In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Israel Studies 9.3 (2004) 80-114



[Access article in PDF]

The Utopia of Theodor Herzl

Preface

Zionism has never been a purely political matter—it has never devoted itself exclusively to the establishment of a safe political framework, an independent state or an autonomous political home for the Jewish people, either in the Land of Israel or in some other territory, without seeking to reshape different dimensions of this national entity that had lost its territorial basis. A pure political framework, without any social context, is an abstraction; the state, and any similar political institution, is an aspect, or dimension, of society, which interacts with other aspects, or dimensions. The establishment of a state, or any other political entity, is essentially the establishment of a complex social whole. So Zionism has necessarily been an attempt to reshape different relations and activities constituting a renewed, territory-based, and politically safe Jewish community.

Zionism should be defined as a territory-based revival of the Jewish people—a revival that includes different aspects, such as the renewal of the Jewish national identity, socioeconomic renewal, and a cultural and linguistic re-birth. Being a multidimensional revival of the Jewish people, Zionism has necessarily become a multi-faceted struggle over the nature of the future independent Jewish community—to be built in a certain territory—the building of which was popularly defined, according to one of its aspects, as the establishment of a Jewish state. Zionist visionaries, thinkers, and leaders, and Zionist movements and parties usually developed complex visions regarding the nature of that community, and conceptions regarding the form of the political institutions were integrated into these visions. Socioeconomic conceptions were an essential part of all Zionist visions, because the establishment of a new community is necessarily the building of a certain social order.

Theodor Herzl, whose activity and teachings have been dubbed Political Zionism, as though Zionism could have been purely political, developed a comprehensive socioeconomic vision that culminated in a utopian [End Page 80] socialist vision. This vision—which has almost been forgotten, although it is not hidden in unpublished manuscripts—places Herzl in both the Zionist socialist tradition and the Zionist utopian tradition. The transformation of a large number of kibbutzim into non-socialist communities that has been taking place for the last ten years heralds the crumbling of the Zionist utopian tradition, of which Herzl has been a major, often forgotten, founder. As this tradition may near its end, both theoretically and practically, scientific research on its contribution to the building of the politically independent Jewish community in the Land of Israel might be a proper enterprise. Any such research must include an exposition of utopian thinkers and teachings from the very beginning of Zionism up to recent times. Rachel Elboim-Dror presents a panoramic view in her pioneer work Yesterday's Tomorrow, suggesting that Herzl's utopia appearing in Old-New Land is a chapter, or a link, in a long Zionist utopian tradition.1 As will be later explained, if we adhere to the original concept of utopianism, Zionism has not produced many utopias. Thus, Herzl's utopia is a major chapter in a relatively small trend in Zionism that culminated in the theory and practice of the kibbutz movement.

For Herzl, as for many other Zionists, socioeconomic renewal should be a major dimension—or even the pivot—of the multifaceted revival or rejuvenation of the Jewish people. Continuing the tradition created by Moses Hess, Herzl conceived of this revival as building a productive society based on social justice. Thus, the new society to be built in the chosen territory should foster agriculture and industry and adopt, in production as well as in distribution, a full or partial socialist system. In The Jews' State [Der Judenstaat] and in the Diaries, he developed a social scheme that nowadays would be termed a "welfare state," while in his novel Old-New Land, published six years later, he developed a utopian social scheme culminating in the abolition of the state. Some aspects of the welfare state were integrated into the higher, utopian stage. The welfare state, which...

pdf

Share