, and they who vacation, let them vacation. At most, one should establish a law that all who keep must add work so as to pacify the examiners.

I know what Marx wrote, that once the sufferings and wounds of the body have been bandaged we will begin, and we will have a suitable place for studying ideals. Besides, arguing that this is fundamentally untrue, since we know from experience that a tortured and afflicted body finds knowledge and truth better than a satiated body that knows no lack. But even if we leave his words be, we should still say, “Do not destroy.” In the very least, it is similar to a person chopping fruit trees because he wants to examine them so they will grow more fruitful. It is foolishness, for if he chops them off they will die and there will be no one picking fruits. It is likewise in views, which have come to us by inheritance from our fathers over hundreds of generations of development. He chops them off, dries them up, and ruins them, promising us that later, when he is at rest, he will examine them and will improve them, if possible. It is complete folly. He assumes that religion harms the commune (but how can he be certain of this assumption? After all, it is a view that is spreading among people of positivity and negativity, and many are the supporters). He can only dispute the form of understanding that the abusers use to their own benefit. Therefore, we should fight for the understanding, so it does not harm, but sentence it a death sentence. And yet, his whole theory is built only on religious hatred, similar to structures of contemporary scholars concerning hatred of religion, without any motive of economic damage. For this reason, we have permission to demand of the real sages, whose intention is only the economic side, to remove this item from their books. Only then will they have hope of winning a lasting victory that does not slip on its own vomit. In a word, there is no joy without calamity, no good without bad. Even the wisest person cannot be saved from a range of errors, and this is the weaker side in him, which leaves room for those who come to dispute him and finish him off. This is the weak side of Marxism, and it is why the occupation is difficult for them, and hundred fold so the right to exist.
Therefore, if you are true to your method and desire its persistence, hurry up and erase the aforementioned item from your laws, and then your road will be safely paved.

Has Marx’s prophecy come true?
On the one hand, his prophecy can be regarded as having been fully realized. The powerful have been sitting for a while on the fear of impending doom, on wondrous arms [such as atomic and nuclear bombs] that have been amassed, and of which there is not a shred of hope to be rid of, or to balance. Also, economists see doom in their eyes, and any chance for salvation has been snuffed out from reality. The hungry multitudes are proliferating terribly each day; the working class has nearly overripened, and so on and so forth.

Why were they cast to the Right?
On the other hand, we find the opposite. Fascism is growing daily, first Italy, now Germany, tomorrow Poland, and America is also on the verge, and so forth. It must be that that prophet had missed a point, which caused his serious error.

Buried in his own theory
But he is buried in his own theory, for he has added redundancies in the theory of participation, and these are the hard seeds that history cannot process whatsoever (i.e., religion and nationalism), and they were pushed to the Right.

Faulty policy
The guard need not sit and guard the surpluses that do not concern him, nor need the searcher of freedom pursue freedom for luxuries of the body, nor need the collaborator destroy the views that do not contradict his socialism. All of these three methods are real and are equally respected by their proponents. If the forces let one sect destroy another for a time, it is an incarnation, and in the end, there must be laws that limit the types of arms, so one will not destroy the other to a greater extent. It is circle, and one does not know what one’s tomorrow will bring. Therefore, before the day of struggle comes, there is time for the mind to protect from a complete ruin of one of the sides. The current power is not to be relied upon, but rather the certain future.

Considering the truth between the methods, I define this word according to the law of evolution, since each view and each method prepares and makes way for a better method. And as long as it is not made, it must be kept and persisted, since by destroying it you destroy the view and the method whose role is to yield its fruition. Marx himself had pointed it out […] because he says that from the great bourgeoisie emerges the working class. Therefore, you see that if there had been a redeemer for the working class at the time, to destroy the great bourgeoisie, he would certainly demolish the foundations of the commune at its root, for this firm law, “do not destroy,” is telling you—until the time comes on its own. In that regard, I disagree with him since he says that we must force the issue at all cost, while I say: except for the ruining of [disparate] views, which is not required whatsoever.

[Everything has a season,] and a time for every matter (Ecclesiastes 3:1), and the time of socialism has arrived. Woe for the fools who miss the hour and place before them completely redundant obstacles and boundaries, which are as smoke in their eyes. For this reason, before they turn one way or the other, the world will have already revolved and Relief and rescue will come [to the Jews] from elsewhere (Esther 4:14), and they along with their method will be lost for a long time. The war over the definition of nationality is completely redundant and is nothing like private property. There is no private property in the spiritual, only in the material. One who does not desire the development of wisdom does not know that “The jealousy of scribes increases wisdom” (BT Bava Batra 21a). Therefore, no one disputes it even among the extreme leftist Marxists. Rather, the war concerns only material property, for which envy yields nothing but fear and unnecessary misery. Hence, why should you fight spiritual property and nationality?

Let us assume that all the nations have reached economic parity, and have abolished private property to such an extent that the existence of abusers is unthinkable. Instead of the nations competing with one another for material assets, henceforth the competition will be over spiritual assets. That competition is bound to emerge in individuals, just as in the public. But here, no one speaks of it, even the most extreme, but would it be so? Therefore, our debate revolves solely around spiritual assets from the past. You say that we permit the acquisition of such assets in the future with all the desirable and fitting freedom, but the past you take out of your houses. Is this not sick and twisted? After all, what will be permitted in the future, why should we destroy the great bulk that has been ready from the past? It is like that famous Egyptian king who inherited a library of precious books the size of three streets, and he commanded they be burned because they are not necessary for the existence of religion or for fear of harm. And besides, no nation will obey your order to destroy all the belongings of its past. They will fight over it with devotion (but you are absolutely permitted because you have no need for it at all). Indeed, even if a spirit of madness takes over the land to obey them to do this, they must spare this giant structure of several generations being lost for no reason at all.

Thus, you must leave the “You have chosen us” of each nation in tact, to the extent that they want it. Only the material basis of each nation should be abolished, since that basis has now reached its term, and it is in crisis by itself. For this reason, it might take correction from whichever hand reaches out to it. However, along with it we must give full and complete confidence to each and every nation that their spiritual assets will be kept in full. We cannot argue about statements that oppose socialism as we do with religion, since both legislators and religious authorities admit that “renunciation of a court is renunciation, and the law of the land is the binding law.” For this reason, all those laws that fundamentally oppose the socialism will remain as obsolete history, for now, too, there is already a large majority concealed and unused. Before us are three forces in reality, fighting one another. And although it contradicts the view of Marxists, who take into account only two forces into consideration—abusers and abused—it is an abstract theory that has no more merit than all its preceding theories. However, according to the basis of Marxism itself, we should take into account only what is practical, not endless theories. This is why I have chosen to detect three forces as though they were set before our eyes in reality.

New class division: quick and idle
Let us assume that one nation is idle, and another nation is naturally more nimble. And what one does in two hours, the other does in an hour. Naturally, there will be complaints: One will say that all the nations should work the same number of hours, and the other will say that what counts is the amount they produce. And as it is with those who argue, each will insist. What is the foundation by which the court will decide? If it is according to the principle, “give as much as you can and receive as much as you need,” it still does not necessitate an equal amount of time. And if we judge the nations according to the amount of work, then individuals, too, have a similar argument, and the industrious will work half as much as the weak. Thus, you have prepared for yourself a new class of quick, and a class of idle. You could say that there is power in the idle majority to force the quick minority in the nation, but there is certainly no such power between the nations. Thus, you will create classes among the nations, and abusers and abused among individuals.

The arrival of the redeemer
This is not new, for the founders themselves knew it, as he says […] that in the beginning they will see how this is possible through compromise, and will finally come to true ideals, to the highest degree of socialism, where each gives as much as he can, then takes only as much as he needs, meaning the same as the idle. This can be done only by the arrival of the redeemer, when the earth is full of knowledge. Then the giver will understand that he is serving his God, giving satisfaction to his Maker.

The idealistic instincts have already struck numerous roots in the human race. They have also come and become antiquated and have gained a foothold in a place where no one can reach, namely the subconscious in the elongated brain, which moves man’s nerves by itself, without the person’s awareness. This is why they have experimented in Russia, as it is known that they did not do a thing in all their wars. These warriors should know that the human heart will give them anything if they only leave it with its own ideals, which have come to it by inheritance from past generations in one’s subconscious. If they insist on destroying this legacy, too, they themselves will suffer the consequences, for the heat and the sulfur is accumulating bit by bit until it is filled to the brim and begins to explode. And besides all that, a new generation is growing, who know not Joseph (Exodus 1:8) [see BT Sotah 11a]. They do not understand the need and necessity to abandon private property at all from their flesh and blood, but only according to a dry theory. For this reason, the devotion to private property that is buried deep in their subconscious from past generations, after all the learning, one fine day they will establish camps of young people from all sides, and they themselves will put the elderly to death with all their property and wisdom. It is so because an ideology does not come to a person from the intellect, but only from life’s experiences, out of affection and a combination of good and bad, like automated machines. The mind has no control over the body, as it is completely foreign to us. Hence, those young socialists who have acquired knowledge through their own wit cannot be trusted whatsoever, and they will pop like a soap bubble.

One last word of policy
At that time, three forces will sit on the throne in the councils—right, left, and middle. They will argue and strife with one another: the right opposing the liberty in the left, and the left opposing the reactionism of the right, and the neutral will give room to both, and the majority will solve and determine. Indeed, in one, they have already come to a solution, namely sharing all necessary and positive needs of life, meaning equal sharing of all the needs of the economy: one land to all who are living on it, and one division in its material pleasures. All the trials and arguments they will load on the suffering of spiritual predicates, along with the three degrees—envy, lust, and honor—they will turn and restrict themselves only to the spiritual boundaries.

This version will indeed be the final word of policy because it will forever remain an inexorable law. It is so because according to the development of the human species, so will views separate and intensify, and each one will be far more obstinate than one is currently so about one’s fortune. There is no hope to come out of this strait unless people begin to regress into the form of fools, meaning be emptied from all of their reason. For this reason, there will be almost as many parties as there are people, and there is no solution to it other than the fixed law, “follow the majority.” At that time people will make among them various compromises until they gather into groups. And in the groups, there will be competition with the oppositions until the opposition itself will separate. Thus, the big groups will split into small ones, and the small ones into tiny ones, as well as trade among themselves, as is customary nowadays. However, this negotiation must acquire a more acrid form each time, precisely according to the measure of development of views without compromise forever, for so it should be forever. However, in one—in private property—they have already arrived at an agreed upon solution: Each will give as much as a successful one can give, and receive as much as an unsuccessful one, without adding even as much as a hairsbreadth. And the work hours will be equal to all, by order. And besides the obligation, there will be additional time to the veterans, who will give compared to the weak, to completely exempt them and not afflict them. This is similar to today’s charity. Also, in each city and community, the weak will be distributed equally. And if there are many volunteers in the community, then all the weak will be exempted. If there are few, then only some of them, the weakest, will be exempted. One who breaks these rules will be punished either by giving his portion, or by criminal punishment.

The anterior of an idea
The truthfulness of the spirit of pleasure of one who expresses it is evident. I have become a c[…] although […] many years prior, while I did not pay attention until I saw them speaking and arguing. Then I recognized the truth as it is. It is a law that one who is completely untroubled will not be satisfied by material possessions. Even when engaged in an ideal, one must feel pleasure during the engagement. The measure of spirit and delight that one feels depends on the truthfulness of the ideal with which he is engaged. Thus, we have found for truth an anterior face by which to know it, meaning by merely looking at the person who expresses it, whether he is enjoying or not. And the amount of pleasure is the amount of truth. This is what has brought me to believe in this idea, for until then I have never seen anyone to express any idea with such contentment and delight as they.

The absolute truth
If there are no absolute truths, but temporary ones, then I say that each truth in itself is the absolute truth for its time. It is just since it cannot be said about some reality that is about to die that it is regarded as dead, since while it is alive, it is an absolute reality. Everything is operated either voluntarily or by coercion, and the mind does not force. Therefore, we have a question: Who will move the socialist when he acts? What source will spur his desire to move, or by what force will coercion come upon him? It is so because at that time, movement will become to him a kind of private property, and every person is meticulous about his energy, to not disperse it uselessly even more than for his fortune. And if the socialism is not because he is deficient, due to saving of energy, then he will certainly not squander the energy in vain. Thus, from where will justice or compassion come?

Hastening its ripening through religion
The socialist ideal requires ripening in one’s heart for at least three entire generations, and peace and general agreement [cf. Zohar 3:14a–b: “It is difficult to remove filth from (the nations), even up to three generations. Therefore we have learned: ‘The best among the Gentiles…’ (MekhiltaBeshallaḥ 1)”]. Therefore, the world will undergo many more attempts and cycles before it comes to fruition, but there is no easier way to ripen the idea than through religion.

He Flung from the Heavens to the Earth the Beauty of Israel

“וַיִּשְׁלַח (Va-yishlaḥ), and [Jacob] sent, messengers before him [to Esau his brother] (Genesis 32:4)…. [Sent messengers] before him—to [Esau] whose time had come to take hold of the kingship before him [Jacob]. Rabbi Yehoshu’a [son of Levi] said: שָׁלַח (Shalaḥ), he took off, the purple [mantle], and threw it down before him, saying to him: Two roosters cannot sleep on one board [i.e., two nations cannot rule at the same time] (Bereshit Rabbah 75:4).

“הִשְׁלִיךְ (Hishlikh), He flung, from the heavens to the earth the beauty of Israel (Lamentations 2:1). Rabbi Huna son of Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Abbahu: A parable: Like a king who had a son. The son wept, so he placed him upon his knees. The son wept, and the king took him in his arms. He wept again, and the king set him upon his shoulders. [Then the child] soiled him, immediately he flung him down to earth. His ascent was not like his descent: his ascent was bit by bit, but his descent was all at once. Similarly: Yes I taught Ephraim to walk, took him by his arms (Hosea 11:3). And after that: Yoked Ephraim that he would plow, Judah that Jacob would harrow (ibid. 10:11). And after that: He flung from the heavens to the earth the beauty of Israel. Their ascent was not like their descent: their ascent was bit by bit, but their descent was all at once” (Eikhah Rabbah 2:1).

He flung from the heavens to the earth the beauty of Israel, [nor did He recall His footstool on the day of His wrath] (Lamentations 2:1). If so, they have fallen. He replied: ‘If they have read [once] but not repeated, if they have read it a second time but not a third…’ (BT Berakhot 18a) [see for example Amos 9:11: I will raise up the fallen shelter of David]. A parable: A king had a lovely diadem upon his head and a lovely mantle upon his shoulder. An evil rumor came to him and he flung the diadem from upon his head and the mantle from before him” (Bahir §33).