Who are the Anti-Germans?

[Edelweiss]

Who are the Anti-Germans?
by the group sinistra! from Frankfurt/Main, Germany

As there doesn‘t exist any formal organizational structure it is impossible to speak of “the” anti-Germans as a homogeneous movement.

Historically anti-German theory is a radicalization of anti-national theory. Already in the course of WW1 the later communist leader Karl Liebknecht strongly opposed the growing national mood and the erosion of internationalism in the German (and European) social-democracy stating “Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land” (the most dangerous enemy is to be found in your own country). But such views remained minoritarian. A kind of (inter)nationalism, which does not question the concept of nation states as such – if it is not a kind of nationalism itself – remained dominant in the German left for a long time.

Neither did anti-nationalism become a coherent theory nor a broader movement until the late eighties or early nineties when the traditional anti-imperialists were criticized by a post-modern, Foucault inspired left for defending a concept of people (‘volk’) as an almost biological identity instead of deconstructing it. Besides, it became obvious that the national liberation movements around the world (e.g. IRA, ETA, PKK, …) did no longer (if ever) fight for socialism but for purely nationalistic motives only.

The xenophobic outbursts and the growing nationalism after the German “reunification” in 1990 made the simplified old-school-left distinction between a progressive working-class versus a reactionary upper-class more and more ridiculous. Those burning down the homes of refugees, waving German flags and shouting fascist slogans were for the most part members of the working-class. The dark shadows of the German past became more and more threatening and a new and accurate study of German history – that is to say German national socialism – was an obvious consequence for some in the German left. It became clear that an emancipatorical left cannot rely on the German working-classes but must stand in opposition to the vast majority in this country; a majority who advocates racism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, a majority with a deep authoritarian disposition and a majority that did not change too much since their parents or grandparents committed the most horrible crime in mankind’s history: the mass murder of six million European Jews. In this crime, that is symbolized by the name of the death camp Auschwitz, the anti-Germans recognize the ultimate break with the basic rules of a civilized society: Colonialism, imperialism and wars were linked with massacres and all kinds of atrocities, but followed a certain rational calculation, the instrumental rationality of capitalism, that seeks – in general – to preserve its reproductive basis, i.e. those to be exploited, what limits the brutality and institutionalized violence in a capitalist society to a certain extent.

Up to now, only the Germans managed to install a mass-murderous ideology – racial antisemitism – as a program that was to be realized by a cooperation of mob and elite, by a fusion of total state, capital and work(ers). This project not only theoretically labeled ‘the Jew’ as the head of an international conspiracy of capitalist and communist forces against the ‘Aryan race’, as a ‘negative principle’, in contradiction to the harmony of the German ‘volksgemeinschaft’, but tried to put this madness to practice: The Germans hunted for every Jew throughout Europe – old or young, rich or poor, left or right, atheist or orthodox – and shot or gassed every Jew they captured. It was even planned to eradicate all Jews worldwide – the ideology of annihilation fully triumphed over any economic, political or military logic.

Against the ignorance of an alienated world that not only created Auschwitz but also a mentality of people that, instead of intervening, looked on as their neighbours were being murdered in the gas-chambers, Theodor W. Adorno formulated a new categorical imperative: It demands that everything has to be done, so that Auschwitz or anything similar may never happen again. But as long as there exist the concepts of state, capital, nation and a specific coldness of the modern subject, i.e. the social foundations that made Auschwitz possible, we can never be sure that such an insane mass murder will not happen again.

Especially this fact made a re-formulation of anti-national theory necessary. Even though nationalism, racism and antisemitism are universal phenomena, to be found to a certain extent everywhere in the world, it is undeniable that they became nowhere else as murderous as in Germany. So when anti-national means the abolishment of all nation-states, anti-German means that all nation-states should be abolished, but Germany – the origin of an unprecedented mass-murder – should be the first and Israel as the refuge of the surviving victims of German atrocities the last nation-state to vanish (and should decide for itself).

In this sense solidarity with Israel does not mean commenting on the concrete politics of the state of Israel or its representatives, though Israel – as each other state, too – is formed by the interest of its national capital, practices exploitation of the Israeli proletarians and is structured by racist segregation. But anti-German criticism has to emphasize that Israel is not to be treated as any other “normal” nation-state, as it is the only spot on earth, where those who are still subject to anti-Semitic attacks on a daily basis can defend themselves effectively. Auschwitz, where no-one stood by the Jews to prevent their eradication – neither the crematoria nor the railway tracks to the death camps were bombed – proved the necessity of this institution of Jewish political emancipation with a strong military arm to guarantee its existence. In these days Israel’s right to exist is not only denied openly by neo-nazis and islamistic fanatics but also in an indirect way by anti-Israeli governments in the West and a left who is camouflaging its obvious anti-Semitism as “anti-Zionism”.

The position towards the United States is pretty much disputed within the anti-German movement. All anti-Germans have in common to denounce anti-Americanism though. Anti-Americanism has been a constitutive factor of the German society after World War 2. Similar stereotypes seem to be working in the left as well as in the right. So anti-Germans are making it a point to break with this tradition of thinking.

But there are major differences within the anti-German movement concerning this issue. While it is common sense to make mention of the American role in World War 2 and the fact that the people in the concentration camps were freed by the allied powers and not by the German left, as often as necessary, some anti-German groups (often referred to as “hardcore anti-Germans”, although this term might be quite misleading) made it a point to celebrate every single move in American foreign politics in the past and present. Instead of just giving the US credit for the major role they’ve played in defeating Nazi-Germany in World War 2 and thereby putting an end to the holocaust, these groups are drawing close similarities between WW 2 and the “War on Terror”. By this they are putting the reactionary and anti-Semitic regimes in the so called Islamic world on one level with the Nazis. This is not only a serious minimization of the nazi era and the holocaust, but also a violation of the (radicalized) categorical imperative of Karl Liebknecht, that the main enemy is one’s “own country”. These anti-Germans see themselves on the side of civilization and declare Islam their main target instead of Germany.

In contrast to this position, we see our mission not in a form of policy that tries to advise the one or the other government what they should do, but in a sort of radical criticism of the basic forms of capitalist society. Anti-Americanism in this sense is a paradoxical product of capitalism: though conservative, left- and right wing-forces in Germany see themselves as ‘anti-capitalist’ and maintain to reject ‘commerce’, ‘money-culture’ or ‘casino-capitalism’, tendencies which they suppose to be culminating in the USA, they tend on the other side to bind themselves through this mode of superficial criticism stronger to a form of ‘good’ and ‘social’ European capitalism. Communist criticism should, instead of staring at phenomena like ‘Hollywood’ or ‘McDonald’s’ and propagating a ‘not-so-decadent-capitalism’, attack the roots of the capitalist society: the mode of production that commodifies every aspect of our lives under the merciless rule of the value.

Of course we do cooperate with antifascist, feminist and anti-racist groups. For us all forms of discrimination and prejudice must be confronted likewise: Racism, antisemitism, sexism and homophobia contradict any idea of a better society and as long as any one of the above mentioned ideologies exist it will be impossible to speak of emancipation.

As past and present of the American society differ from the circumstances in Germany, we are aware of the fact that the people in the USA who are interested in general emancipation stick to another position than the anti-Germans. Yet we think that there can not only be some kind of mutual learning, but also in some areas a practical cooperation. As the USA is still an important partner in terms of economy and military, it is able to establish a kind of political pressure on German government. The press campaigns against German enterprises like BMW and BASF during the latest round of negotiations about compensations for slave labor during national socialism showed that there can be a positive effect if this pressure is applied in a reasonable manner. Although the result was in the end quite poor and most of the former slave laborers have been left unpaid, this example could be nevertheless a paradigm for future campaigns of the American left against German politics.
http://bikinibottom.blogsport.de/2007/03/01/who-are-the-anti-germans/

[Sasha]

thanx for posting this, i'll leave it to Ravachol to demolish their theory since he will do it way better than i could.

i'll just repeat what i always say when it comes to anti-german theory:
yes, yes, agree, yes, whoahaa how the hell did you come to that conclusion

[Yehuda Stern]

Since you have posted this without comment, are we to understand you're endorsing anti-German theory? It certainly sits well with your support for Israel, or whatever diplomatic way you refer to it.

At any rate, the theory is ludicrous. The state of Israel is an oppressive, colonialist state, which murders Palestinians daily and makes a Palestinian Auschwitz a real possibility in the future. It is a deathtrap for the Jewish masses living inside of it, as it gives them privileges at the expense of millions of Palestinians and other Arab peoples, pitting them against these oppressed masses, thus making them victims of terrorist attacks that are caused by their rulers actions. Far from being the only place where Jews can defend themselves, it is possibly the country today where Jews are most likely to be killed for being Jews and nothing else.

But again, what is special about Jews? The Nazi holocaust had a specific aim of murdering all Jews, yes. But it also targeted many other groups: Roma, for example. Why do the anti-Germans not demand that land be allotted to them? Why do they not zealously defend the existence of the states of the former Soviet Union, given that 20 million of their citizens were murdered by the Nazis, over three times the number of Jews murdered by the same movement?

Another ridiculous point is the anti-Germans' opposition to anti-Americanism. The article state: "some anti-German groups [...] made it a point to celebrate every single move in American foreign politics in the past and present. Instead of just giving the US credit for the major role they’ve played in defeating Nazi-Germany in World War 2 and thereby putting an end to the holocaust". Yet the article, which blasts the Allies for not doing anything to prevent the holocaust, fails to mention that the US imperialists are also to blame for this, and that they too closed their gates to Jewish immigration, thus ensuring the doom of many European Jews.

Given these clear logical contradictions, it is clear that anti-German rhetoric re "anti-Semitism" is nothing but hogwash and that their support for Israel and the USA comes from their general support for Western imperialism rather than any progressive sentiment one could dig up.

[Edelweiss]

Since you have posted this without comment, are we to understand you're endorsing anti-German theory?

I posted for discussion not because I agree with everything it says. I don't.

Also, there seems to be a lot of ignorance and misconception here about what anti-German theory really is, so I thought I would care for some enlightenment here.


The state of Israel is an oppressive, colonialist state, which murders Palestinians daily and makes a Palestinian Auschwitz a real possibility in the future.
This is a quiet tasteless comparison. You should now better. I don't even want to explain to you why the situation in Israel/Palestine can not remotely be compared to the industrialized mass killings of 6 million people. If the Israelis would just remotely seek the "Endlösung" (final solution) just like the Nazis did with the Jews, the conflict would have been "solved" long time ago...


Far from being the only place where Jews can defend themselves, it is possibly the country today where Jews are most likely to be killed for being Jews and nothing elsr

this is a sad fact I guess and I acknowledge it.


But again, what is special about Jews? The Nazi holocaust had a specific aim of murdering all Jews, yes. But it also targeted many other groups: Roma, for example.

agreed


Why do they not zealously defend the existence of the states of the former Soviet Union, given that 20 million of their citizens were murdered by the Nazis, over three times the number of Jews murdered by the same movement?

I don't see any contradiction here and I don't understand your logic. Certainly, the states of the former SU are not remotely comparable to Israel. I acknowledge your comparison with the Roma, who have been victim of the holocaust just as the Jews, and who have been a stateless minority and have been victims of pogroms and persecution for centuries, just like the Jews. They are victim of the Nazi's industrialized mass killings, the holocaust, a crime without example, and as the article put is "annihilation fully triumphed over any economic, political or military logic". The difference here to those who have been murdered within the Nazi's sick conquest attempts of the SU, most of them soldiers, is pretty clear. Also, I'm quiet sure that most anti-Germans do actually defend the former SU.


Yet the article, which blasts the Allies for not doing anything to prevent the holocaust, fails to mention that the US imperialists are also to blame for this, and that they too closed their gates to Jewish immigration, thus ensuring the doom of many European Jews.

I don't agree with anti-German defense of US imperialism. But what you say makes no sense, as you said yourself, the article actually mentions the lack of help by the US. I'm not sure you have actually understand the anti-German line here. For anti-Germans, and I guess for many Zionists in general, the fact that the allies did nothing to actively stop the holocaust, for example by bombing the railway tracks, you could also mention their closure of gates to Jewish refugees, is just on more proof of the necessity of a Jewish state, where Jews are able to defend themselves by their own.

Yehuda, I would have thought you would do a bit better in revealing any supposed contradictions in the article.you found some where are none, and you didn't find those who are existing...you disappoint me. ;)

[Yehuda Stern]

Edelweiss: If I disappointed you, well that's just something I'll have to learn to live with (something tells me I'll be fine). But I don't think that's quite the way to put it. Rather, since we both have very different attitudes to the question of Zionism, diametrically opposed attitudes almost, it's natural we would find different problems in anti-Germanism.

First of all, I never said that Israel is today carrying out a holocaust against Palestinians. But I said that Israel is preparing a Palestinian Auschwitz, which no one with serious knowledge of the level of racism and anti-Arab brutality in Israel can deny. If the Zionism won't be dealt with in a revolutionary way, it could easily bring about a fascist regime which would endeavor to physically annihilate the Palestinians. If you don't believe me, check out some extreme right Zionists websites and see what they suggest regarding Palestinians.

Also, I don't think that your counter-arguments regarding ex-SU states are at all correct. If anything, the fact that so many Soviet citizens (and I remind you that the figure of 20 million is only of citizens - if you add soldiers it should be much more) were killed in the war by the Nazis just shows, again, that having a national state is no guarantee of safety for the masses.

As for the US, I didn't see that the anti-Germans specifically condemned it for not trying to destroy death camps etc. It talks about "the Allies", which the US was part of, but given its special attitude towards the US specifically - not Britain, or France, for example - one gets the impression that the writers of the article are simply trying to avoid the question of what makes the US better than any of the other countries that idly stood by as masses of Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Oh, and that category also includes the Zionist movement - but that's an especially uncomfortable detail for pro-Zionists!

[Ravachol]

Edelweiss notified me of this thread and I'll repost my comments in the thread on the anti-german ban of Oi-Polloi here:



but there is/was a problem with anti-semitism in anti-imperialist leftism (true)


The whole anti-impie position is bullshit yes, as examplified by the ridiculous positions of Maoism-Third Worldism. I support some struggles of national liberaton, but the lengths to which some anti-impies go are completely batshit insane (defending Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, Pol Pot's policies,etc).



germany shouldnt have been reunited because that was an guarantee it wouldnt start an 3th world war (kinda true although the cold war was partly fought in germany)


I strongly disagree with the notions that form the basis of that 'bring the wall back' logic. It often ammounts to assumptions 'German culture' is 'intrinsically' anti-semitic and imperialist, a ridiculously homogenic identity-politics position.



kibutzim/labour-zionism is influenced by communism (true)


To a degree. But the same goes for the PFLP (which is more influenced by communism actually). That logic leads us nowhere. Labour-Zionism is a dead end, Zionism (which I define as the movement seeking to Establish a state around the Jewish Identity in the area covering contemporary Israel and Palestine) itself is imperialist and follows exclusion-based nationalist logic. Obviously Jews have the right to live in that area, just like they have the right to live anywhere. 'Palestinian' movements seeking to bar Jews from living in Palestine or treating them as second-class citizens are no better imo. That is, however, no excuse for zionism of any kind.



oh, and waiving royal air force/israeli flags and shouting about bomber harris pisses of the nazi's like no tomorow and thats fun (true)

Yes and it also serves the cause of internationalist class-struggle no good.



(emphasis mine)

The left can be so full of fucking pricks sometimes!

Sadly, yes. But that's mainly the result of 'lifestylist' and undereducated 'activist' (for whom activism is a goal and not a means) elements in the movement. I'm accused of elitism at times because of this but I couldn't care less, activism is to serve a purpose and not a hobby-desire.


As for Oi Polloi, I love the band, it's great music and great fun live.
I must say I detest the song 'commies and nazis' though. It's an example of the reproduction of the bourgoisie notion of the 'extremism construct' first of all ignoring the diffuse nature of 'communism' (and it's Libertarian and Anarchist permutations as well) and secondly equating Authoritarian Communism with Fascism, which is, politically, historically and practically speaking a complete joke. It's an infantile position that serves nobody but the bourgoisie 'extremism construct' thesis.


well not only. It was of course also a reaction to a new German nationalism after 1989 and fears of new German super power fantasies.


This i can understand, but I fail to see how this would be a typically 'German' phenomenon or why this is even linked to the concept of 'Germany'. The whole anti-deutsche phenomenon seems to reproduce the concept of 'Germany' more than it does to destroy it.



But it was also a reaction and result of a reflection to the anti-Zionist, and often anti-Semitic excesses and the entire uncritical support of the Palestinian resistance by the leftist anti-imperialist camp of the 1970s and 80s.


I agree with this and I'm rather fierce on the subject myself as well. I detest the mindless third-worldist anti-impie position. But I fail to see how supporting an imperialist bourgoisie nation-state and it's even worse allies (the US) is gonna solve anything really.



I think their overdone cautiousness of anti-semitism is better than the entirely unreflected stance that is being held by large parts of today's anti-imperialist, Leninist Left.

Partially, cautiousness should also be taken not to devolve in the opposite direction either, which happened to the anti-deutsche.



Theodor W. Adorno formulated a new categorical imperative: It demands that everything has to be done, so that Auschwitz or anything similar may never happen again.


This kind of logic is very prevalent in the left and although not always the case, to many activists the scream 'DO ANYTHING' implies literally 'anything', without critical evaluation and it's relation to the larger struggle ahead. Weird moves can be made following this logic, one example is the anti-D embrace of Zionism another the anti-imp embrace of anti-semitic reactionary 'liberation' *cough* movements.



But as long as there exist the concepts of state, capital, nation and a specific coldness of the modern subject, i.e. the social foundations that made Auschwitz possible, we can never be sure that such an insane mass murder will not happen again.


This is true, but I do not see how some hardline anti-D's fail to recognize this tendency within Zionism as well. Zionism, especially pseudo-ethnic Zionism operates according to the same logic as any exclusion-based ethno-nationalist movement. A logic that leads to dehumanisation and industrial-scale genocide.



Especially this fact made a re-formulation of anti-national theory necessary. Even though nationalism, racism and antisemitism are universal phenomena, to be found to a certain extent everywhere in the world, it is undeniable that they became nowhere else as murderous as in Germany.


Despite the fact that this is not completely true (Rwanda was pretty shocking as well), the Holocaust was indeed a unique event in history. The theoretical mistake to make here is to assume it was a specifically GERMAN phenomenon. It was a phenomenon resulting from material and social conditions at the time, which happened to be configured the worst in Germany. Claiming it could ONLY have happened in Germany is mystical bullshit.



but Germany – the origin of an unprecedented mass-murder –


Origin does not imply causality. Deconstructing this arguments lays bare the naked notion that the holocaust was INTRINSICALLY 'German'. An argument which is itself homogenizing and which reproduces the notion of 'Germany' as a monolithic homogenic 'culture'. It's logic is rooted in the same flawed logic that underlies the idea of 'national unity'. Nation is a social construct, nothing else. There is no such thing as 'intrinsic' characteristics of a said nation. The entire argument is unstable.



should be the first and Israel as the refuge of the surviving victims of German atrocities the last nation-state to vanish


And this is why? Not only does this, again, reproduce the concept of nation, it homogenizes hordes of people, working class and bourgoisie, along 'national' lines according to a flawed accusation of 'intrinsic evil'.

Even if this were true (which it most certainly is not) the fact that some holocaust survivors migrated towards Israel does not say anything about the social construct that is 'Israel'. There is bourgoisie and working class in the Israel of today and I couldn't give two shits about the former. Reproducing the concept of 'National Unity' with a base in a shared experience (Ie. the Holocaust) is really the same logic of the 'National Myth' that serves as the supposed founding base of modern-day nation-states. The 'Arminius rebelled against the Romans and gave us our collective freedom through Germany'-myth doesn't differ that much from 'We survived the Holocaust and guarantee our collective freedom through Israel'.

If we want to prevent something like the holocaust from happening again we have to fight precisely this logic (and in the case of the holocaust, anti-semitism as well).



(and should decide for itself).


They can't be serious. A nation-state, a construct of complex dominant power relations intertwined with bourgoisie domination and it's logic optimizing exploitation of the working class is hardly gonna dissolve itself now is it.

Also the 'it' (Israel) the quote is referring to is a reproduction of the concept of 'National Unity' again, there is no 'Israel' that speaks with a collective voice. There is working class and there is bourgoisie.

I hope this contributes a little to the discussion.

[Ravachol]

For anti-Germans, and I guess for many Zionists in general, the fact that the allies did nothing to actively stop the holocaust, for example by bombing the railway tracks, you could also mention their closure of gates to Jewish refugees, is just on more proof of the necessity of a Jewish state, where Jews are able to defend themselves by their own.


That's a VERY racial line of thought, not so different from White Nationalism actually. It, as I pointed out again and again, reproduces that godforsaken concept of 'National Unity'. There's more trouble with this line of thought though. There are several assumptions underlying this line of thought:

1. The 'Jew' is a homogenic entity without internal contradictions that needs to look after itself as a 'race', 'ethnic identity',etc

2. A state is capable of 'defending' this 'Jewish group' from 'attacks'

The first assumption is utter insanity. It's a race/ethnicity based vision which makes homogenic assumptions about a whole group of people with different lifestyles, preferences, behavior and, most importantly, socio-economic positions.

The second argument is nonsense as well, anti-semitism isn't a 'special' form of discrimination. It's often particularly vicious yes, but that goes for homophobia as well. Putting everyone on a piece of land with some lines around it along the lines of 'each according to his own' (the bitter irony of this sentence is not lost on me in the context of the holocaust no) is nothing but utter Nationalism. Anti-semitism isn't going to be stopped by an exclusion-based homogenic racial state.

[ls]

That's a VERY racial line of thought, not so different from White Nationalism actually. It, as I pointed out again and again, reproduces that godforsaken concept of 'National Unity'. There's more trouble with this line of thought though. There are several assumptions underlying this line of thought:

1. The 'Jew' is a homogenic entity without internal contradictions that needs to look after itself as a 'race', 'ethnic identity',etc

2. A state is capable of 'defending' this 'Jewish group' from 'attacks'

The first assumption is utter insanity. It's a race/ethnicity based vision which makes homogenic assumptions about a whole group of people with different lifestyles, preferences, behavior and, most importantly, socio-economic positions.

The second argument is nonsense as well, anti-semitism isn't a 'special' form of discrimination. It's often particularly vicious yes, but that goes for homophobia as well. Putting everyone on a piece of land with some lines around it along the lines of 'each according to his own' (the bitter irony of this sentence is not lost on me in the context of the holocaust no) is nothing but utter Nationalism. Anti-semitism isn't going to be stopped by an exclusion-based homogenic racial state.

:cool: Well said.

One example: Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Just look at how they are treated......

[9]

One point Ravachol didn't make (there may be others; I'm short on time, so I have to rush)


Originally Posted by Edelweiss http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1654041#post1654041)
For anti-Germans, and I guess for many Zionists in general, the fact that the allies did nothing to actively stop the holocaust, for example by bombing the railway tracks, you could also mention their closure of gates to Jewish refugees, is just on more proof of the necessity of a Jewish state, where Jews are able to defend themselves by their own.Of course, if you mention that, you have to ignore the fact that the Zionist organizations repeatedly voted in favor of the "closure of gates to Jewish refugees" and were among some of the biggest proponents of doing nothing in the face of anti-Semitism.
Example: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." - David Ben-Gurion (the first Prime Minister of Israel)

Have another:

“If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-semitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism. If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body thrust into the nations among whom it lives, an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right, therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity. Instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights.” - Jacob Klatzkin (ardent Zionist and co-editor of the Encyclopedia Judaica) in 1925

But the anti-Germans wouldn't want some minor detail such as history to get in their way of supporting the state of Israel and falsely associating Zionism with the fight against anti-Semitism; either they are thoroughly ignorant of history or they simply have no qualms about spitting on the graves of so many of the very people they claim to be defending. I'm guessing it's probably both.

[Luís Henrique]

They have substituted Israeli nationalism for German nationalism. It doesn't make a bit of a difference - except for the fact that, at this precise moment in History, the Israeli State is more aggressive than the German State.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Historically anti-German theory is a radicalization of anti-national theory. Already in the course of WW1 the later communist leader Karl Liebknecht strongly opposed the growing national mood and the erosion of internationalism in the German (and European) social-democracy stating “Der Hauptfeind steht im eigenen Land” (the most dangerous enemy is to be found in your own country).

Had Liebknecht had anything in common with the Anti-German tendency, he would have been supporting the Tsar against the Kaiser. He did not, he called for the overthrow of all bourgeois states, he said the enemy is at home for all the workers of the world.

[Revy]

If the anti-Germans genuinely decided to oppose the real excesses of German nationalism and far-right politics, they would use most of their time opposing the National Democratic Party which is certainly the Nazi Party reborn.

Instead they rant so much about false anti-Semitism allegedly on the left because we dare to oppose Zionism, an oppressive nationalist ideology. And apparently opposing US imperialism is anti-Semitic as well. it's disgusting these assholes call themselves anti-fascists, when their main target is the revolutionary left, and people who actually care about humanity and internationalism!

I didn't really read it, but I can't take people seriously that consider pro-Zionism to be part of a radicalization of anti-national theory. WTF.

[Sasha]

to be fair, most moderate anti-deutche (so not the bahama's crowd) spend way much more time combatting the NPD than they do combatting the left.

you have to see this more as in an excess of the great german tradition of over theorising and devoting too much time on writing polemics.

[Dean]

I thinks its incredibly evident that Zionism, and the creation of the state of Israel esp. by the UK, is nothing more than the export by europeans of their perceived "Jewish problem" to an external Jewish Ghetto. Since then, it has become a key ally for the west in the middle east and a bulwark against the rise of nearby Arab nations. It has becomes a serious financial, military and academic hub for the west, all the while consistently attacking, expelling and exploiting the local Palestinian population. In fact, Israel's pro-Jewish racism is so extreme, that on account of Arab poverty in Israel it may well become the poorest member state of OECD!

Haaretz: Israel set to become OECD's poorest member (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143853.html)

It's an incredibly disgusting, racist stance to hold that anti-Germanism is some kind of legitimate response to antisemitism. The fact that they universally support US imperial aggression, as Yehuda pointed out, really shows their true character.

[Revy]

oh, you mean their antics like in these photos?

this sign below says "Down with Germany! Solidarity with Israel! For Communism!".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Antigerman1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Antideutsche_rassisten.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Hamm02.jpg

No, they are not part of the left, they're like some fucking caricature of the left in nazi propaganda that escaped into reality.

[Sasha]

:crying: idiots....

ah well, i'm glad i can say that (in those parts of germany that i regularly visit) the anti-deutche are becoming more and more an insignificant (but vocal) minority. The Bahama's crowd only write articels and preach to the converted now. The isreli flag waving at demo's is more and more only a few 16 old electro hipsters.
and real anti-national thought, most notabely autonomus- and insurectionary-anarchism is more and more popular.

the turning point for me was when we did an info-tour trough the ruhr-area because of an big fascist demo in maastricht and the anouncement that at dutch antifa demo's "national-fahnen" were not permitted was greeted with an storm of aplause and cheers.

[Dean]

the turning point for me was when we did an info-tour trough the ruhr-area because of an big fascist demo in maastricht and the anouncement that at dutch antifa demo's "national-fahnen" were not permitted was greeted with an storm of aplause and cheers.

Can you explain this better? What is "national-fahnen"? thanks.

[bcbm]

national flags

[which doctor]

The second argument is nonsense as well, anti-semitism isn't a 'special' form of discrimination. It's often particularly vicious yes, but that goes for homophobia as well. Putting everyone on a piece of land with some lines around it along the lines of 'each according to his own' (the bitter irony of this sentence is not lost on me in the context of the holocaust no) is nothing but utter Nationalism. Anti-semitism isn't going to be stopped by an exclusion-based homogenic racial state.

Anti-semitism is a special form of discrimination, in fact its a very special form, so much so that it transcends the limits of what we usually call 'discrimination.' It is not a matter of people not tolerating or accommodating the Jews, but that they've been construed as an 'anti-race,' and that our happiness depends upon on their extermination. I think the fact that the Jews have been associated with both the threat of Bolshevism and the extremes of capitalism attests to this. Their much more than a minority we still haven't learned to tolerate, they're the antithesis to a truly human society.

The unique situation of Israel cannot solely be explained in terms of a foreign occupation and Ahmadinejad's stance toward Israel has much more in common with Nazism than it does with anti-imperialism. Anti-semitism manifests itself in many disguises, and as leftists we need to be on guard for what is the downhill road to fascism via loosely disguised anti-semitism. The uncritical analysis of anti-imperialism many on the left take with regards to the Middle East is just one example of this. Other examples include the various brands of populism to have sprung up recently, most notably the anti-bankers movement.

[Yehuda Stern]

Do you think that Jews are currently more discriminated against than blacks in the US, or Muslims and Arabs in Europe? If so you are quite delusional. Anti-semitism was the brutal discrimination of the first half of the twentieth century (and before); it has since given way to mostly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism. Today, anti-Semitism is much less threatening a force than those forms of discrimination, and is usually used by leftists like you to give 'soft' support to Israel (or, not so soft in the case of the anti-Germans).

I think it's true that Ahmadinejad, as a ruling class politician in Iran, would have been just as anti-Semitic if there was no Israel.

But the question is not if the rulers are racist - racism and nationalism are ruling class ideologies, and the ruling classes of all nations are racist and nationalist, and this includes, even today, anti-Semitism in the USA and Europe, but that anti-Semitism is actually much more common among supporters of Israel than its opponents, contrary to the impression many people are trying to give (including the Zionists).

The question is mass sentiment. And even though it is obvious that anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist sentiment is mixed in with anti-Semitism in the minds of many people in the Middle East, it has, contrary to what you say, much more to do with anti-imperialism than with Nazism. Revolutionaries must combat anti-Semitism while taking an unequivocal stance of opposing Zionist imperialism. That is the only way one could ever have peace between Jews and Palestinians.

[which doctor]

Do you think that Jews are currently more discriminated against than blacks in the US, or Muslims and Arabs in Europe? If so you are quite delusional. Anti-semitism was the brutal discrimination of the first half of the twentieth century (and before); it has since given way to mostly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism. Today, anti-Semitism is much less threatening a force than those forms of discrimination, and is usually used by leftists like you to give 'soft' support to Israel (or, not so soft in the case of the anti-Germans).
What you don't understand is that anti-semitism is not just another form of discrimination. It is something that's been ingrained in the psyche of Western culture for over a thousand, and more recently has been becoming common around the world. Frankly, I can't think of another group that's been as systematically persecuted around the world for centuries like the Jews have, for no other reason than because they're always the scapegoat for society's ills.

And if you don't think that anti-semitism is threatening any more, than I suggest you take a closer look at Iran-Israel political relations. Any idiots who support the destruction of Israel should understand how such an event would set the working-class back decades across the world, but especially in the Middle East.

[Yehuda Stern]

which doctor, it's not that there's something I don't understand about the subject, but rather, I dispute your "understanding" of it because frankly I think it's ridiculous and you have made a really poor case for it. I, for one, can certainly think of groups that have been persecuted as much as Jews have been in the past, and I have brought examples in my last post. I also never said that anti-Semitism is not threatening anymore (I actually devoted a paragraph of my last post to that topic), I merely said that you exaggerate and take out of context its importance in order to support your shoddy case for Israel.

As for Israel's destruction driving the working class back decades across the world, this is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a leftist say about the question. Israel has been arming reactionary third-world dictatorships for decades, has been oppressing the peoples of the region for decades, has been choking the class struggle both within its borders and outside by giving Arab rulers something to unite their people against. So again, in what way would its destruction "set the working-class back decades across the world"? In no way, of course. This is just a fancy slogan you empty of content and use to defend Israel.

To be honest, you haven't really replied to anything I said in my last post, and seem to have just ignored it completely.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think "jews" are "systematically" opressed in the west. i dont think its that bad as which doctor said. probably jews are much more worse in the middle east though, the ones that exist outside israel. i never got the fethis for "anti-semitism" around the left. i dont think jews in the US have it worse, than lets say, blacks or mexicans.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Frankly, I can't think of another group that's been as systematically persecuted around the world for centuries like the Jews have, for no other reason than because they're always the scapegoat for society's ills.

How about the Romani people? Not only have they been persecuted for centuries, but they also suffered greatly in the wake of the Holocaust. Additionally, they have it, arguably, much worse then the Jews do today, given that there still exists egregious and unabashed institutionalized discrimination against them in Eastern and Central Europe. Even folks outside of Europe possess a very negative impression of them. And of course they've been blamed for the problems that plague the societies that they've inhabited and still are.

Now, I'm not trying to trivialize anti-semitism or anything of the sort. I just find the claims that anti-semitism trumps all other ethnic hatreds to be somewhat specious.

[blake 3:17]

Israeli Cabinet convenes for first time in Berlin for symbolic visit celebrating ties

By Aron Heller (CP) – 5 days ago

BERLIN — Israel's Cabinet convened Monday for the first time in Berlin, the former heart of the Nazi regime, for a special joint session with the German government highlighting the two nations' strong bond six decades after the Holocaust.

Germany's efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions figured high on the agenda, and Chancellor Angela Merkel said her country would back tougher new sanctions against Iran if that country did not change its tune on its nuclear program.

"If Iran's reactions don't change, we will help work on comprehensive sanctions," Merkel said.

Germany has long been part of the group of nations seeking to address concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, which Israel and most of the West believes is meant to develop an atomic bomb. Israel considers a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat and has hinted at attacking Iran if international diplomacy fails.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also pressed hard for sanctions, saying the time has come to confront Iran's Islamic regime.

"The true face of this regime has been unmasked in the year that has just passed ... and we know from recent history that a regime that tyrannizes its own people will tyrannize the world," he said at a joint press conference with Merkel. "If we don't apply sanctions, crippling sanctions, against this Iranian tyranny, when shall we apply them? If not now, when?"

A high-ranking Israeli defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks are in early stages, said Jerusalem has also recently begun discussing the possibility of acquiring a sixth submarine built by Germany. It already has three, and two others are under construction. Israel is also interested in German-made Meko-a 100 warships. Israeli officials were expected to ask about purchasing technology used on these ships. Israel would then manufacture its own ship with the technology, the official said.

Environmental issues, economic co-operation and efforts to restart the Middle East peace process were also discussed during the one-day visit by Israeli Netanyahu and six of his ministers - including his defence and foreign ministers.

The trip was originally scheduled for late November, but was put off at the last moment when Netanyahu fell ill with a viral infection and a light fever.
The Cabinet meeting came after a joint visit to Berlin's Holocaust memorial, which consists of a field of 2,711 grey slabs that serve as a tribute to the Holocaust's 6 million Jewish victims.

Netanyahu signed the memorial's guest book with thanks for the "invaluable preservation of the Holocaust."

Israel was established three years after the end of World War II. Since then, Germany has paid $39.4 billion in compensation to Holocaust survivors in Israel, some 250,000 of whom are still alive.
Some Israelis still refuse to buy German-made goods or visit Germany.
But since the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1965, Germany has become perhaps Israel's strongest ally in Europe.
In his comments, Netanyahu thanked Germany for its commitment to Israel.

"Germany faces, without flinching for a second, the darkest chapters of its past it order to build a brighter future for its people and for the world," he said. "It is something we deeply appreciate, something that has momentous historic significance."

Before visiting the memorial, the two nations signed an agreement to provide assistance to developing nations, particularly in Africa, in the fields of desert agriculture and water management.

Germany is Israel's third-largest trade partner after the U.S. and China.
Monday's session follows a historic visit in March 2008 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Cabinet to mark the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence. During that three-day visit, Merkel addressed the Israeli parliament, in German, and expressed shame over the Holocaust.

The 20-minute speech earned Merkel a standing ovation.
Israeli and German governments are to hold joint Cabinet sessions once a year in future. Germany has such arrangements with five other nations.
Germany, like other European nations, has little influence on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking - that's a role largely reserved for the U.S. - but has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians over the past decade.

Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Imperialists is friends.

[Dean]

What you don't understand is that anti-semitism is not just another form of discrimination. It is something that's been ingrained in the psyche of Western culture for over a thousand, and more recently has been becoming common around the world. Frankly, I can't think of another group that's been as systematically persecuted around the world for centuries like the Jews have, for no other reason than because they're always the scapegoat for society's ills.

And if you don't think that anti-semitism is threatening any more, than I suggest you take a closer look at Iran-Israel political relations. Any idiots who support the destruction of Israel should understand how such an event would set the working-class back decades across the world, but especially in the Middle East.

Do you actually think that Muslims haven't been persecuted and hated by the west for more than a thousand years? Does the term "crusade" mean anything to you?

Frankly, your evidence and proposition here are absurd "Jews are persecuted for being jews because they are scapegoats"? Not only is that circular reasoning, but it applies to every manifestation of institutional racism.

Antisemitism is "different" from other forms of racism. It's racism/xenophobia against Jewish people. But so is Islamophobia different, and this is subsequently true for every established bigotry.

By setting Israel and Jews apart from other states that identify with an ethnicity and have racist policies to that end, you are endorsing the western fairytale viewpoint which treats Israel as a "maiden in distress" against the "dirty Muslims."

I don't understand how people can think these positions are remotely leftist or materialist.

[which doctor]

I merely said that you exaggerate and take out of context its importance in order to support your shoddy case for Israel.
When exactly did I even make a case for Israel? Don't mistake my insistence on the continuing threat of Anti-semitism to be support for the state of Israel.


As for Israel's destruction driving the working class back decades across the world, this is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a leftist say about the question. Israel has been arming reactionary third-world dictatorships for decades, has been oppressing the peoples of the region for decades, has been choking the class struggle both within its borders and outside by giving Arab rulers something to unite their people against. So again, in what way would its destruction "set the working-class back decades across the world"? In no way, of course. This is just a fancy slogan you empty of content and use to defend Israel.
I was speaking about the hypothetical situation of Israel being attacked by the various hostile nation-states that surround it, which is something many leftists support. The ensuing war that would occur would most certainly set the working-class back decades not only in the Middle East but across the world as well.


How about the Romani people? Not only have they been persecuted for centuries, but they also suffered greatly in the wake of the Holocaust. Additionally, they have it, arguably, much worse then the Jews do today, given that there still exists egregious and unabashed institutionalized discrimination against them in Eastern and Central Europe. Even folks outside of Europe possess a very negative impression of them. And of course they've been blamed for the problems that plague the societies that they've inhabited and still are.

Now, I'm not trying to trivialize anti-semitism or anything of the sort. I just find the claims that anti-semitism trumps all other ethnic hatreds to be somewhat specious.
The reason anti-semitism trumps all other ethnic hatreds is because it far transcends 'ethnic' hatred. For one thing, Jews don't even make up a single homogenous ethnicity. Anti-semitism is less about the Jews per se, than it is about this imaginary world-wide Jewish conspiracy. Thus threat about anti-semitism doesn't necessarily direct itself against individual Jews anymore, but towards an invisible threat (e.g. Jewish Bankers, ZOG, Elders of Zion, etc.)

I don't mean to insist that other forms of discrimination aren't worse, because clearly some minorities suffer far worse treatment than Jews do today, but I do think anti-semitism is a very special case and is a threat to human emancipation on a much different level than typical racism/discrimination.

[Yehuda Stern]

The ensuing war that would occur would most certainly set the working-class back decades not only in the Middle East but across the world as well.

Yeah, I heard you the first time, but as long as you don't say why and how that will happen, it remains nothing more than an empty slogan.

[bcbm]

who on the left supports the nations surrounding israel invading it? i have never encountered that position.

[which doctor]

who on the left supports the nations surrounding israel invading it? i have never encountered that position.
There are lots of people who, in the name of 'anti-imperialism' support organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even Ahmadinejad. These are all entities that have called for the destruction of Israel, which is a scenario I can't see happening without also the advent of WWIII.

[bcbm]

i think supporting relatively small resistance groups is a bit different than supporting the arab nations invading israel.

[Dean]

There are lots of people who, in the name of 'anti-imperialism' support organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even Ahmadinejad. These are all entities that have called for the destruction of Israel, which is a scenario I can't see happening without also the advent of WWIII.

So were the Italian Partisans also terrible for hating the German invaders? Sorry, but this histrionic nonsense wherein you whine about the impoverished, fenced-in Palestinians having no right to call for the destruction of a state built on land stolen from them in acts of genocide and mass expulsions is ludicrous. It seems like you are totally unaware of the facts on the ground and the character of Imperialism, and in particular capital, as it exists in the region.

[Yehuda Stern]

There are lots of people who, in the name of 'anti-imperialism' support organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even Ahmadinejad.

But you never say who, so we're up to two unanswered questions with you:

1. Who are these mysterious leftists who support Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad "in the name of 'anti-imperialism'"?
2. How is a military defeat for Israel going to set the working class back decades?

[Dimentio]

But you never say who, so we're up to two unanswered questions with you:

1. Who are these mysterious leftists who support Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad "in the name of 'anti-imperialism'"?
2. How is a military defeat for Israel going to set the working class back decades?

1. Three letters, S, W and P.

2. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

[which doctor]

i think supporting relatively small resistance groups is a bit different than supporting the arab nations invading israel.
I might be able to overlook that if these "relatively small resistance groups" weren't funded by Iran to function as paramilitary fronts for Iranian aggression. This tendency of uncritcal anti-imperialism thats dogged socialist politics since the 60's has lead people to fetishize all resistance movements, no matter how reactionary they may be, as if somehow 'resistance' was synonymous with proletarian revolution.


So were the Italian Partisans also terrible for hating the German invaders?
First off, these were entirely different historic circumstances. And the Italian Partisans were hardly a homogeneous group, and among them were people fighting for very reactionary reasons, as well as some fighting for progressive reasons. All brands of nationalism are reactionary insofar as they don't recognize the shared class interests of the international proletariat.


Sorry, but this histrionic nonsense wherein you whine about the impoverished, fenced-in Palestinians having no right to call for the destruction of a state built on land stolen from them in acts of genocide and mass expulsions is ludicrous. It seems like you are totally unaware of the facts on the ground and the character of Imperialism, and in particular capital, as it exists in the region.
Please, enlighten me on the history of Israel. What acts of genocide did they commit in their history?

The founding of the state of Israel has much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital.

[Dean]

First off, these were entirely different historic circumstances. And the Italian Partisans were hardly a homogeneous group, and among them were people fighting for very reactionary reasons, as well as some fighting for progressive reasons. All brands of nationalism are reactionary insofar as they don't recognize the shared class interests of the international proletariat.
So? Were they more of a threat to the working class than the Germans, as seems to be your position with Hizb Allah & friends? If not, why? what is the defining difference for you?



Please, enlighten me on the history of Israel. What acts of genocide did they commit in their history?
I meant ethnic cleansing, and Jerusalem is a great example. Does that make it better? :laugh:


The founding of the state of Israel has much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital.
So? The settlement of Europeans in the Americas has much more to do with religious freedom and resource gathering than ethnic cleansing and slavery, but that's what the outcome was. Are you implying that in order to defend themselves, Jews had to expel and kill thousands of Palestinians, and that external oppression makes that justifiable?

[Yehuda Stern]

which doctor, still avoiding my questions? They were

1. Who are these mysterious leftists who support Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad "in the name of 'anti-imperialism'"?
2. How is a military defeat for Israel going to set the working class back decades?

I'm still waiting for an answer. I probably won't get one, though; you're probably going to keep making unfounded, ridiculous claims ("The founding of the state of Israel has much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital") and show your ignorance - what acts of genocide did Israel commit? Are you kidding? Do you know anything about Zionism?

Dimentio: I know the SWP give political support to Hamas and Hizb Allah, but the point is, which doctor refuses to back any of his claims with any sort of evidence. I bet he's right that there are quite a few leftists who give political support to these groups, but the point is to show that WD doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Otherwise, he would answer the questions I have already asked several times.

[FreeFocus]

Please, enlighten me on the history of Israel. What acts of genocide did they commit in their history?

The founding of the state of Israel has much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital.

Are you serious? It's embarrassing that something like this was even posted on RevLeft. Have you not heard of the Nakba?

Israel was founded by ethnically cleansing Israel proper in the lead-up to 1948, and the worst ethnic cleansing occurred in 1947-1948. Ilan Pappe writes in depth about the cleansing of places such as Deir Yassin in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670). Over 750,000 Palestinians were forced from Palestine as Israel was created. This is an astronomical number, especially considering the size of the Palestinian population at the time. Ethnic cleansing and massacres constitute genocide. This isn't even including the continued imperialist occupation of Palestine and damn near daily murdering of Palestinians.

Have you forgotten where we were a year ago? 1400 Palestinians were killed while 13 or 14 Israelis were killed. 100 Palestinian lives for every 1 Israeli life? Are you serious? It hearkens back to ideas espoused by the likes of US Major General William T. Sherman, who proclaimed that ten Indian lives should be taken for every white life during the ethnic cleansing of the American West.

[Devrim]

who on the left supports the nations surrounding israel invading it? i have never encountered that position.


There are lots of people who, in the name of 'anti-imperialism' support organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and even Ahmadinejad. These are all entities that have called for the destruction of Israel, which is a scenario I can't see happening without also the advent of WWIII.


i think supporting relatively small resistance groups is a bit different than supporting the arab nations invading israel.

I think to be honest, bcbm, this is about your age. It has been a long time since any of the Arab states even looked like they could confront Israel. I suppose the last time would have been when Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel in the Kuwait War, and yes, there were lots of leftists supporting them then. If you go back further to when Egypt and Syria were percived to pose a military threat, then yes, there were lots of leftists supporting them too.

The reason that you don't come across this position today is because the Arab states are percived to be so weak militarily compared to Israel.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I was speaking about the hypothetical situation of Israel being attacked by the various hostile nation-states that surround it, which is something many leftists support. The ensuing war that would occur would most certainly set the working-class back decades not only in the Middle East but across the world as well.

Whilst not agreeing with the conclusions that this poster draws, there is an important point here. As noted above, there is no possibility of Israel being defeated militarily by the surrounding Arab states, and there is certainly no chance of HAMAS or the PLO destroying the state of Israel.

The only thing that could change this would be a monumental shiftin the global balance of power. One that I, for one, certainly can't forsee at the moment. This, however, if it were to happen, could be expected to be accompanied by proxy wars in different parts of the world. A war of the Arab states against Israel wuld be merely one of these, and yes, it would be a disater for the world working class.

Devrim

[Invader Zim]

I see that Yehuda has invoked an argumentum ad Hitlerum in his first post on this thread, and others have continued in his wake.

Surely the comparisons to Nazi death camps are not only wholey inappropriate but trivialise both issues.

[Dean]

Whilst not agreeing with the conclusions that this poster draws, there is an important point here. As noted above, there is no possibility of Israel being defeated militarily by the surrounding Arab states, and there is certainly no chance of HAMAS or the PLO destroying the state of Israel.

The only thing that could change this would be a monumental shiftin the global balance of power. One that I, for one, certainly can't forsee at the moment. This, however, if it were to happen, could be expected to be accompanied by proxy wars in different parts of the world. A war of the Arab states against Israel wuld be merely one of these, and yes, it would be a disater for the world working class.

Devrim

So? That's like looking at the Congo Free State genocide and saying "well, a war with Denmark would set the working class back etc. etc." Wtf does it even mean for the conflict here? Do you people seriously believe this myth that there is some leftist conspiracy to start a conflict across the whole middle east? No one here has supported that position, and you've both refused to give examples when Yehuda specifically asked for them!

It's pretty evident whats going on here. You're afraid of what might happen if the balance of power is shifted away from Israel's position, probably because Israel has consistently held up this image of a safe-haven. Let us not forget that these are simply people, and in recent history, the shifting of power has consistently brout harm and terror on the people of Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan to a far greater extent than Israel. The same would be true if the American colonialists - yes, with their families and kids and religious refugees - that they were surrounded by enemies. But that doesn't mean we need any specific sympathy for the state apparatus, and as communists I find it grotesque to come across such a position in our own supposed ranks. It's sick that Jews seem to warrant more protection than any other ethnic group in the region, in your apparent positions.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio: I know the SWP give political support to Hamas and Hizb Allah, but the point is, which doctor refuses to back any of his claims with any sort of evidence. I bet he's right that there are quite a few leftists who give political support to these groups, but the point is to show that WD doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Otherwise, he would answer the questions I have already asked several times.

Yes, but in the same time I could see from where the warlock's coming. There is a certain brand of leftist reporters and intellectuals who have some kind of cultural fetishism for Islam, calling it "the religion of peace" and downplaying or outright denying that islamism is reactionary. They are a tiny minority of course, rather individuals than organisations. But they do exist.

[Devrim]

Do you people seriously believe this myth that there is some leftist conspiracy to start a conflict across the whole middle east? No one here has supported that position, and you've both refused to give examples when Yehuda specifically asked for them!

No, I don't think there is a leftist conspiracy to start a conflict across the whole Middle East, but I do thing that the attitude of leftist groups adds fuel to the fire. I haven't, by the way, refused to give any examples. Nor have I been asked for them.


But that doesn't mean we need any specific sympathy for the state apparatus, and as communists I find it grotesque to come across such a position in our own supposed ranks. It's sick that Jews seem to warrant more protection than any other ethnic group in the region, in your apparent positions.

I don't see how this has anything at all to do with anything I have said. Nor have I expressed any sympathy for any state apparatus.

Devrim

[Dean]

Yes, but in the same time I could see from where the warlock's coming. There is a certain brand of leftist reporters and intellectuals who have some kind of cultural fetishism for Islam, calling it "the religion of peace" and downplaying or outright denying that islamism is reactionary. They are a tiny minority of course, rather individuals than organisations. But they do exist.

I don't see this as accurate at all. It is true that certain media has tried to be responsible and downplay the role of Islam in general in regards to the conflicts and violence they report on. But I have seen the same kind of religious sympathy expressed in regards to Christianity and Judaism as well. You could say that they are partial to religion in general. But that doesn't account for their very direct insinuation that violence in the middle east is generally an Islamic phenomenon, whereas violence against Palestinians is rarely attributed to Jewish ideology, but rather the state or settlers. I think it is very evident that the media has by and large embraced the notion of a culture war in regards to the West and Islam. This is definitely a greater phenomenon than any failure to attack Islam, as you suggest.

[Dean]

No, I don't think there is a leftist conspiracy to start a conflict across the whole Middle East, but I do thing that the attitude of leftist groups adds fuel to the fire. I haven't, by the way, refused to give any examples. Nor have I been asked for them.



I don't see how this has anything at all to do with anything I have said. Nor have I expressed any sympathy for any state apparatus.

Devrim

My post was mostly directed at witch doctor. But I am also referring to your histrionic assertion about leftists supporting what would supposedly set back the working class. There is no evidence for that.

But I was thinking about something else on the way to work, about your post. You talk of age and how that colors the conflict. Well, you're right: in the past, the conservatives in the West have been more critical of Israel, and the media in general was far more partial to the state, in addition to which, widespread, fair media was simply not present. I might understand, for instance, why a leftist during the sixties would have no bad thoughts for Israel. But in this day and age, there is no excuse. To endorse the historical attitude for Israel, as a defender state against Arab nationalists, is to support the colonial state, and more specifically to willingly embrace the media's biased, pro-imperial stance.

Youth may have something to do with it, but that is no excuse for supposed leftists to support a racist state apparatus, and it doesn't "give context"in any meaningful way for why our elders are partial to the state, either.

[Dimentio]

I don't see this as accurate at all. It is true that certain media has tried to be responsible and downplay the role of Islam in general in regards to the conflicts and violence they report on. But I have seen the same kind of religious sympathy expressed in regards to Christianity and Judaism as well. You could say that they are partial to religion in general. But that doesn't account for their very direct insinuation that violence in the middle east is generally an Islamic phenomenon, whereas violence against Palestinians is rarely attributed to Jewish ideology, but rather the state or settlers. I think it is very evident that the media has by and large embraced the notion of a culture war in regards to the West and Islam. This is definitely a greater phenomenon than any failure to attack Islam, as you suggest.

I wasn't talking about media in general, but about leftists who seem to have embraced the ideological construction of a cultural war but are rooting for the "other" side. I have even seen some feminists hail Iran as a beacon of women's rights (compared with Saudi Arabia of course, but still...).

[Dean]

I wasn't talking about media in general, but about leftists who seem to have embraced the ideological construction of a cultural war but are rooting for the "other" side. I have even seen some feminists hail Iran as a beacon of women's rights (compared with Saudi Arabia of course, but still...).

OK, nevermind then.

[which doctor]

which doctor, still avoiding my questions? They were

1. Who are these mysterious leftists who support Hamas, Hezbollah and Ahmadinejad "in the name of 'anti-imperialism'"?
There are lots of leftists who support these positions, including many I've personally met. I don't know their names or their specific political persuasions, but I know they masquerade as 'anti-imperialists' while giving support to reactionary organizations. Anyways, it seems like an accepted fact that parts of the left support Hamas and Hizballah, such as the SWP or even Chavez's support for Ahmadinejad, I don't know why you're on a witchhunt for evidence for what seems like a widely supported claim.


2. How is a military defeat for Israel going to set the working class back decades?
When countries go to war, the working-class gets slaughtered, and production gets reorganized so that any traces of workers self-organization gets erased.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm not on any witch hunt - I was just trying to get you to actually back up your assertions with some evidence. I know very well that there are leftists who support these movements, the ISL has been critical of them for hiding that these groups are doomed to ultimately capitulate to imperialism.

I see also that you have a pacifist position on war. Are all wars bad? I don't think so. That's a pacifist position, not a Marxist position. I think it's clear that a successful war against an imperialist state is advantageous to the working class. Whether it is possible for the non-imperialist state to win in a given war is a different question.

As an aside: even among those groups that I acknowledge support Hamas or Hizb Allah in practice, none would actually say openly that what they support is an Islamist state. You seem to actually support Israel's existence as a Zionist state. I think that, for many reasons, that is obviously a much more reactionary position.

[which doctor]

I see also that you have a pacifist position on war. Are all wars bad? I don't think so. That's a pacifist position, not a Marxist position. I think it's clear that a successful war against an imperialist state is advantageous to the working class. Whether it is possible for the non-imperialist state to win in a given war is a different question.

I am not a pacifist, but I don't support bourgeois wars because they have a tendency the devastate the working-class. I don't support wars on grounds of 'anti-imperalism', mostly because they neglect to see the imperialist aspect that all capital possesses. The only war I support is class war.

Also, you have continually misrepresented my position throughout the length of this argument. Not once in this thread have I given support to Israel's oppression of its Palestinian population. Nor am I a Zionist. I only seek to remind people of the lingering traces of anti-semitism, which are most painfully found today in the Arab world, as evidenced by growing support for holocaust denial. Those who deny the holocaust, will be the first to reinstate it.

[pastradamus]

oh, you mean their antics like in these photos?

this sign below says "Down with Germany! Solidarity with Israel! For Communism!".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Antigerman1.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Antideutsche_rassisten.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Hamm02.jpg

No, they are not part of the left, they're like some fucking caricature of the left in nazi propaganda that escaped into reality.

Shocking. What a bunch of fucking oxymorons.

[Devrim]

My post was mostly directed at witch doctor. But I am also referring to your histrionic assertion about leftists supporting what would supposedly set back the working class. There is no evidence for that.

So you criticised him under a post from me and no reference to his words. I can't quite see the logic in that.

I don't see anything 'histrionic' about my assertion either. If you look at every war since 1945, you can find some leftist group that supported it.


But I was thinking about something else on the way to work, about your post. You talk of age and how that colors the conflict. Well, you're right: in the past, the conservatives in the West have been more critical of Israel, and the media in general was far more partial to the state, in addition to which, widespread, fair media was simply not present. I might understand, for instance, why a leftist during the sixties would have no bad thoughts for Israel. But in this day and age, there is no excuse. To endorse the historical attitude for Israel, as a defender state against Arab nationalists, is to support the colonial state, and more specifically to willingly embrace the media's biased, pro-imperial stance.

Youth may have something to do with it, but that is no excuse for supposed leftists to support a racist state apparatus, and it doesn't "give context"in any meaningful way for why our elders are partial to the state, either.

But then I didn't at any point support Israel. All I said was that a regional war would set back the working class. I don't see what is controversial at all about this unless you think that a massive regional bloodbath followed by ethnic cleansing would be in some way progressive.

The thing about the generations is interesting only in that it shows how the left can vacillate over which bourgeois state to support. For internationalists who never backed any capitalist state, it makes little difference.

Also according to 'Which doctor', he didn't express support for Israel either:


I am not a pacifist, but I don't support bourgeois wars because they have a tendency the devastate the working-class. I don't support wars on grounds of 'anti-imperalism', mostly because they neglect to see the imperialist aspect that all capital possesses. The only war I support is class war.

Also, you have continually misrepresented my position throughout the length of this argument. Not once in this thread have I given support to Israel's oppression of its Palestinian population. Nor am I a Zionist. I only seek to remind people of the lingering traces of anti-semitism, which are most painfully found today in the Arab world, as evidenced by growing support for holocaust denial. Those who deny the holocaust, will be the first to reinstate it.

Devrim

[Dean]

So you criticised him under a post from me and no reference to his words. I can't quite see the logic in that.

I don't see anything 'histrionic' about my assertion either. If you look at every war since 1945, you can find some leftist group that supported it.



But then I didn't at any point support Israel. All I said was that a regional war would set back the working class. I don't see what is controversial at all about this unless you think that a massive regional bloodbath followed by ethnic cleansing would be in some way progressive.

The thing about the generations is interesting only in that it shows how the left can vacillate over which bourgeois state to support. For internationalists who never backed any capitalist state, it makes little difference.

Also according to 'Which doctor', he didn't express support for Israel either:



Devrim

Why even bring up the notion of a regional war? Who here has made support for that? Where does that pertain to the Anti-German movement?

In the past, Israel has consistently been the aggressor. You and with doctor are both using the notion of a 'regional war' (or a war on Israel) as something that would "set the working class back." But as we see, it is in fact Israel which consistently uses its military for violence, so I don't understand why you are more imminently afraid afraid of a war on Israel (or even, for that matter, what "bad" causes leftists tend to support - even though it wasn't even expressed here - because we have seen in the past very many leftists support anti-working class leaders, for instance).

[Devrim]

Why even bring up the notion of a regional war? Who here has made support for that? Where does that pertain to the Anti-German movement?I didn't bring it up. Somebody else did.


In the past, Israel has consistently been the aggressor. You and with doctor are both using the notion of a 'regional war' (or a war on Israel) as something that would "set the working class back." Israel has generally, though not consistantly, been the aggressor. What is your point here though? Is it the task of communists to support the state that isn't 'the aggressor' in a war? Is war something that we believe is caused by the bad policy of certain states or a natural product of capitalism in its imperialist stage?


But as we see, it is in fact Israel which consistently uses its military for violence, so I don't understand why you are more imminently afraid afraid of a war on IsraelI am not 'imminently afraid of a war on Israel'. I don't think it is particularly likely in the near future, and I think that there are other more dangerous possibilities in the region, for example, Turkish aggression in Northern Iraq.

Somebody was discussing it so I commented on it.

What I would question is how somebody who has never made any positive comments about the Israeli state is suddenly accused of being pro-Israeli, and nearly a Zionist for stating that a regional war would be a disaster for the working class.

Devrim

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

For one thing, Jews don't even make up a single homogenous ethnicity.

Do you know of any “homogenous” ethnic groups? I’m afraid the term is very subjective.


Anti-semitism is less about the Jews per se, than it is about this imaginary world-wide Jewish conspiracy. Thus threat about anti-semitism doesn't necessarily direct itself against individual Jews anymore, but towards an invisible threat (e.g. Jewish Bankers, ZOG, Elders of Zion, etc.)

Ethnic hatred, along with racism and discrimination, rarely takes the individual into consideration, only the group that she or he belongs to. This is not something that is unique to Jews alone. That is merely the nature of ethnic hatred itself.

And I also have to raise a few points concerning Arabs today with regards to conspiracy theories in general. Have you ever heard of the book by Bat Ye’or entitled “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” (http://www.amazon.com/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-YeOr/dp/083864077X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264537027&sr=1-1)? Well it’s quite popular, at least among the right. The book, which had a university press release giving it a veneer of scholarly repute, essentially argues that, for many decades now, Arabs have been extending their political influence over European governments, manipulating them into supporting anti-American foreign policies and pro-Islamic and anti-Israeli agendas. The primary objective of these conniving Arabs, acting behind the scenes, is to completely subjugate the European people(eventually the world) and foist upon them Sharia Law. There are several other books such as “Menace in Europe” (http://www.amazon.com/Menace-Europe-Continents-Crisis-Americas/dp/1400097703/ref=pd_sim_b_20) and “While Europe Slept” (http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0767920058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264537114&sr=1-1) written in a similar vein. This trend should shed some doubt on the putative “uniqueness” of the conspiracy-focused quality of anti-Semitism.


… but I do think anti-semitism is a very special case and is a threat to human emancipation on a much different level than typical racism/discrimination.
How is persecution or hatred against Jews any more detrimental to “human emancipation” than say against blacks, Romani, Native Americans, Armenians, etc?

[Yehuda Stern]

I think Dean's point is that, in a situation where the Zionist state is responsible for the daily murder, pauperization and expropriation of Palestinians, to only concern oneself with hysterical, doomsday scenarios of a "regional war" of Arab states against Israel (unlikely as it is, with all of them rushing headlong to make their peace with western imperialism) reeks of pro-Zionism and possibly racism.

[Devrim]

to only concern oneself with hysterical, doomsday scenarios of a "regional war" of Arab states against Israel (unlikely as it is, with all of them rushing headlong to make their peace with western imperialism) reeks of pro-Zionism and possibly racism.

Hysterical? I said I thought it was unlikely. Only? I comented on it because it was being discussed.

Implying that people are Zionists and racists is very typical of the mode of discussion used by some people on this forum.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I think Dean's point is that, in a situation where the Zionist state is responsible for the daily murder, pauperization and expropriation of Palestinians, to only concern oneself with hysterical, doomsday scenarios of a "regional war" of Arab states against Israel (unlikely as it is, with all of them rushing headlong to make their peace with western imperialism) reeks of pro-Zionism and possibly racism.

that is a wild assertion. i think he was trying to dispell the idea that the destruction of israel through war is a positive thing, which seems like a fairly common argument. i dont think the point was even about israel, but "capitalist war" in general.

[Dean]

that is a wild assertion. i think he was trying to dispell the idea that the destruction of israel through war is a positive thing, which seems like a fairly common argument.

What? The destruction of any state through war is a good thing, provided that a revolutionary milieu gains prevalence post-destruction. Are you saying you support nationhood?

Subsequently - again - nobody is talking about a war by capitalist entities, but rather by a broad resistance movement - which certainly exists in the Pal territories, as a manifestation of various groups, tendencies and actions.

If you oppose that (and this is also for witch doctor and Devrim), do you in general oppose popular resistance of foreign oppressive regimes? Why? Do people not have a right to defend themselves unless they can articulate said defense in a revolutionary language?

[jaffe]

If you oppose that (and this is also for witch doctor and Devrim), do you in general oppose popular resistance of foreign oppressive regimes? Why? Do people not have a right to defend themselves unless they can articulate said defense in a revolutionary language?

"Nationalism is an infantile sickness." - A. Einstein

:thumbup1:

[Devrim]

What? The destruction of any state through war is a good thing, provided that a revolutionary milieu gains prevalence post-destruction.

It is a rather big if though, isn't it? It is sort of like saying that losing your job is a good thing as long as you win the lottery the next day.

Can you name an incidence of this happening in history?*


Subsequently - again - nobody is talking about a war by capitalist entities, but rather by a broad resistance movement - which certainly exists in the Pal territories, as a manifestation of various groups, tendencies and actions.

I think that the destruction of Israel by the neighbouring Arab states is a extremely unlikely prospect. Having said that, I believe that it is much more likely than the destruction of Israel by the Palestinian national movement.

If you are talking about the destruction of the State of Israel, it seems obvious to also talk about how it can happen.

n.b. The Bolsheviks took a leading part in the destruction of the Russian state. It wasn't destroyed by the allies and the Bolsheviks 'gained' prevalence afterwards.


If you oppose that (and this is also for witch doctor and Devrim), do you in general oppose popular resistance of foreign oppressive regimes? Why? Do people not have a right to defend themselves unless they can articulate said defense in a revolutionary language?

I am not particular interested in concepts such as 'rights' and supporting or opposing them. Nor am I interested in amorphous masses that are termed 'popular', which generally means cross class, i.e. controlled by the bourgeoisie.

I don't believe to that workers have anything to gain in fighting and dying for 'national liberation'.

Devrim

[Bright Banana Beard]

"Nationalism is an infantile sickness." - A. Einstein

:thumbup1:

This is merely a slogan, not a argument.

[Dean]

This is merely a slogan, not a argument.

No its not. It seems to clearly indicate that Einstein views nationalism as the sickness of a society which is in its infancy.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No its not. It seems to clearly indicate that Einstein views nationalism as the sickness of a society which is in its infancy.

If you see his quote and your quote again, he attempting to say that all popular resistance are nationalism, which is quite untrue. In fact, it can helps destroyed nationalism and become internationalism. War Communism is provided in this way. They are intertwined, not separate completely. As long the popular resistance is for leftist movement, it can provides the pavement to become internationalism.

[which doctor]

If you oppose that (and this is also for witch doctor and Devrim), do you in general oppose popular resistance of foreign oppressive regimes? Why? Do people not have a right to defend themselves unless they can articulate said defense in a revolutionary language?

I don't 'in general' oppose popular resistance against foreign oppressive regimes, but I certainly don't lend my support to such movements based solely on the fact that they are both 'popular' and 'resistance', like many on the left do today in their championing of various groups like FARC, Shining Path and Hezballah.

Unlike you, I do not take into account the popular consensus when deciding whether or not to lend things my support because I'm well aware that people are well known to be capable of holding very reactionary beliefs. I also don't concern with myself with the right of a 'people' to defend themselves, because I don't belief in a single 'people' but two antagonistic classes, each with their own interests. For any Marxist, the point of departure should be the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, not a populist notion of 'the people.'

[black magick hustla]

u oppose that (and this is also for witch doctor and Devrim), do you in general oppose popular resistance of foreign oppressive regimes? Why? Do people not have a right to defend themselves unless they can articulate said defense in a revolutionary language?
I don't think it is even a question of "opposing" or not to be honest. If I were in the shoes of a palestinian, I would imagine I would do anything to survive. Including maybe shooting an israeli soldier if I had too. I think if the situation reduced to survival, I would not think politics - just ways of staying alive. I think that seems more like a class response than a political programme based on national martyrdom. communists are not magicians, and there is not an immediate political solution to every situation. There is very little a communist can do in that region. The situations are not completely the same, and maybe this is a bad analogy, but i dont think communists could have done anything in the warsaw uprising. Because this people were going to surely die.

[Dean]

I don't think it is even a question of "opposing" or not to be honest. If I were in the shoes of a palestinian, I would imagine I would do anything to survive. Including maybe shooting an israeli soldier if I had too. I think if the situation reduced to survival, I would not think politics - just ways of staying alive. I think that seems more like a class response than a political programme based on national martyrdom. communists are not magicians, and there is not an immediate political solution to every situation. There is very little a communist can do in that region. The situations are not completely the same, and maybe this is a bad analogy, but i dont think communists could have done anything in the warsaw uprising. Because this people were going to surely die.

Your argument boils down to this - that communists should "do nothing" - because the waters are unclear?

Nope, I'm on the side of the working class - and oppressed people - the world over. Just because there isn't an a distinctly proletarian economic class between, say, the aboriginees and the colonists doesn't make the conflict any clearer. In regards to Israel, their white nationalism is absolutely clear and needs to be contested. The prevalence of a widely-respected ethnic nationalist capitalist state absolutely sets the working class back far more than the destruction of said state might.

I'm not part of a "do nothing" clique, at least, I don't want to do nothing.


I don't 'in general' oppose popular resistance against foreign oppressive regimes, but I certainly don't lend my support to such movements based solely on the fact that they are both 'popular' and 'resistance', like many on the left do today in their championing of various groups like FARC, Shining Path and Hezballah.

Unlike you, I do not take into account the popular consensus when deciding whether or not to lend things my support because I'm well aware that people are well known to be capable of holding very reactionary beliefs. I also don't concern with myself with the right of a 'people' to defend themselves, because I don't belief in a single 'people' but two antagonistic classes, each with their own interests. For any Marxist, the point of departure should be the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, not a populist notion of 'the people.'
I don't give a shit about popular consensus, and again, I'm not basing anything on popular consensus. I am supporting popular resistance against a foreign race-state which has historically acted at the behest of capital and imperialism in particular.

It's ridiculous that you think that people directly under attack "can't defend themselves" because they don't have a revolutionary program. That reeks of the worst kind of deluded, first world chauvinism I've ever seen expressed here.


If you see his quote and your quote again, he attempting to say that all popular resistance are nationalism, which is quite untrue. In fact, it can helps destroyed nationalism and become internationalism. War Communism is provided in this way. They are intertwined, not separate completely. As long the popular resistance is for leftist movement, it can provides the pavement to become internationalism.

Yeah, I kinda got that impression, but since he wasn't expanding on it and making a direct argument, I decided to 'ignore' it. I don't disagree with your position, btw.

[Yehuda Stern]

I agree very much with Dean's comments. Also, writing my last post I had which doctor in mind more than I had Devrim, but there are similarities - the bottom line for both is that Palestinian workers can go and drown in their own blood until somehow they gain communist consciousness. That's not how revolutionaries act. Revolutionaries participate in mass movements, including the national liberation movement, and work to become its leaders, to make sure it has a proletarian leadership, for that is the only thing that can give it a chance to succeed.

[Devrim]

It's ridiculous that you think that people directly under attack "can't defend themselves" because they don't have a revolutionary program. That reeks of the worst kind of deluded, first world chauvinism I've ever seen expressed here.

It is sort of ironic that somebody living in the US is accusing somebody living in Turkey, and a Mexican Arab (I don't know anything about where 'Which Doctor' comes from) of 'the worst kind of deluded, first world chauvinism [he's] ever seen expressed here'. Even more so when the person agreeing with him is an Israeli.


I agree very much with Dean's comments. Also, writing my last post I had which doctor in mind more than I had Devrim, but there are similarities - the bottom line for both is that Palestinian workers can go and drown in their own blood until somehow they gain communist consciousness. That's not how revolutionaries act. Revolutionaries participate in mass movements, including the national liberation movement, and work to become its leaders, to make sure it has a proletarian leadership, for that is the only thing that can give it a chance to succeed.

The actually point is that Palestinian workers are drowning in their own blood, and the national liberation movement doesn't offer any way out of this situation, whether it is led by so-called revolutionaries, or not.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

It's ridiculous that you think that people directly under attack "can't defend themselves" because they don't have a revolutionary program. That reeks of the worst kind of deluded, first world chauvinism I've ever seen expressed here.



You don't get any of the goddamn points. It has nothing to do with "not having a revolutionary program". The calls for national defense have always been mobilizations in the name of capital. I dont see what is there to "defense" in being crunched between the murderious motherfuckers of Hamas and the murderous motherfuckers of the israeli boss class. There is more probability of survival in rejecting that sort of empty national martyrdom.

[Dean]

It is sort of ironic that somebody living in the US is accusing somebody living in Turkey, and a Mexican Arab (I don't know anything about where 'Which Doctor' comes from) of 'the worst kind of deluded, first world chauvinism [he's] ever seen expressed here'. Even more so when the person agreeing with him is an Israeli.
I said it "reeks of," pretty distinctly saying that it is a characteristic of first-world chauvinism. The speaker could easily be an oppressed Palestinian, but that doesn't exclude them from expressing the same kinds of values.



The actually point is that Palestinian workers are drowning in their own blood, and the national liberation movement doesn't offer any way out of this situation, whether it is led by so-called revolutionaries, or not.

That's arguable, and I certainly do oppose nationalism as a standard. However, I do see value in the struggle against racist hegemony, be it in the form of a state v. state structure or not (frankly, the national question has done nothing for the palestinians, but to give Hamas/Fatah some degree of national power over their own working class - that does nothing to diminish the struggle against apartheid, and I think its very crass to attack the struggle in general on this basis).


You don't get any of the goddamn points. It has nothing to do with "not having a revolutionary program". The calls for national defense have always been mobilizations in the name of capital. I dont see what is there to "defense" in being crunched between the murderious motherfuckers of Hamas and the murderous motherfuckers of the israeli boss class. There is more probability of survival in rejecting that sort of empty national martyrdom.

That may be the case, but for Palestinian refugees, their struggle is certainly not for capital, even though capitalists have taken on their struggle in rhetoric. I don't see how this diminishes their struggle, and furthermore their right - within a communist paradigm - to fight for their rights.

I recognize that for a minority of Palestinians, their victory would be a victory for the interests of capital. Maybe this is what confuses you. But I still recognize the right of displaced peoples to fight to regain their own sovereignty provided that these "peoples" are not by and large capitalists. If you think that most palestinians are capitalists, you're incredibly deluded, and I don't think you think this. But this is why I don't understand your position. Most Palestinians are proletarian or at least not capitalists, and hence their struggle is primarily a non-capitalist struggle. It's simply ludicrous to claim that it is somehow primarily for the interests of capital.

[Devrim]

I said it "reeks of," pretty distinctly saying that it is a characteristic of first-world chauvinism. The speaker could easily be an oppressed Palestinian, but that doesn't exclude them from expressing the same kinds of values.

You are right that the argument stands on its own and doesn't depend on who it is coming from. What I was commenting on was the way that smears have replaced argument, and that some of the things that are being thrown at us are pretty ironic. Another example was Yehuda's earlier slur about racism:


reeks of pro-Zionism and possibly racism.

Again pretty ironic considering that two of the people you are arguing with (as I said I know nothing about 'Which Doctor') both have family Arab family connections and are both eligable to be Arab nationals.

It is the sort of thing that comes out when people don't have much of an argument.

Devrim

[which doctor]

That may be the case, but for Palestinian refugees, their struggle is certainly not for capital, even though capitalists have taken on their struggle in rhetoric. I don't see how this diminishes their struggle, and furthermore their right - within a communist paradigm - to fight for their rights.
As I said before, I could care less about whether or not someone has the 'right' to fight back or not. People have a tendency to resist their oppressors and I don't see any reason to ascribe a 'right' to this. Any exactlywhich'rights' are the Palestinians fighting for? Communists don't fight for rights, nor do they fight on behalf of the most oppressed and wretched (otherwise we'd be trying to organize sub-Saharan Africans), but communists fight to develop the class consciousness of the international proletariat, and I fail to see how supporting reactionary movements like these contributes to that, especially when such organizations have a tendency to stab the workers in the back once they get into power.

[narcomprom]

I've seen actual Antideutsche. It's funny to see someone speaking like an Israeli fascist from your archetypical western highschool leftist outfit. At least, the ones i saw did claim they werent on the left.
Their culture is based around the paper 'Jungle World (http://jungle-world.com/)'. Just like the reactionary 'Junge Freiheit (http://www.jungefreiheit.de/)', 'Jungle World' borrowed it's style from the radical left paper 'Junge Welt (http://www.jungewelt.de/)'. They're praised and linked as an example of a leftwing paper on www.bpb.de (http://www.bpb.de), an official source of the German government.
German Reparation politics, the history of their relations to Israel and their cultural policies in that regard are a pretty interesting topic.

[9]

@ which doctor:

For the sake of curiosity, what is your view of the anti-Germans? You seem to take the line of the ultra-lefts with regard to anti-imperialism, but I’ve noticed you ‘thanked’ the OP, so I have to wonder whether you don’t perhaps have a more favorable attitude with regard to support of imperialism (and overt support, for that matter, in the case of the anti-Germans). Do you think it is acceptable to support the state of Israel under the guise of opposing anti-Semitism (which, to anyone who knows anything about the ideology of Zionism, is already a contradiction in and of itself)?

[Devrim]

You seem to take the line of the ultra-lefts with regard to anti-imperialism,

Yet more insults. Ir really seems that that is the sum of the argument here. We prefer the term 'internationalists'.


but I’ve noticed you ‘thanked’ the OP, so I have to wonder whether you don’t perhaps have a more favorable attitude with regard to support of imperialism (and overt support, for that matter, in the case of the anti-Germans).

And yet more implications that people who take internationalist positions are closet supporters of Zionism. It may be that he was just interested to know what the anti-Germans are. After all it is a tiny nationalistic current which has no reverence at all outside of its own country, and very few people know about.


Do you think it is acceptable to support the state of Israel under the guise of opposing anti-Semitism (which, to anyone who knows anything about the ideology of Zionism, is already a contradiction in and of itself)?

And yet, more implications despite the fact that the posters has already been very clear about this:


Also, you have continually misrepresented my position throughout the length of this argument. Not once in this thread have I given support to Israel's oppression of its Palestinian population. Nor am I a Zionist.

Devrim

[9]

Yet more insults. Ir really seems that that is the sum of the argument here. We prefer the term 'internationalists'.



And yet more implications that people who take internationalist positions are closet supporters of Zionism. It may be that he was just interested to know what the anti-Germans are. After all it is a tiny nationalistic current which has no reverence at all outside of its own country, and very few people know about.


Unless you are of the opinion that the anti-Germans take an internationalist position or that overt support for imperialism is 'internationalist', you have clearly misread my comment.



And yet, more implications despite the fact that the posters has already been very clear about this:
You have jumped the gun in all of this, I'm afraid, and grossly misinterpreted my intentions. I think you should reread my post. When I was asking those questions, I was not implying anything; I was simply asking. I don't know which doctor's view on the anti-Germans nor has he given them here, although he did 'thank' Edelweiss' post - hence why I was inquiring. That is, after all, the topic of the thread.

You also may want to edit the username in the quoted portion of your post; you quote which doctor, but it lists my username instead of his.

[Devrim]

You also may want to edit the username in the quoted portion of your post; you quote which doctor, but it lists my username instead of his.

Thank you, I have changed it.


You have jumped the gun in all of this, I'm afraid, and grossly misinterpreted my intentions. When I was asking those questions, I was not implying anything; I was simply asking.

It is hardly surprising though considering it has already been implied that we are 'racists', pro-Zionists, and guilty of'first-world chauvinism' in this thread.Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Actually, these "accusations" - really just logical conclusions from ideas raised here - were addressed at which doctor. Later I noted that while I don't think the same is true of you or the ICC in general, your positions lead to the same place of refusing to support the Palestinian resistance by identifying it with the groups currently leading it, which is a capitulation to imperialism.

You seem very hurt all of a sudden by the supposed implication that you're a racist because of your political positions. But I recall being called a "nationalist" by ICCers who claimed that my position means that I want brown people to die for me. I guess what's OK for you is slander when it comes from other people.

[which doctor]

@ which doctor:

For the sake of curiosity, what is your view of the anti-Germans? You seem to take the line of the ultra-lefts with regard to anti-imperialism, but I’ve noticed you ‘thanked’ the OP, so I have to wonder whether you don’t perhaps have a more favorable attitude with regard to support of imperialism (and overt support, for that matter, in the case of the anti-Germans). Do you think it is acceptable to support the state of Israel under the guise of opposing anti-Semitism (which, to anyone who knows anything about the ideology of Zionism, is already a contradiction in and of itself)?
I'd be glad to explain myself more, especially considering all the slander Yehuda and Dean are throwing around in this thread. The anti-Germans only came to my attention a few weeks ago and I thanked OP's post because I thought it was interesting, not because I agree or identify with the anti-Germans. I do find the anti-Germans a fascinating current in politics though, especially given the history of nationalism and anti-semitism in Germany, but many of their ideas are quite strange and even reactionary, especially the 'hardcore' anti-germans. I will admit that I've noticed I share a similar theoretical background to the anti-Germans, but I have not reached nearly the same conclusions they have.

And as Devrim said, I am an internationalist before I'm an anti-imperialist. I don't support the state of Israel 'under the guise of opposing anti-semitism' because I don't support any bourgeois nation-states. I understand that the Israeli state is one of the more reactionary ones and they do commit many horrible injustices against the Palestinean people. The situation of Israel is an exceptional one considering the history of anti-semitism, and frankly, I really don't know if there is any solution to that crisis short of international socialist revolution. That said, I extend my solidarity to the working-classes of both Israel and Palestine.

[ls]

I think this thread has taken quite a nasty turn.

Yehuda, do you not think that Devrim, who you keep implying various things about, supports groups like AATW, the wall protests, he has have even expressed interest in your group, the ISL.

Where has Devrim denounced any of these organisations? Please, I'm curious to know. You clearly regard some of these organisations, as well as the dissenting (against the entire state appartus(es) in place) West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israeli workers and their smaller, organic organisations (ie not Zionist, not nationalist at their core) as pro-worker.

As such, it seems really weird to say that Devrim is denouncing the Palestinian workers' resistance, I think you'll find he supports many of the same organisations you do. It's as if you feel the need to engage in point-scoring and one-upmanship, also to distance yourself from "ultra-leftists", it's really quite pointless imo.

[9]

@ which doctor:

Thank you for your response. Having gone back and reread some of the posts, I’m really not sure that Yehuda and Dean actually have been throwing around slander, in spite of the insistence that they have. I think the characterization of your views from them needs to be seen in the context of your initial posts in this thread about how anti-Semitism trumps all other ‘ethnic’ hatreds, is a greater threat to human emancipation than other forms of discrimination (even suggesting that the state of Israel has “much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital”), and that communists need to be vigilant and fight against anti-Semitism - followed by your change of tone midway through the thread, when the issue of Palestinians came up, toward an ultra-left line about communists not being interested in oppression. It’s not very hard for me to see how this sort of selective concern for oppression in the case of Jews but not in the case of Palestinians could be interpreted as “reeking of first-world chauvinism”; it doesn't seem like such an unfair observation.

As to this:


I really don't know if there is any solution to that crisis short of international socialist revolution.

I can't imagine anyone here would argue otherwise.

[Devrim]

Later I noted that while I don't think the same is true of you or the ICC in general, your positions lead to the same place of refusing to support the Palestinian resistance by identifying it with the groups currently leading it, which is a capitulation to imperialism.

I don't think that you understand what we are saying. We don't support the Palestinian resistance not because of the groups leading it, but because it is nationalist, and offers nothing to the working class. We wouldn't support it if it were led by Trotskyist groups either.


You seem very hurt all of a sudden by the supposed implication that you're a racist because of your political positions.

No, I just don't like the standard Revleft way of arguing, which is throw slurs and insults.


But I recall being called a "nationalist" by ICCers who claimed that my position means that I want brown people to die for me.

I don't think that we called you a nationalist. Though I may be wrong. I don't think that you are a nationalist. You don't support your own nation. I do think though that your politics are nationalistic in that you support the Palestinian national movement.

The bit about 'little brown people' was only by one ICCer I think not plural. It was Leo's line. I think that he actually believes that your position is deeply chauvinist, but we talked about it and don't use that line of argument any more.


I guess what's OK for you is slander when it comes from other people.

No, it isn't OK if we do something like this either. We are only human and mistakes can happy, but I would expect to be pulled up on it and I would apologise.

Devrim

[Devrim]

As to this:


I really don't know if there is any solution to that crisis short of international socialist revolution.

I can't imagine anyone here would argue otherwise.

I don't think that is at all true. I think that there are plenty of people here who believe in a Palestinian revolution, and who believe that the Palestinian national movement can overthrow the Israeli state, and lead to some process of 'permanent revolution'.

I suspect that there is no solution outside of international socialist revolution. I think that the Palestinian working class is possibly the most defeated in the region, and see very little possibility of large scale workers' struggle emerging, outside of a period where revolution is errupting across the entire region.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Yehuda, do you not think that Devrim, who you keep implying various things about, supports groups like AATW, the wall protests, he has have even expressed interest in your group, the ISL.


We don't support groups like AATW. We don't relate to 'support' in the way that leftist groups do at all. We expressed an interest in their group out of curiousity.

Devrim

[ls]

We don't support groups like AATW. We don't relate to 'support' in the way that leftist groups do at all. We expressed an interest in their group out of curiousity.

Devrim

What reason do you cite for not supporting AATW?

They have stood with some slight pro-Zionists once or twice, not out of support for their politics, but because others had melded in with their ranks and those of other protestors present, they are without doubt an anti-Zionist, anti-Hamas and anti-Fatah group though. Some members parade Palestine flags, but that does not condemn the entire group to believing in nationalism, I've never seen a mention of Palestinian nationalism by them.

[which doctor]

@ which doctor:
I think the characterization of your views from them needs to be seen in the context of your initial posts in this thread about how anti-Semitism trumps all other ‘ethnic’ hatreds, is a greater threat to human emancipation than other forms of discrimination (even suggesting that the state of Israel has “much more to do with the history of Anti-Semitism in Europe than it does with the imperialist dimension of capital”), and that communists need to be vigilant and fight against anti-Semitism
Let me try to explain my position on anti-Semitism better. I may have been hasty to say that anti-Semitism "trumps all other ethnic hatreds" and I can see how that could be misconstrued, but my point remains the same that anti-Semitism cannot just be considered an ethnic or racist hatred. Any discussion on anti-Semitism must take as its point of reference the holocaust.

Nazi Germany's attempt to systematically exterminate the European Jewry by such precise means as gas chambers throws the entire course of Western history, and with it Enlightenment ideals, into question. No longer can modern history be seen as the 'march of reason' when approx. 6 million Jews were intentionally killed by very rational, scientific, and precise means as they were in the holocaust. Of course, it was not only Jews who perished in the holocaust, and I don't mean to trivialize the deaths of the Romani, Slavs, and political dissidents, but the primary ideological target of the holocaust was undoubtedely the Jews, who were perceived as this mystical, conspiratorial threat (of both capitalism and bolshevism) that pervaded all aspects of society.

The important lesson to take from this is that a modern, supposedely 'civilized' society can be complacent in something as horrific and systematic as the holocaust. Even more frightening is the fact that only a few decades before, the German working-class was both radical and well-organized, and several important members of the SPD became senior officials in the third reich.

What I'm trying to get at here is that anti-Semitism is not mere discrimination, but a tendency to regress into a form of barbarism that is both 'scientific' and 'rational.'

[Yehuda Stern]

ls: I have not implied a single thing about Devrim. What I have to say about his positions I have said explicitly: I think they express a capitulation to imperialism. Unlike other here who are blatantly (or sometimes not so blatantly) pro-Israeli, I don't think he's a pro-Zionist or anti-Arab racist, and I have made that quite clear.

As for supporting various organizations, I can give you roughly the same response Devrim did: I do not support any Israeli organization other than the ISL, let alone AATW, which does a lot of good and important things but is in no way imaginable a revolutionary organization (or even, as you noted, very consistently anti-Zionist).

Devrim: first of all I respect your reply and apologize if anything I said seems to you like slander. Having said that, I fail to see anything "nationalistic" about wanting a Marxist party to head the Palestinian resistance against Israel.

I don't know if your reply to Apikoros is directed at me in any way, but I don't believe in a Palestinian national revolution or that the Palestinian national movement can defeat Israel. Permanent revolution means exactly that the 'national movement', i.e. the bourgeoisie, cannot make a socialist revolution, and I think it's clear to any sane person that the Palestinians alone cannot defeat Israel. That is why the ISL calls for a regional socialist revolution, which will include Palestinians, Egyptians, Iranians, Kurds, in short all the working class of the region, including Jewish workers who will break off from Zionism.

which doctor: No one here doubts that "modern society", i.e. capitalist society, leads to a descent to barbarism, which could also mean a holocaust for the oppressed. You cite the radicalism of the German working class as if the holocaust happened despite it and not because of it, i.e. that Germany became a fascist state in spite of the possibility of a workers revolution and not because the ruling class was afraid of just such a possibility.

All of this does nothing to explain your strange position on anti-Semitism or your false assertion that anti-Zionism comes more from anti-Semitism than it does from anti-imperialism.

[Edelweiss]

Their culture is based around the paper 'Jungle World'. Just like the reactionary 'Junge Freiheit', 'Jungle World' borrowed it's style from the radical left paper 'Junge Welt'. They're praised and linked as an example of a leftwing paper on www.bpb.de, an official source of the German government.

I wanted to keep out of this thread as I'm not here to defend the anti-Germans. But if such uninformed half-truths are posted here, I just have to say something.

First, it's just bullshit to say that "their culture is based around the paper 'Jungle World'. Jungle World is just one weekly newspaper with some moderate anti-German authors appearing in it. It doesn't has any theoretical leadership in the anti-German movement. For the hardcore-wing of the anti-Germans the Newspaper "Bahamas" is much more important. Jungle World really isn't just read by anti-Germans and not all articles in it are written by anti-Germans. It's generally a popular German left-wing newspaper.

And please tell me, how do you come to the conclusion that the right-wing newspaper "Junge Freihet" "borrowed it's style from the radical left paper 'Junge Welt'"?! WTF?! Where did you got that from?! There surely aren't any similarities expect the name!

And if you would really know what you are talking about you would know the history of "Junge Welt" and "Jungle World": "Junge Welt" was the propaganda organ of the DDR youth cadre organization FDJ. After the reunification it continued to exist as an independent, daily leftist newspaper organized as a cooperative. After some time there was a split by Junge Welt editors, mainly from the West, who than founded the "Jungle World" as weekly newspaper. The split happened for ideological reasons, and certainly anti-German criticism played a role here. Still I wouldn't classify Jungle World as a anti-German newspaper.

And please tell me, where any leftist newspaper is really "praised" on www.bpb.de, and not just referenced!

[9]

@ which doctor:

In the case of the Nazis, “the Jew” was identified as the key “other” because Jews were the most visible “internal outsiders” in that time and place, which – in combination with various other social, historical, and economic factors – resulted in Jews being the most effective scapegoats in that part of Europe in that part of the 20th century. But Jews are not a prerequisite for fascism and/or genocide, and anti-Semitism isn’t at all a necessary component of it. So I’m not sure why your comments should be in regards specifically to anti-Semitism and not to fascism or to capitalism as a whole. It just seems to me that putting it down to the allegedly unique nature of anti-Semitism rather than the nature of capitalism itself is missing the big picture, and it lends itself to the false conclusion that its possible to prevent another atrocity like the Holocaust by eradicating anti-Semitism within the framework of capitalism, rather than by eradicating capitalism itself.