Poale Zion was a left-Zionist party. For the left Zionist movement, the role of this organization was highly significant. Almost all workers’ Zionist organizations and movements emerged from it. Since, at the time of its founding, the party included many active Bundists and representatives of other ideological trends, Poale Zion did not maintain unanimity on many issues. This lack of unity was also evident in Latvia.
In Riga, Poale Zion began its activities already in the autumn of 1919, based on the B. Borochov Club. In the second half of September 1919, a general meeting of members of the Jewish Social Democratic Workers’ Party Poale Zion (JSDWP PZ) was held at the Borochov Club, at which a committee was formed that announced the re-registration of party members. At that time, Latvian Poale Zion comprised seven organizations.
In 1920–1921, the ranks of Poale Zion in Latvia were replenished through a split in the Tseirei Zion party. However, the party was not unified and was torn by factional struggle. In 1922, at the Second All-Latvian Conference of the Jewish Section of the Latvian Communist Party (LCP), it was noted that “within the ranks of Poale Zion three tendencies are emerging: the right wing—opponents of accepting the conditions of the Comintern; an unstable center; and the left wing—supporters of unconditional entry into the section.” The left wing of Tseirei Zion, the document states, “forms the social-democratic wing of Poale Zion.”
It is known that in the early 1920s there was also a Poale Zion branch in Tukums, although it was not very active. In the Council of the Jewish community of the town, this organization was represented by ?. Dedinsky. He and Dr. Berner were delegates to the Third All-Latvian Party Conference. After the coup, both were arrested and, after their release, emigrated to Palestine.
In 1919–1920, in connection with Poale Zion in Riga, another party is also mentioned—the United Socialist Workers’ Party (OESRP; Fareinigte [United]). The OESRP was anti-Zionist and was also identified with the Jewish Communist Party (EKP). The interests of OESRP and Poale Zion did not always coincide; however, repeated attempts were made to unite the United Jewish Socialist (Communist) Workers’ Party with Poale Zion.
Possibly under the influence of M. Shats-Anin, the leadership of Poale Zion proposed that the OESRP (United) coordinate their activities, which alarmed the Central Bureau of the Jewish Sections and stimulated the Jewish Section’s efforts to win over the left wing of Poale Zion.
Judging from documents, the Communist Party viewed Zionist organizations as serious opponents. Moreover, in the early 1920s the left considered members of Poale Zion to be their principal adversaries. At a Central Committee meeting in 1922 it was stated: “the issue concerning P-Z is particularly acute and a fierce struggle is taking place.” At a meeting of the Central Bureau of the Jewish Section and a representative of the Central Committee (9 March 1922), the question was raised of publishing in Russian a collection for Jewish and Russian youth, which was to include more than ten materials exposing the opponents of left radicals, among them Poale Zionism, the petty bourgeoisie, and bourgeois Zionism. It was also noted that in issue no. 2 of Pravda Molodezhi (“Youth Truth”) an article titled “Our Opponents among Jewish Youth” (primarily directed against Poale Zion) was published.
Taking advantage of the disunity among Poale Zion members, the Central Bureau of the Jewish Sections in March 1922 took further “steps to combat Poale Zion.” Here is the English translation of your passage:
Moreover, in the early 1920s the left regarded the members of Poale Zion as their principal adversaries. At a Central Committee meeting (1922), it was stated that “the question of P-Z is particularly acute, and a sharp struggle is taking place in relation to P-Z.”
At a meeting of the Central Bureau of the Jewish Section and a representative of the Central Committee (9 March 1922), the issue was raised of publishing in Russian a collection intended for Jewish and Russian youth, in which it was planned to include more than ten materials exposing the opponents of left-wing radicals, among them Poale Zionism, the petty bourgeoisie, and bourgeois Zionism. It was also noted that in issue no. 2 of Pravda Molodezhi (“Youth Truth”) there appeared an article titled “Our Opponents among Jewish Youth” (primarily directed against Poale Zion).
Taking advantage of the disunity among Poale Zion members, the Central Bureau of the Jewish Sections in March 1922 undertook further “steps to combat Poale Zion.” These measures were apparently successful, since by early November of the same year members of the Jewish Section declared that Poale Zion no longer needed to be reckoned with: only bourgeois youths remained in its ranks, some of whom had withdrawn out of fear of persecution, and only two organizations out of the original seven remained.
However, Poale Zion disappeared from the political scene in Latvia not only, and not so much, as a result of the efforts of the Jewish Section and other critics. However, the Poale Zion party in Latvia disappeared from the political scene not only, and not so much, as a result of the efforts of the Jewish Section (Yevsektsiya) and other critics. The local Poale Zion lacked unity and was organizationally weak. This made it possible to draw away its left-leaning members.
Paradoxical as it may sound, the unification of at least part of the Poale Zion members and members of Fareynigte took place as a result of the founding of the Arbeterheim (Workers’ House). This cultural and educational organization, whose work was directed by the communist faction, was created as a unified center of cultural activity for the Jewish population of Riga by decision of a conference attended by representatives of the Bund, the United Jewish Socialist Party (Fareynigte), the Jewish Social-Democratic Workers’ Party Poale Zion, the B. Borokhov and “Karmel” clubs, as well as the Jewish Democratic Teachers’ Union. Left-wing elements of Poale Zion, the Borokhov Club, Fareynigte, and other organizations joined it, and this most likely became one of the principal reasons for Poale Zion’s withdrawal from the political arena.
M. Bobe reports that there were left-wing Poale Zion members who stood close to the communists, among whom a leading role was played by M. Shats-Anin. This is confirmed by documents: some Poale Zion members joined the ranks of the underground Communist Party of Latvia. For example, one document states that Communist Party member “Krel Yakov Ruvimovich belonged to the Poale Zion organization from 1922 to 1925” (April 1936).
Those members of Poale Zion who did not agree with the ideology of the Arbeterheim joined the left-wing Zionists of Latvia — either Tseirei Zion or the Zionist Socialists (also referred to in the press by the abbreviation Z.S.). Most likely, however, they joined the Zionist Socialists. This is also indicated by the fact that internationally, in 1925, the Zionist Socialists united with the social-democratic wing of Poale Zion (after its split from the pro-communist faction of the movement).
In left-wing Yiddish newspapers and other sources, Poale Zion as a local political organization is no longer mentioned beginning in the second half of 1924. However, it may have continued to function in Latvia until 1925. This is evidenced by the above-mentioned fact of Y. R. Krel’s membership in the organization in 1922–1925, as well as another report published in Segodnya (“Today”), stating that in late September 1925, at the Jewish Students’ Society of the University of Latvia, Adler, a member of the Central Bureau of Poale Zion, delivered a lecture entitled “Socialism and Zionism.”
All of the above allows the conclusion that the Poale Zion party in Latvia did not enjoy great influence and did not leave a deep mark on the Zionist movement