View Full Version : This group seems a bit racist
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1242
"Do it again, bomb germany."
It's not racist. Though it might be misguided. Note that a German is the only member.
It's not racist. Though it might be misguided. Note that a German is the only member.
I think its the way its worded I don't know, it irks me.
I know the user created a pro-israel group but that didn't really make think it was overly-zionist or anything, but a called "anti german" seems to inching toward that direction.
Tenka
8th June 2014, 07:41
I hate the German state as much as the next commie but this Anti-German stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(political_current)) is paranoid delusion. Germany is no more racist than most of Europe after the fall of the USSR. And what's wrong with "one-sided rejection of Israel"? A bourgeois state like any other with some, perhaps fairly unique, entitlement issues.
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 09:56
I hate the German state as much as the next commie but this Anti-German stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Germans_(political_current)) is paranoid delusion. Germany is no more racist than most of Europe after the fall of the USSR. And what's wrong with "one-sided rejection of Israel"? A bourgeois state like any other with some, perhaps fairly unique, entitlement issues.
Fucking lol: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Hamm02.jpg
People who wave Israeli and American flags are not our friends; I don't care what tendency you are.
Sasha
8th June 2014, 10:04
God, not this non-issue again.. Outside of germany and austria anti-germans are totally irrelevant and even within these countries its a lot more (or better said, a lot less) complicated than people would want to believe, just do a search for anti-germans in the board search, we discussed this subject to death already way to often.
And as we say over here; there is nothing so german as an anti-german
Blake's Baby
8th June 2014, 10:14
RevLeft was set by someone close to the ,,Antideutsche'' current. If you object to it so strongly, you probably have to think about leaving.
It's a peculiarity of German psychology, developed from anti-fascism mostly by Marxist-Leninist currents. It's not so different from the position of some of the groups in the 1960s who declared that all their parents were collaborators.
Note; german as in german ideology.
Anti-germans believe that the german ideology is inherently nationalist, destructive and antisemitic. So they oppose a german state powerful enough to reach hegemonial status.
It's easy to confuse this term with blatant racism against germans
God, not this non-issue again.. Outside of germany and austria anti-germans are totally irrelevant and even within these countries its a lot more (or better said, a lot less) complicated than people would want to believe, just do a search for anti-germans in the board search, we discussed this subject to death already way to often.
And as we say over here; there is nothing so german as an anti-german
Quoting Malte, right?:laugh:
Yeah you're right, the anti-german movement is really german as fuck. However, they're not such a big thing in germany and austria anymore, but they have heavily influenced the left, ideologically-wise. The radical left in g
Germany is now generally more pro-Israel, sceptical towards anti-imperialism, anti-americanism and german nationalism.
Atsumari
8th June 2014, 10:36
Note; german as in german ideology.
Anti-germans believe that the german ideology is inherently nationalist, destructive and antisemitic. So they oppose a german state powerful enough to reach hegemonial status.
It's easy to confuse this term with blatant racism against germans
So basically, they are the kind of people that the far-right talks about when they utter "White shame." I am glad to know that stereotype can be confirmed.
This is also highly relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japaneseism
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 10:36
RevLeft was set by someone close to the ,,Antideutsche'' current. If you object to it so strongly, you probably have to think about leaving.
RevLeft might have been set up by a Babylonian lizard with secret Nazi tendencies, what does it matter? As I recall it, Zionism is a restrictable offence, although the rule is enforced... sporadically. If the rules have changed and support for Zionism is A-OK, the BA should inform us.
It's a peculiarity of German psychology, developed from anti-fascism mostly by Marxist-Leninist currents. It's not so different from the position of some of the groups in the 1960s who declared that all their parents were collaborators.
Except the RAF and similar groups didn't go on to support imperialism in the name of fighting a previous and very dead sort of imperialism.
So basically, they are the kind of people that the far-right talks about when they utter "White shame." I am glad to know that stereotype can be confirmed.
This is also highly relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japaneseism
Not really, as german collective guilt is something fairly accepted within the left and the Intelligentsia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit
Anti-japaneseism? Never heard about that :laugh:
Blake's Baby
8th June 2014, 10:51
RevLeft might have been set up by a Babylonian lizard with secret Nazi tendencies, what does it matter? ...
Well, it matters because Babylonian lizards don't exist. Anti-Germans do.
...As I recall it, Zionism is a restrictable offence, although the rule is enforced... sporadically. If the rules have changed and support for Zionism is A-OK, the BA should inform us...
Anti-Germanism isn't Zionism. And Anti-Germanism has always been allowed on RevLeft, because RevLeft was set up by an Anti-German. Nothing has changed.
...Except the RAF and similar groups didn't go on to support imperialism in the name of fighting a previous and very dead sort of imperialism.
No, they supported one imperialism (Russian) in the name of fighting another imperialism (American) that they equated with a dead imperialism (Nazi Germany). Not that much difference (except, of course, 20 years after WWII there really were a lot of ex-Nazis in the German establishment).
The Antideutsch however are merely equating current German imperialism with previous German imperialism (reasonable enough), and supporting imperialist enemies of the previous imperialism (ie, US & British) as being enemies of the current imperialism. In other words, they're kinda idiots.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 10:57
Well, it matters because Babylonian lizards don't exist. Anti-Germans do.
How can you say that my mother was an iguana from Sippar.
Anti-Germanism isn't Zionism.
Do anti-Germans support the colonial endeavour in the Middle East and the continued existence of Israel as a settler-colonial state? They do. So they are functionally identical to Zionists, although their mythological justification is even more whacked-out.
And Anti-Germanism has always been allowed on RevLeft, because RevLeft was set up by an Anti-German. Nothing has changed.
Why not allow the "British jobs for British workers" crowd to post then? Maybe someone still supports the old "socialist"-segregationist stance of the South African CP, maybe they should be unrestricted as well.
Blake's Baby
8th June 2014, 11:02
If the board had been set up by people with those politics then I'm sure they would.
I agree that Anti-Germanism is whacked out. I'm just disputing that there's been any change in policy. It's Malte's board. and he's close to the Anti-Germans. The fact is, if we don't like it, we have the option to go elsewhere. Anyone who wants to take their moral indignation to the point of boycott is perfectly able to do so.
Do anti-Germans support the colonial endeavour in the Middle East and the continued existence of Israel as a settler-colonial state? They do. So they are functionally identical to Zionists, although their mythological justification is even more whacked-out.
Yeah, they are "Zionists", so what?
Danielle Ni Dhighe
8th June 2014, 11:06
So for Rosa Partizan, sex work is bad, but the murdering Zionist state is good. Anyone who supports Zionism should be restricted with the rest of the reactionaries.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 11:08
If the board had been set up by people with those politics then I'm sure they would.
I agree that Anti-Germanism is whacked out. I'm just disputing that there's been any change in policy. It's Malte's board. and he's close to the Anti-Germans. The fact is, if we don't like it, we have the option to go elsewhere. Anyone who wants to take their moral indignation to the point of boycott is perfectly able to do so.
Or we could ask that the rules of the board - which specify that Zionists are to be restricted - be followed. If Malte really is pro-anti-German (I have no idea if he is, the Supreme Leader hasn't posted anything since I've registered) he can then veto this, with the consequences that would entail. Such as being blatantly biased and inconsistent.
Yeah, they are "Zionists", so what?
So they're about as socialist as the Australian Labour Party, another party that really supported settler-colonialism.
show me the specific part of the rules, in which is written that zionists should be restricted. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find this specifc rule.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 11:32
It's a matter of precedent. I would cite the case of the user theodor hertzl (yes, really, we banned theodor hertzl; I also think we banned Hitler and MrMosely).
It's a matter of precedent. I would cite the case of the user theodor hertzl (yes, really, we banned theodor hertzl; I also think we banned Hitler and MrMosely).
So you're right; the revleft administration is blatantly biased and inconsistent, when it comes to the rules!
"Zionism" isn't even mentioned in your rules, in fact, only anti-semitism is, which would mean the administration should restrict 1/3 of all "anti-zionists", as anti-semitic ressentiment is fairly widespread on this board. But that's a story for another time.
So in closing we can say, that "Zionism" is NOT against the rules and every action against "Zionists" is unjustified.
And saying Hertzl in the same context as Hitler is just..wow
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 11:45
"Zionism" isn't even mentioned in your rules[...]
Neither is "British jobs for British workers". The rules in the FAQ are general rules whose specific implementation is down to the staff, and is supposed to be guided by a bit of common sense about what is and isn't socialism.
, in fact, only anti-semitism is, which would mean the administration should restrict 1/3 of all "anti-zionists", as anti-semitic ressentiment is fairly widespread on this board.
To be honest I don't think you can cite a single instance of anti-semitism by unrestricted, active members.
Neither is "British jobs for British workers". The rules in the FAQ are general rules whose specific implementation is down to the staff, and is supposed to be guided by a bit of common sense about what is and isn't socialism.
To be honest I don't think you can cite a single instance of anti-semitism by unrestricted, active members.
Oh and who decides wheter supporting Israel is socialist or not? How is supporting Israel untill communism to prevent eliminatory anti-semitism like in 42' not socialist? And don't come with leninite "muh imperialism muh financial oligarchy" stuff.
Of corse I could. Saying that jews are profiting from the Holocaust is blatantly anti-semitic. Saying that Israel = Nazi Germany is blatantly anti-semitic. Ever heard of secondary anti-semitism, eh?
This thread is one of my favourite ones; http://www.revleft.com/vb/israeli-flag-appropriatei-t183238/index.html
And you can find a shitload of such bullshit anti-semitic sentences on this board.
Atsumari
8th June 2014, 12:11
Oh and who decides wheter supporting Israel is socialist or not? How is supporting Israel untill communism to prevent eliminatory anti-semitism like in 42' not socialist? And don't come with leninite "muh imperialism muh financial oligarchy" stuff.
Of corse I could. Saying that jews are profiting from the Holocaust is blatantly anti-semitic. Saying that Israel = Nazi Germany is blatantly anti-semitic. Ever heard of secondary anti-semitism, eh?
This thread is one of my favourite ones; http://www.revleft.com/vb/israeli-flag-appropriatei-t183238/index.html
And you can find a shitload of such bullshit anti-semitic sentences on this board.
Okay, I will agree with you that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is distasteful and hyperbolic, it is a fact that Israel tries to use anti-Semitism of the past to justify their actions. Whenever Israel has a PR crisis, you always see books with titles like "Never Again" being thrown around and calling any kind of criticism against the "right to self-defense" as being anti-Semitic.
We may disagree on that issue, but surely, you must be against settlements, right?
I'll write an extended answer when i come back home, but yes I'm against the settler movement
Sasha
8th June 2014, 12:27
Yes al anti-germans are one, uniform group with 100% identical positions, you know, just how all communists and anarchists are. Anarchist? You have the same politics as troy southgate, communist? You are all nazbolls.
Anti-german positions differ from "arabs are inferiour savages who need to be wiped from the face of the earth" who are obviously banned or restricted here to "all nationstates need to disappear but by demanding israel gets military destructed by the surrounding anti-semite arab supremacist states, instead of argueing for the formation of a non-racist, multi-ethnic state you are playing into the hands of a of a likely new shoah" which is very close to mine and maltes positions.
Come on people, all self described revolutionary leftist are judged on a individual basis by the BA. If you wonder about rosa's politics just fucking ask her in a respectful manner. In the way leftists from the other side of the world have this kneejerk obsession with a rather insignificant and percular specific and local issue as the anti-germans you are rather proofing them right. The left has a bizzare and irrational obsession with israel which can only be explained in ways that anti-germanism is exactly about; latent and overt unrecognized anti-semitism, collective national guilt feelings and the knee-jerk opposition to that by leftists, a hyprocritical position on nationalism and national liberation, orientalism etc etc
Danielle Ni Dhighe
8th June 2014, 12:47
Anti-Germans are liberals with the typical liberal guilt syndrome about something, in this case the Holocaust.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
8th June 2014, 12:48
YIf you wonder about rosa's politics just fucking ask her in a respectful manner.
Considering she recently admitted to being a troll on the issue, no thanks.
Considering she recently admitted to being a troll on the issue, no thanks.
considering the constant attacks on her which got her triggered you might want to rethink her "confession" about being a troll.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
8th June 2014, 13:06
considering the constant attacks on her which got her triggered you might want to rethink her "confession" about being a troll.
She was so "triggered" that she falsely confessed to being a troll?
Rosa Partizan
8th June 2014, 13:38
Biazed told me about this thread and some posts, so I decided to rule out some of that bullshit that is going on.
So for Rosa Partizan, sex work is bad, but the murdering Zionist state is good. Anyone who supports Zionism should be restricted with the rest of the reactionaries.
What has sex work to do with this issue? You're really paranoid as fuck for mentioning my stance on that here, trying to show some double standard of mine within two issues that can't be compared at all.
Yes al anti-germans are one, uniform group with 100% identical positions, you know, just how all communists and anarchists are. Anarchist? You have the same politics as troy southgate, communist? You are all nazbolls.
Anti-german positions differ from "arabs are inferiour savages who need to be wiped from the face of the earth" who are obviously banned or restricted here to "all nationstates need to disappear but by demanding israel gets military destructed by the surrounding anti-semite arab supremacist states, instead of argueing for the formation of a non-racist, multi-ethnic state you are playing into the hands of a of a likely new shoah" which is very close to mine and maltes positions.
Come on people, all self described revolutionary leftist are judged on a individual basis by the BA. If you wonder about rosa's politics just fucking ask her in a respectful manner. In the way leftists from the other side of the world have this kneejerk obsession with a rather insignificant and percular specific and local issue as the anti-germans you are rather proofing them right. The left has a bizzare and irrational obsession with israel which can only be explained in ways that anti-germanism is exactly about; latent and overt unrecognized anti-semitism, collective national guilt feelings and the knee-jerk opposition to that by leftists, a hyprocritical position on nationalism and national liberation, orientalism etc etc
thank you so much for this elaborate and very true post. I myself don't even consider myself an anti-German, but guess what, I love to see people here freak out about that political side, freak out about everything concerning Israel in general. I don't even consider myself a zionist. That second statement you made ""all nationstates need to disappear but...", this is exactly what my point of view is about. I am opposed to national states and the idea behind them, but nothing good would result from destroying all national boarders in this very moment. "No borders, no nations" is a great concept as a long-term goal, but it wouldn't work RIGHT NOW, because of exactly what you mentioned would happen. We can crizicize a ton of stuff about Israel, be it Netanyahu, orthodox Jews, settler's movement and stuff, there would be no justification for erasing Israeli boarders and leaving them to their hostile environment. We all know from history what they would be up to. This has nothing do to with zionism in the sense of thinking that Jews are some supremacist folks or any racist bullshit considering them more important or better. They are just way more haunted through history than most other groups. Btw, I don't think that Anti-Germanism is something inherently or typical German, since most Germans nowadays go like "oh that was 70 years ago, let's concentrate on the present and what Israel is doing nowadays looks a lot like what was done to them". If you hold such a position, you're way more typically German than holding Anti-German views. German patriotism is kind of totally passive-aggressive, because of that history, and this is why I am so disgusted by it.
Anti-Germans are liberals with the typical liberal guilt syndrome about something, in this case the Holocaust.
You know what makes me laugh so hard every fucking time? Seeing you whining about liberals but at the same time running around here with every other post of you being "sex work is a free choice". I already decided not to discuss prostitution anymore here, because every discussion goes the same, so leave me alone with your double standard bullshit.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
8th June 2014, 13:52
You know what makes me laugh so hard every fucking time? Seeing you whining about liberals but at the same time running around here with every other post of you being "sex work is a free choice".
Quit exaggerating. I haven't posted that many times about prostitution compared to my total post count, and I don't believe work in general is a free choice under capitalism. However, I do see sex work as work.
I already decided not to discuss prostitution anymore here, because every discussion goes the same, so leave me alone with your double standard bullshit.
Boo fucking hoo. Quit playing the victim all the damned time.
exeexe
8th June 2014, 14:09
Well this isnt anymore different than a song by anarchist paragraf 119 called danskhed/danishhood
http://youtu.be/BNgUwU9QlXA?t=13m20s
First they are singing about how stupid danishhood is and how racist it is and how it is supported even by social democrats, then they sing this:
Tror i virkelig "de fremmede" vil bestjæle jer?
- Tage jeres snottede dankshed som intet er værd?
I tager fejl, for trods vores nationalitet
Er det os der er danskhedens fjende nummer ét
Do you really think the foreigners wanna rob you?
Stealing your worthless foolish danishood
You are wrong because despite our nationality
it is us (anarchists) who are the enemy number one of danishhood.
#FF0000
8th June 2014, 18:19
Quit exaggerating. I haven't posted that many times about prostitution compared to my total post count, and I don't believe work in general is a free choice under capitalism. However, I do see sex work as work.
Yo your entire reasoning behind your position on prostitution was "choice". Like, that was it.
#FF0000
8th June 2014, 18:24
And you can find a shitload of such bullshit anti-semitic sentences on this board.
I think this is only cuz we get/got a lot of new baby leftists who just discovered that Israel does Bad Things and so goes way overboard comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Maybe a comparison to South Africa is more apt but really, countries with overt enforced racial biases all tend to be kind of unique little snowflakes in how they're racist. :3
Queen Mab
8th June 2014, 18:24
I myself don't even consider myself an anti-German, but guess what, I love to see people here freak out about that political side, freak out about everything concerning Israel in general. I don't even consider myself a zionist.
Oh, so you're a troll. Isn't that a bannable offense?
motion denied
8th June 2014, 18:27
Why is the support of bourgeois state(s) and blatant trolling even debatable?
#FF0000
8th June 2014, 18:28
folks support bourgeois states pretty often on here
Sinister Intents
8th June 2014, 18:29
Why is the support of bourgeois state(s) and blatant trolling even debatable?
That and shouldn't this be moved to a split thread?
motion denied
8th June 2014, 18:37
folks support bourgeois states pretty often on here
Not all of them are apartheid states.
But then again I'm just a crypto-anti-semitic nazi.
You're right though.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 18:37
Oh and who decides wheter supporting Israel is socialist or not? How is supporting Israel untill communism to prevent eliminatory anti-semitism like in 42' not socialist? And don't come with leninite "muh imperialism muh financial oligarchy" stuff.
Financial oligarchies exist in almost every country of the globe. The point is that supporting Israel means supporting the settler-colonial dispossession and displacement of the Arabs, a state of affairs that imposes a double burden of oppression of Arab workers and retards the development of class consciousness in both Hebrew and Arab workers.
The same reason the South African CP, with its line "Workers of the world unite and fight for a white South Africa!", was not socialist, and the same reason the minister Mollet, with his support for the French colonial regime in Algeria, was not a socialist.
Of corse I could. Saying that jews are profiting from the Holocaust is blatantly anti-semitic. Saying that Israel = Nazi Germany is blatantly anti-semitic. Ever heard of secondary anti-semitism, eh?
Sure, it was another attempt to treat a structural question in psychological terms. Now, it is indisputable that some Jews are making money from the Holocaust, as are quite a few non-Jews. Of course, saying that Jews, without qualifications, profit from the Holocaust, is anti-semitic. But who on this board has said this?
People compare all kinds of states to Nazi Germany and no, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is not anti-semitic simply because Israel has a Jewish majority. I've heard people compare Russia to Nazi Germany, is that anti-Russian? (Russians were, after all, also the victims of the Nazi genocide.)
This thread is one of my favourite ones; http://www.revleft.com/vb/israeli-flag-appropriatei-t183238/index.html
What is anti-semitic about that thread?
Yes al anti-germans are one, uniform group with 100% identical positions, you know, just how all communists and anarchists are. Anarchist? You have the same politics as troy southgate, communist? You are all nazbolls.
This is rich, coming from you, since you have a tendency to lump all Marxists-Leninists and everyone opposed to Obama's imperial ventures into some amorphous "anti-imp" mass.
Anti-german positions differ from "arabs are inferiour savages who need to be wiped from the face of the earth" who are obviously banned or restricted here to "all nationstates need to disappear but by demanding israel gets military destructed by the surrounding anti-semite arab supremacist states, instead of argueing for the formation of a non-racist, multi-ethnic state you are playing into the hands of a of a likely new shoah" which is very close to mine and maltes positions.
Except I happen to know from personal experience that this is not the case. Not only does no one, literally no one, support Israel "getting militarily destroyed by the surrounding anti-semite Arab-supremacist states", the ICL takes the position that there exists in modern Israel a Hebrew-speaking nation with a right to self-determination, and call for a socialist federation of the Middle East, yet the AD bastards still attack them (or rather, SpAD, their German section) for opposing Israeli settler-colonialism.
Come on people, all self described revolutionary leftist are judged on a individual basis by the BA. If you wonder about rosa's politics just fucking ask her in a respectful manner.
This thread isn't about Roza.
In the way leftists from the other side of the world have this kneejerk obsession with a rather insignificant and percular specific and local issue as the anti-germans you are rather proofing them right.
Except it's not just about the anti-Germans. Shachtmanites have the same attitude to Israel, the only difference is that the anti-Germans have this weird national-narcissistic obsession with how bad Germany is that, really, no one on this board cares about.
The left has a bizzare and irrational obsession with israel which can only be explained in ways that anti-germanism is exactly about; latent and overt unrecognized anti-semitism, collective national guilt feelings and the knee-jerk opposition to that by leftists, a hyprocritical position on nationalism and national liberation, orientalism etc etc
I love this argument. The socialist left opposes all colonial projects, from French Algeria to Israel to Sri Lanka. When the JVP in Sri Lanka moved toward Sinhala chauvinism we condemned that. We either support the self-determination of Tamils or oppose self-determination on principle. We do the same with Palestinians. But when a leftist group condemns the colonial regime in Sri Lanka, there are no hysterical voices calling them anti-Sinhala. Whereas the pro-Israeli "leftists" have made Israel an issue when it would have been a straightforward application of our positions, and then complain that everyone talks about Israel.
Why is the support of bourgeois state(s) and blatant trolling even debatable?
because:
all nationstates need to disappear but by demanding israel gets military destructed by the surrounding anti-semite arab supremacist states, instead of argueing for the formation of a non-racist, multi-ethnic state you are playing into the hands of a of a likely new shoah
The "trolling" isn't even the reason why you're all so butthurt (I don't recall that Antideutsche= le ebin trolel 9/10, gud trol : DDD)
It's the thing about israel that pisses you off :laugh:
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 18:43
I am a very vocal anti-zionist. And I often argue for the de(st/con)ruction of the state of Israel as one of the most pressing examples of how statism affects society. Zionism is ultimately a racist and segregationist supremacy movement building on both religious and social constructs and mythology to justify itself. The state of Israel, as a zionist state, is driving towards a policy of genocide towards the Palestinians inside its own boarders.
But Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism.
And the position arguing for the destruction of Israel within the current system will leave unanswered a vital question: the fact that anti-Zionism is riddled with racist and anti-Semitic sentiments and many of the most directly involved anti-Zionist organizations are not only advocating the destruction of Israel, but of Jews inside of Israel.
The current set of reality is a double edged sword. Either the destruction of Isreal will lead to unprecedented pogroms or the continuation of Israel will lead to the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Rosa Partizan
8th June 2014, 18:44
Oh, so you're a troll. Isn't that a bannable offense?
1. I got no issues with revleft banning me, since the only purpose of returning was not to continue discussing as before but to clarify things in this thread that biazed told me about.
2. I'm not trolling in the sense of inventing some position to have people freak out, but exaggerating the position I hold because I find it remarkable in how far this state is way more observed than any other state, be it by leftists, fascist or whomever. It seems that Israel is the center of the world to people with every type of political position, as Sasha already explained above.
I find it ridiculous that such a position qualifies me as a zionist, but well, be it so.
#FF0000
8th June 2014, 18:45
The left has a bizzare and irrational obsession with israel which can only be explained in ways that anti-germanism is exactly about; latent and overt unrecognized anti-semitism, collective national guilt feelings and the knee-jerk opposition to that by leftists, a hyprocritical position on nationalism and national liberation, orientalism etc etc
huh that's kinda weird considering I know hella Jewish folks who are deeply opposed to what Israel does and are also hella uncomfortable with ethnic nationalism in general. My first exposure to the whole "Israel/Palestine" issue (beyond my sunday school teachers telling me "every Palestinian is a terrorist") was from a pamphlet from a Jewish organization which opposed Israel.
but hey i guess these folks/groups are all just self-hating or something right? that seems like a very, very lazy way of arguing this issue.
Rosa Partizan
8th June 2014, 18:46
I am a very vocal anti-zionist. And I often argue for the de(st/con)ruction of the state of Israel as one of the most pressing examples of how statism affects society. Zionism is ultimately a racist and segregationist supremacy movement building on both religious and social constructs and mythology to justify itself. The state of Israel, as a zionist state, is driving towards a policy of genocide towards the Palestinians inside its own boarders.
But Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism.
And the position arguing for the destruction of Israel within the current system will leave unanswered a vital question: the fact that anti-Zionism is riddled with racist and anti-Semitic sentiments and many of the most directly involved anti-Zionist organizations are not only advocating the destruction of Israel, but of Jews inside of Israel.
The current set of reality is a double edged sword. Either the destruction of Isreal will lead to unprecedented pogroms or the continuation of Israel will lead to the destruction of the Palestinian people.
although I don't exactly agree with everything you wrote, you kinda understood the problem with the issue, as I marked those passage in bold letters.
motion denied
8th June 2014, 18:52
because:
The "trolling" isn't even the reason why you're all so butthurt (I don't recall that Antideutsche= le ebin trolel 9/10, gud trol : DDD)
It's the thing about israel that pisses you off :laugh:
I'm not pissed off, nor butthurt. And both the support for Israel and the trolling bug me.
Sinister Intents
8th June 2014, 18:54
Is this just a sign of how down hill this forum has gone? I think yes...
#FF0000
8th June 2014, 18:55
Is this just a sign of how down hill this forum has gone? I think yes...
What is "this" exactly
Sinister Intents
8th June 2014, 18:58
What is "this" exactly
This thread in and of itself I gather. That and this forum is nowhere near as fun as it once was for me though I jsut keep posting, I'm not even really sure what's going on in this thread. I stopped paying attenction
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 19:05
Perhaps he's referring to the use of the word "butthurt" in a serious context.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 19:07
There is a huge cognitive dissonance within the left regarding the state of Israel and the problems it poses and it shows the impotency of the "opposing bourgeois states" as a slogan and shows the fundamental problems with national liberation as a goal itself.
Israel is a religious apartheid state. Dissolving that state within the current capitalist system and the system of Jewish-Islamic dichotomy is impossible without massive bloodshed. The profound lack of understanding the religious components of both sides is worrying.
Yes, the situation is not in the interest of the working class of both Israel and the Palestinians (which as a statement which incidentally validates the distinction between the two on ethnic lines). No the situation can not be solved outside the working class and the overthrow of the bourgeois class and their opposed factional interests in the region.
And in lieu of that solution which is not going to happen anytime soon....the only realistic alternatives is either a military solution which will lead to the destruction and oppression of one ethnic group over the other or it will require democratic reforms and the dissolving of the religious component of the state of Israel.
So which one is it?
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 19:12
There is a huge cognitive dissonance within the left regarding the state of Israel and the problems it poses and it shows the impotency of the "opposing bourgeois states" as a slogan and shows the fundamental problems with national liberation as a goal itself.
Israel is a religious apartheid state. Dissolving that state within the current capitalist system and the system of Jewish-Islamic dichotomy is impossible without massive bloodshed. The profound lack of understanding the religious components of both sides is worrying.
Yes, the situation is not in the interest of the working class of both Israel and the Palestinians (which as a statement which incidentally validates the distinction between the two on ethnic lines). No the situation can not be solved outside the working class and the overthrow of the bourgeois class and their opposed factional interests in the region.
And in lieu of that solution which is not going to happen anytime soon....the only realistic alternatives is either a military solution which will lead to the destruction and oppression of one ethnic group over the other or it will require democratic reforms and the dissolving of the religious component of the state of Israel.
So which one is it?
Not even social democrats make excuses like this. They said the same thing about ending apartheid in South Africa. You're actually suggesting we support a situation of apartheid because "the Israelis might get killed by the people they were occupying for the past several decades if we stop their occupation". It's complete hogwash and you should be ashamed of buying into the rhetoric.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 19:34
Not even social democrats make excuses like this. They said the same thing about ending apartheid in South Africa. You're actually suggesting we support a situation of apartheid because "the Israelis might get killed by the people they were occupying for the past several decades if we stop their occupation". It's complete hogwash and you should be ashamed of buying into the rhetoric.
Nice touch. Except you should learn to read. But I have noticed this selective reading is a problem a whole lot of users have.
Fyi. The situation of South African apartheid was completely and utterly different from the situation in the region of Palestine and most definitely lacked the religious component. Plus of course it seems you are denying the fact that the solution in SA was completely and utterly bourgeois liberal bull shit....which neither brought freedom and control to the working class NOR did it create working class unity.
So short of a revolution....there is no solution other than a military one or a bourgeois democratic one.
I ask again....Which one do you propose outside of useless sloganeering. The Palestinians do not have much time left given the rapid usurpation of their land....
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 19:37
And you just happen to have postponed the revolution indefinitely, meaning there is no solution, so Israel should continue to exist indefinitely.
Also, what bleeding "religious component", the Palestinians aren't defined by their religion and for that matter, to the chagrin of some Jewish-chauvinist parties, neither are Israelis. People used to peddle this "religious conflict" shit when the war in Yugoslavia was going on as well.
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 19:45
Nice touch. Except you should learn to read. But I have noticed this selective reading is a problem a whole lot of users have.
Fyi. The situation of South African apartheid was completely and utterly different from the situation in the region of Palestine and most definitely lacked the religious component. Plus of course it seems you are denying the fact that the solution in SA was completely and utterly bourgeois liberal bull shit....which neither brought freedom and control to the working class NOR did it create working class unity.
So short of a revolution....there is no solution other than a military one or a bourgeois democratic one.
I ask again....Which one do you propose outside of useless sloganeering. The Palestinians do not have much time left given the rapid usurpation of their land....
All situations have their differences, but the excuse being used is timeless. It was used by the Americans to advocate slavery, and has also been used against us leftists who wish for violent revolution (or, in your words, a "bloodbath") in order to achieve our freedom. It isn't based in reality, but on the idea of the "other" as an invader who would destroy our way of life and descend our society into barbarism. It's bullshit nationalism of the same kind that "anti-Germans" would say they are first and foremost against. Just like the petit bourgeois "leftists" who reject mainstream religion in their society to go do a version of some other culture's bullshit that's been invented in the last 100 years by and for white people.
There is no danger of the Palestinian hordes committing massacres of innocents. All you're doing is parroting a line that has allowed the state of Israel to continue acting in the way it has with impunity, while everyone talks about how "complicated" everything is and how there's no solution to the problem. It's bullshit. I'd love to see you in the situation of the Palestinians and come to the conclusion about the situation that you have, because none of the ones I've talked to would regard you as anything other than a reactionary for such a viewpoints. Because it's a hell of a lot easier to condemn others to abject misery than to accept that something could be done, but isn't being done. There is no stalemate or complicating factors in giving the Palestinian people freedom, there is only greed and exploitation.
My solution isn't "sloganeering" (I'd love to see your example, by the way), it's revolution. My solution by which I'd like to gain my own freedom and freedom for everybody else. I thought that's what this website was about, but apparently it's actually about waving Israeli flags like bullshit nationalist-apologist RPers and dancing on the graves of brown people. Fuck solidarity with the state of Israel.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 19:48
And you just happen to have postponed the revolution indefinitely, meaning there is no solution, so Israel should continue to exist indefinitely.
Also, what bleeding "religious component", the Palestinians aren't defined by their religion and for that matter, to the chagrin of some Jewish-chauvinist parties, neither are Israelis. People used to peddle this "religious conflict" shit when the war in Yugoslavia was going on as well.
But the mayor players with massive support are. So unless you get to divorce the people from their mass support of these parties and factions (little hint: you won't) I suggest you get your head out of your ass and actually read what is being written instead of creating straw man arguments or argue against what is being said instead of constructing your own narrative as usual.
Now I like your optimism that you people will be able to create a revolution on the short term...but your bullshit obviously fabricated argument that I postponed the revolution indefinitely is of course utter nonsense. But I am of course open to your proof that given the rapid expansion of Israel you will be able to create a socialist/communist revolution in the coming decade or so.
Five Year Plan
8th June 2014, 19:58
But the mayor players with massive support are. So unless you get to divorce the people from their mass support of these parties and factions (little hint: you won't) I suggest you get your head out of your ass and actually read what is being written instead of creating straw man arguments or argue against what is being said instead of constructing your own narrative as usual.
Now I like your optimism that you people will be able to create a revolution on the short term...but your bullshit obviously fabricated argument that I postponed the revolution indefinitely is of course utter nonsense. But I am of course open to your proof that given the rapid expansion of Israel you will be able to create a socialist/communist revolution in the coming decade or so.
Is there a single person on this forum who ever interprets your posts correctly while disagreeing with you in a debate? Seriously, it gets old hearing this "you are setting up a strawman" every time I see you involved in an actual debate. If enough people are having a problem discerning what you are trying to say, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem lies with how you are expressing your positions.
Communer is right. It's actually not clear what your position is on Israel (a fence-sitting social democrat--surprising! Oh, wait, I mean "anarchist" who thinks that the Dutch SP is the best realizable political option for workers at the present moment).
You said: "And the position arguing for the destruction of Israel within the current system will leave unanswered a vital question: the fact that anti-Zionism is riddled with racist and anti-Semitic sentiments and many of the most directly involved anti-Zionist organizations are not only advocating the destruction of Israel, but of Jews inside of Israel...The current set of reality is a double edged sword. Either the destruction of Isreal will lead to unprecedented pogroms or the continuation of Israel will lead to the destruction of the Palestinian people."
Setting aside the fact that the bolded half of your "double-edged sword" is bullshit, what exactly do you propose?
People here are faulting you for drawing false equivalences in a way that paralyzes any effective action, which functionally gives Israel a free pass to continue to do what it has been doing for the past 50+ years.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 20:07
All situations have their differences, but the excuse being used is timeless. It was used by the Americans to advocate slavery, and has also been used against us leftists who wish for violent revolution (or, in your words, a "bloodbath") in order to achieve our freedom. It isn't based in reality, but on the idea of the "other" as an invader who would destroy our way of life and descend our society into barbarism. It's bullshit nationalism of the same kind that "anti-Germans" would say they are first and foremost against. Just like the petit bourgeois "leftists" who reject mainstream religion in their society to go do a version of some other culture's bullshit that's been invented in the last 100 years by and for white people.
There is no danger of the Palestinian hordes committing massacres of innocents. All you're doing is parroting a line that has allowed the state of Israel to continue acting in the way it has with impunity, while everyone talks about how "complicated" everything is and how there's no solution to the problem. It's bullshit. I'd love to see you in the situation of the Palestinians and come to the conclusion about the situation that you have, because none of the ones I've talked to would regard you as anything other than a reactionary for such a viewpoints. Because it's a hell of a lot easier to condemn others to abject misery than to accept that something could be done, but isn't being done. There is no stalemate or complicating factors in giving the Palestinian people freedom, there is only greed and exploitation.
My solution isn't "sloganeering" (I'd love to see your example, by the way), it's revolution. My solution by which I'd like to gain my own freedom and freedom for everybody else. I thought that's what this website was about, but apparently it's actually about waving Israeli flags like bullshit nationalist-apologist RPers and dancing on the graves of brown people. Fuck solidarity with the state of Israel.
Again....maybe you should wipe the shit out of your eyes and read what I post. Then search my post history on the subject.
The fundamental lack of understanding the role religion plays on both sides of the conflict is fundamental to the revolutionary left. They embed themselves into the narrative that people are actually devoid of such reactionary ideologies for the sake of taking a neutral position of "revolution" in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and that class make up is all decisive in deciding the eventual outcome. Therefore all secular ambitions to bring peace and mutual coexistence have continuously failed. Neither the Israelies nor the Palestinians are defined by religion alone but the institutions which are key players in the conflict are. And these institutions have massive support on both sides. That leaves out the fact that the conflict is fueled by imperialist interests of international and regional bourgeois factions and within the Arab world is largely driven by religious arguments.
The imperative of Zionism conversely isn't just the concept of a Jewish home land. It is the religious imperative that the region belongs to the Jews and it is religious duty to reconquer the land. Conversely it is the religious duty in the Qu'ran to oppose all those restricting Islam and reconquer lands that have been stolen from Islamic people and the Qu'ranic principle that the Jews especially are traitors to the laws of God (but also the chosen and favored people of God) and will be met with continued horrors visited on them by Allah until they see the errors of their ways (and convert to Islamic principles).
That is the current reality.
And for all the sloganeering in the world and principled arguments that only a revolution will unite the working class....it ignores the basic and fundamental reality that this unity will not happen any time soon.
So argue them till you are blue in the face.
The fact remains that until there is a revolution the solution to this conflict will either be military or will be bourgeois.
Devrim
8th June 2014, 20:08
Setting aside the fact that the bolded half of your "double-edged sword" is bullshit, what exactly do you propose?
And what exactly do you propose?
Devrim
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 20:11
That leaves out the fact that the conflict is fueled by imperialist interests of international and regional bourgeois factions and within the Arab world is largely driven by religious arguments.
That must be why most Palestinian leaders are secular Christians.
The imperative of Zionism conversely isn't just the concept of a Jewish home land. It is the religious imperative that the region belongs to the Jews and it is religious duty to reconquer the land.
That must be why the earliest Zionists were social-democrats who exhibited an open hostility to Judaism in many respects and held a racial view of Jewishness.
Conversely it is the religious duty in the Qu'ran to oppose all those restricting Islam and reconquer lands that have been stolen from Islamic people and the Qu'ranic principle that the Jews especially are traitors to the laws of God (but also the chosen and favored people of God) and will be met with continued horrors visited on them by Allah until they see the errors of their ways (and convert to Islamic principles).
I wonder what school of Islamic textual interpretation you're referencing. I think it's the school of make-it-up-as-you-go-along.
And for all the sloganeering in the world and principled arguments that only a revolution will unite the working class....it ignores the basic and fundamental reality that this unity will not happen any time soon.
And then you complain when people point out you're implicitly postponing the revolution indefinitely.
The fact remains that until there is a revolution the solution to this conflict will either be military or will be bourgeois.
What a stunning discovery! A solution that is not socialist is bourgeois! I'm shocked.
Five Year Plan
8th June 2014, 20:13
And what exactly do you propose?
Devrim
Fighting for a one-state solution in the region, as a slogan connected to the role of global imperial powers in supporting Israel's settler regime, and pointing out how the struggle for one indicates the need to overthrow the other.
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 20:14
Again....maybe you should wipe the shit out of your eyes and read what I post. Then search my post history on the subject.
The fundamental lack of understanding the role religion plays on both sides of the conflict is fundamental to the revolutionary left. They embed themselves into the narrative that people are actually devoid of such reactionary ideologies for the sake of taking a neutral position of "revolution" in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and that class make up is all decisive in deciding the eventual outcome. Therefore all secular ambitions to bring peace and mutual coexistence have continuously failed. Neither the Israelies nor the Palestinians are defined by religion alone but the institutions which are key players in the conflict are. And these institutions have massive support on both sides. That leaves out the fact that the conflict is fueled by imperialist interests of international and regional bourgeois factions and within the Arab world is largely driven by religious arguments.
The imperative of Zionism conversely isn't just the concept of a Jewish home land. It is the religious imperative that the region belongs to the Jews and it is religious duty to reconquer the land. Conversely it is the religious duty in the Qu'ran to oppose all those restricting Islam and reconquer lands that have been stolen from Islamic people and the Qu'ranic principle that the Jews especially are traitors to the laws of God (but also the chosen and favored people of God) and will be met with continued horrors visited on them by Allah until they see the errors of their ways (and convert to Islamic principles).
That is the current reality.
And for all the sloganeering in the world and principled arguments that only a revolution will unite the working class....it ignores the basic and fundamental reality that this unity will not happen any time soon.
So argue them till you are blue in the face.
The fact remains that until there is a revolution the solution to this conflict will either be military or will be bourgeois.
Religion being used as justification doesn't mean that religion is the issue. The issue is land, and who owns it. At one point 1/10th of the entire population of Israel protested against their government for their mistreatment of the Palestinians. It is the general populations of both countries who seek not war, but seek peace. It is the reactionary elements both there and abroad which seek the current state of affairs; who seek to talk about how there are irreconcilable differences between the two populations. If what you say is true, ask yourself how Muslims and Jews lived peacefully in this area for over a century of Ottoman rule. Or ask yourself why the term "anti-Semitic" has come to mean "anti-Jew", excluding the vast majority of actual Semites. It has nothing to do with religion that is centuries and centuries older than this conflict.
And you've yet to point out my slogans or misreadings of your post. You talk about how the only solutions are "military" or "bourgeois", but the status quo is the most beneficial "bourgeois" "solution" to this problem, which is what you seem to be incapable of understanding.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 20:18
Is there a single person on this forum who ever interprets your posts correctly while disagreeing with you in a debate? Seriously, it gets old hearing this "you are setting up a strawman" every time I see you involved in an actual debate. If enough people are having a problem discerning what you are trying to say, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem lies with how you are expressing your positions.
I consider the problem lying with these people because they always seem to be the same little group of people reading over parts of the post or simply ignoring them because they do not fit their constructed narrative. It also forces them to rethink their own created reality which doesn't suit them at all.
Communer is right. It's actually not clear what your position is on Israel (a fence-sitting social democrat--surprising! Oh, wait, I mean "anarchist" who thinks that the Dutch SP is the best realizable political option for workers at the present moment).
I still haven't heard your short term alternative for the working class.
Plus I love the criticism coming from somebody who supports a mode of organizing and an ideology which will leave the working class completely and utterly powerless for the exploitation of the party system and state capitalist exploitation.
You said: "And the position arguing for the destruction of Israel within the current system will leave unanswered a vital question: the fact that anti-Zionism is riddled with racist and anti-Semitic sentiments and many of the most directly involved anti-Zionist organizations are not only advocating the destruction of Israel, but of Jews inside of Israel...The current set of reality is a double edged sword. Either the destruction of Isreal will lead to unprecedented pogroms or the continuation of Israel will lead to the destruction of the Palestinian people."
Setting aside the fact that the bolded half of your "double-edged sword" is bullshit, what exactly do you propose?
Actually the bolded part isn't bullshit.
The Israeli policy is directly aimed at the deconstruction of the Palestinian people and reclaiming the entirety of the region. And the current majority of the anti-Zionist forces in the region are directly aimed at the destruction of the state of Israel and its culture. Perhaps you need to go have a chat with the anti-Zionist factions in the region.
Now...I like you to provide a clear short term viable and realistic alternative with evidence of that alternative that isn't a bourgeois solution.
Why short term? Because the Palestinians do not have long term available to them given the rapid expansion of Israel and the rapid decline of land available to Palestinians.
People here are faulting you for drawing false equivalences in a way that paralyzes any effective action, which functionally gives Israel a free pass to continue to do what it has been doing for the past 50+ years.
Actually you need to do a site search on my position. I am not going to restate it again here.
Five Year Plan
8th June 2014, 20:26
I consider the problem lying with these people because they always seem to be the same little group of people reading over parts of the post or simply ignoring them because they do not fit their constructed narrative. It also forces them to rethink their own created reality which doesn't suit them at all.
You claim this, but I'm saying this off my own observations. Every single time I have seen somebody disagree with you in a debate on this forum, the problem is always that they aren't understanding you correctly.
I still haven't heard your short term alternative for the working class.My position on Israel and bourgeois workers' parties is clear. Revolutionaries don't support an electoral formation dominated by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology. Neither do they support international capitalism by deflecting criticisms from their puppet settler-states, even if that deflection takes the guise of "well, gee, there's no other option open at the present moment besides condoning Israel in the name of stopping pogroms!"
Plus I love the criticism coming from somebody who supports a mode of organizing and an ideology which will leave the working class completely and utterly powerless for the exploitation of the party system and state capitalist exploitation.You claim this, but I've never seen you present a persuasive analysis of why this is the case. You waved the white flag in the other thread as soon as I began demanding specifics beyond vague moral condemnations, many them based off a sketchy understanding of the actual history.
Actually the bolded part isn't bullshit.
The Israeli policy is directly aimed at the deconstruction of the Palestinian people and reclaiming the entirety of the region. And the current majority of the anti-Zionist forces in the region are directly aimed at the destruction of the state of Israel and its culture. Perhaps you need to go have a chat with the anti-Zionist factions in the region.
Now...I like you to provide a clear short term viable and realistic alternative with evidence of that alternative that isn't a bourgeois solution.
Why short term? Because the Palestinians do not have long term available to them given the rapid expansion of Israel and the rapid decline of land available to Palestinians.
Actually you need to do a site search on my position. I am not going to restate it again here.Funny. You whine that people are misrepresenting your position, then when asked what it is, you refuse to state it, and tell people to scour the website. You must really hate when people don't understand your position, what with you refusing to state here in the thread what it is. Pardon me while I roll my eyes.
Devrim
8th June 2014, 20:30
Fighting for a one-state solution in the region, as a slogan connected to the role of global imperial powers in supporting Israel's settler regime, and pointing out how the struggle for one indicates the need to overthrow the other.
OK, let me rephrase it. What do you propose beyond empty sloganeering?
Devrim
Five Year Plan
8th June 2014, 20:34
OK, let me rephrase it. What do you propose beyond empty sloganeering?
Devrim
Organizing the working class in places of employment, distributing literature explaining the connection between their workplace conditions, and the oppression faced by the Palestinians, organizing and participating in demonstrations. You know, trying to build a working-class movement and encouraging that movement to stand up against imperialist governments and their middle eastern lackeys. Would you like specific places of employment, names, and credit card numbers?
Devrim
8th June 2014, 20:39
Organizing the working class in places of employment, distributing literature explaining the connection between their workplace conditions, and the oppression faced by the Palestinians, organizing and participating in demonstrations. You know, trying to build a working-class movement and encouraging that movement to stand up against imperialist governments and their middle eastern lackeys.
And you are doing all this in Palestine?
Devrim
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
8th June 2014, 20:43
And you are doing all this in Palestine?
Seeing as how the Israeli regime is propped up by imperialist powers, agitation and propaganda in the great imperialist states should be just as important if you pursue this goal. Surely there is such a thing as workers' solidarity.
Five Year Plan
8th June 2014, 20:43
And you are doing all this in Palestine?
Devrim
Why would I have to?
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 20:55
Religion being used as justification doesn't mean that religion is the issue. The issue is land, and who owns it. At one point 1/10th of the entire population of Israel protested against their government for their mistreatment of the Palestinians.
Religion isn't THE issue. But it plays a large part as being the driving force of the continuation of the conflict. And ignoring that reality is simply the reason why secular proposals have all failed.
10% of the entire population protested the treatment of Palestinians...lets qualify that for you. This 10%. Is this including the 27% Arab and other minority groups which are part of the make up of the entire Israeli population?
It is the general populations of both countries who seek not war, but seek peace. It is the reactionary elements both there and abroad which seek the current state of affairs; who seek to talk about how there are irreconcilable differences between the two populations. If what you say is true, ask yourself how Muslims and Jews lived peacefully in this area for over a century of Ottoman rule. Or ask yourself why the term "anti-Semitic" has come to mean "anti-Jew", excluding the vast majority of actual Semites. It has nothing to do with religion that is centuries and centuries older than this conflict.
*sigh*
And yet every term the general population either massively support non peace oriented factions of parties on both sides of the conflict. The myth that both general populations want peace doesn't actually deal with HOW they want peace.
To deconstruct your reality:
Only a 3rd of the Israeli population of NON Arab descend actually think settlements hurt the security of Israel (may 2013). Only 23% think settlements need to be stopped completely (may 2013). The vast majority either supporting unrestricted continuation and expansion of settlements (39%) or the continuation of regional settlements in order to increase Israeli rule (31%). 63% of non Arab Israeli's oppose east Jerusalem solutions within a future peace solution and 77% only want peace if that includes the unrestricted acceptance of the existence and legitimacy of the Jewish state and its policies (jan 2014). What is evident from all polls since november 2013 is that non Arab Israeli's support peace if it is material beneficial to the state of Israel and will vote en masse for right wing parties to ensure the deal to be beneficial.
Conversely as of 2013 the Palestinians are decisively split between the West Bank and Ghaza. With an overall small majority opposing recognition of Israel. 68% oppose any peace solution if Israel doesn't immediately freeze settlement politics.
60% support armed intifada or armed resistance. Why? Because the vast majority of Palestinians (77%) fear in the coming year to lose a relative to Israeli aggression of policing activities....and more than 57% do not believe Israel will actually honor a peace agreement.
And you've yet to point out my slogans or misreadings of your post. You talk about how the only solutions are "military" or "bourgeois", but the status quo is the most beneficial "bourgeois" "solution" to this problem, which is what you seem to be incapable of understanding.
How convenient of you. I actually talk about "In lieu of a revolutionary solution" the only solutions are either military or bourgeois in nature. This creates a dichotomy I was talking about with the revolutionary groups either having to support one over the other or...simply do nothing... The reality is that Palestine, at the current rate, will not exist long enough to wait for a revolutionary solution. By the time that materializes the Palestinian state will have been usurped by Israel. So either that happens or there is a bourgeois solution to the problem. This is the reality the revolutionary class operates in.
The continued naivety of some revolutionaries on here that their ideological posturing of "radicalizing the working class and creating class consciousness" will actually materialize on the short term is idealistic and misguiding.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 21:02
You claim this, but I'm saying this off my own observations. Every single time I have seen somebody disagree with you in a debate on this forum, the problem is always that they aren't understanding you correctly.
That is because you are one of the people I am refering to.
My position on Israel and bourgeois workers' parties is clear. Revolutionaries don't support an electoral formation dominated by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology. Neither do they support international capitalism by deflecting criticisms from their puppet settler-states, even if that deflection takes the guise of "well, gee, there's no other option open at the present moment besides condoning Israel in the name of stopping pogroms!"
So basically you do not have a position on Israel, since there is a huge absence of actual revolutionary forces having a viable chance of influencing the situation on the short and medium term.
You claim this, but I've never seen you present a persuasive analysis of why this is the case. You waved the white flag in the other thread as soon as I began demanding specifics beyond vague moral condemnations, many them based off a sketchy understanding of the actual history.
Actually I haven't waved a white flag at you at all and I love to see you back that statement up with actual quotes. And it was you who couldn't get past some vague condemnation on moral grounds and ignored the vast majority of my arguments (as per usual).
Funny. You whine that people are misrepresenting your position, then when asked what it is, you refuse to state it, and tell people to scour the website. You must really hate when people don't understand your position, what with you refusing to state here in the thread what it is. Pardon me while I roll my eyes.
I don't give two craps and a shit about some counter revolutionary elements who continually misrepresent peoples posts and create straw man and red herring arguments misinterpreting my words.
You know where the search function is. Use it.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 21:11
Organizing the working class in places of employment, distributing literature explaining the connection between their workplace conditions, and the oppression faced by the Palestinians, organizing and participating in demonstrations. You know, trying to build a working-class movement and encouraging that movement to stand up against imperialist governments and their middle eastern lackeys. Would you like specific places of employment, names, and credit card numbers?
You do realize that currently most Marxist/ML and MLM groups of note on the Palestinian side of the conflict advocate armed conflict being the only solution until occupation has well and truly ended?
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 22:03
Religion isn't THE issue. But it plays a large part as being the driving force of the continuation of the conflict. And ignoring that reality is simply the reason why secular proposals have all failed.
10% of the entire population protested the treatment of Palestinians...lets qualify that for you. This 10%. Is this including the 27% Arab and other minority groups which are part of the make up of the entire Israeli population?
*sigh*
And yet every term the general population either massively support non peace oriented factions of parties on both sides of the conflict. The myth that both general populations want peace doesn't actually deal with HOW they want peace.
To deconstruct your reality:
Only a 3rd of the Israeli population of NON Arab descend actually think settlements hurt the security of Israel (may 2013). Only 23% think settlements need to be stopped completely (may 2013). The vast majority either supporting unrestricted continuation and expansion of settlements (39%) or the continuation of regional settlements in order to increase Israeli rule (31%). 63% of non Arab Israeli's oppose east Jerusalem solutions within a future peace solution and 77% only want peace if that includes the unrestricted acceptance of the existence and legitimacy of the Jewish state and its policies (jan 2014). What is evident from all polls since november 2013 is that non Arab Israeli's support peace if it is material beneficial to the state of Israel and will vote en masse for right wing parties to ensure the deal to be beneficial.
Conversely as of 2013 the Palestinians are decisively split between the West Bank and Ghaza. With an overall small majority opposing recognition of Israel. 68% oppose any peace solution if Israel doesn't immediately freeze settlement politics.
60% support armed intifada or armed resistance. Why? Because the vast majority of Palestinians (77%) fear in the coming year to lose a relative to Israeli aggression of policing activities....and more than 57% do not believe Israel will actually honor a peace agreement.
How convenient of you. I actually talk about "In lieu of a revolutionary solution" the only solutions are either military or bourgeois in nature. This creates a dichotomy I was talking about with the revolutionary groups either having to support one over the other or...simply do nothing... The reality is that Palestine, at the current rate, will not exist long enough to wait for a revolutionary solution. By the time that materializes the Palestinian state will have been usurped by Israel. So either that happens or there is a bourgeois solution to the problem. This is the reality the revolutionary class operates in.
The continued naivety of some revolutionaries on here that their ideological posturing of "radicalizing the working class and creating class consciousness" will actually materialize on the short term is idealistic and misguiding.
When you dismiss so easily one in every ten persons being so angry about something to go out in the streets and protest, it just makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to discuss the issue with you. The lengths you're going through to twist things around are absurd. There is no "myth" about how both general populations want peace. Just because they disagree on what that peace should entail doesn't mean either population supports apartheid. To imply as though the general population of the levant is happy with what's going on right now is ridiculous. So is implying that the Palestinians largely support the status quo by supporting armed resistance against the status quo. Are you trying to get to the truth, or are you just wanting to argue for practice and the sake of playing devil's advocate? I mean, look at your final conclusion: "since socialist revolution won't come, only a bourgeois solution to the problem can happpen." So fucking what? A normal shitty bourgeois state would be leagues better than what the situation is now. I don't even understand what viewpoint you're trying to argue here. This is a complete waste of my time.
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 22:52
When you dismiss so easily one in every ten persons being so angry about something to go out in the streets and protest, it just makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to discuss the issue with you. The lengths you're going through to twist things around are absurd. There is no "myth" about how both general populations want peace. Just because they disagree on what that peace should entail doesn't mean either population supports apartheid. To imply as though the general population of the levant is happy with what's going on right now is ridiculous. So is implying that the Palestinians largely support the status quo by supporting armed resistance against the status quo. Are you trying to get to the truth, or are you just wanting to argue for practice and the sake of playing devil's advocate? I mean, look at your final conclusion: "since socialist revolution won't come, only a bourgeois solution to the problem can happpen." So fucking what? A normal shitty bourgeois state would be leagues better than what the situation is now. I don't even understand what viewpoint you're trying to argue here. This is a complete waste of my time.
^ it is exactly that dichotomy I was arguing.
The revolutionary left is caught between the revolutionary solution and the taking of sides within the conflict. The ultimate reality is that there are two short term solutions in this conflict and neither are revolutionary. Opting out on either one of them for principled purity means the advocacy of nothing being done and acceptance of revolutionary impotency on the short term of offering the working class workable solutions for pressing problems in the here and now in which the revolutionary left plays no discernible role to speak off.
In the larger context this is part of the broader argument I am making to ideological and theoretical purists who seem to always know what the working class is supposed to do and what is to be rejected but who do not come up with any suggestions other than: organize, create class consciousness. In other words: sloganeering. Which fails to materialize again and again btw. because we still live in the pip dream of yesteryear and no longer are seen as solution by the working class. That debate however is for another thread.
**
10% of the population is small especially when compared with the vast majority which advocate contradictory actions which directly create a reality which makes peace impossible. And while 10% is always better than 1% and is a vast improvement from previous decades I asked you a question: is this number including the 27% Arab and other minority groups or not? The reason for this question should be obvious. If this is including the Arab communities then the figures are very dire for obvious reasons (numeric and the implications thereof)...if it is excluding the Arab population then there is more reason for optimism but still this is only a very small minority. And the figures I posted seem to indicate that both populations hold very different interests and very conflicting opinions mutually exclusive. Opinions which do seem to indicate that they do support continued segregation...mostly driven by the question of land, recognition and control of holy sites.
The implication that the population of the "levant" is happy with the situation is once again conjecture and based on assumptions of arguments I haven't made. But the myth that parties want peace together based solely on the principle of peace and not on other principles is extremely naive.
ComradeOm
8th June 2014, 23:05
The left has a bizzare and irrational obsession with israel which can only be explained in ways that anti-germanism is exactly about; latent and overt unrecognized anti-semitism, collective national guilt feelings and the knee-jerk opposition to that by leftists, a hyprocritical position on nationalism and national liberation, orientalism etc etcYes, the only possible way to explain the problem that 'the Left' has with Israel is the fact that we're all hypocritical antisemitic nationalists. Orientalists too, for good measure. Which is a bit rich coming from someone who apparently supports the continued existence of an admitted "religious apartheid state" (in the short-term at least).
Out of curiosity, what was the anti-German position to apartheid in S Africa? Did they oppose its abolition on the basis of fears of a 'white genocide', as trumpeted by some Afrikaner extremists? Or is it only when it comes to Israel that these Germans and Austrians get a bit worried about doomsday scenarios? I really don't think that we (as non anti-Germans) are the ones suffering "collective national guilt".
consuming negativity
8th June 2014, 23:07
^ it is exactly that dichotomy I was arguing.
The revolutionary left is caught between the revolutionary solution and the taking of sides within the conflict. The ultimate reality is that there are two short term solutions in this conflict and neither are revolutionary. Opting out on either one of them for principled purity means the advocacy of nothing being done and acceptance of revolutionary impotency on the short term of offering the working class workable solutions for pressing problems in the here and now in which the revolutionary left plays no discernible role to speak off.
In the larger context this is part of the broader argument I am making to ideological and theoretical purists who seem to always know what the working class is supposed to do and what is to be rejected but who do not come up with any suggestions other than: organize, create class consciousness. In other words: sloganeering. Which fails to materialize again and again btw. because we still live in the pip dream of yesteryear and no longer are seen as solution by the working class. That debate however is for another thread.
**
10% of the population is small especially when compared with the vast majority which advocate contradictory actions which directly create a reality which makes peace impossible. And while 10% is always better than 1% and is a vast improvement from previous decades I asked you a question: is this number including the 27% Arab and other minority groups or not? The reason for this question should be obvious. If this is including the Arab communities then the figures are very dire for obvious reasons (numeric and the implications thereof)...if it is excluding the Arab population then there is more reason for optimism but still this is only a very small minority. And the figures I posted seem to indicate that both populations hold very different interests and very conflicting opinions mutually exclusive. Opinions which do seem to indicate that they do support continued segregation...mostly driven by the question of land, recognition and control of holy sites.
The implication that the population of the "levant" is happy with the situation is once again conjecture and based on assumptions of arguments I haven't made. But the myth that parties want peace together based solely on the principle of peace and not on other principles is extremely naive.
So, in other words, you're arguing with a straw man you've made in your head, based on someone else's bad arguments. Wonderful. :glare:
Your figures prove nothing except that there is disagreement over what peace should mean in practical terms. Your extrapolations don't logically follow from that data. For example, an Israeli might say that having settlements isn't a big deal because they support a single-state solution. Or, they might think that settlements are bad but that they don't specifically pose a security threat. You can't just take data like that at face value.
I don't know how many protests you've been to but 10% of the population of a state protesting something all at once is nearly unprecedented. Think about how crazy people went over OWS and then realize that all those people over all that time, and in all those places, didn't even get close to being 10% or even 1% of the US population.
ComradeOm
8th June 2014, 23:19
10% of the population is small especially when compared with the vast majority which advocate contradictory actions which directly create a reality which makes peace impossible. And while 10% is always better than 1% and is a vast improvement from previous decades I asked you a question: is this number including the 27% Arab and other minority groups or not? The reason for this question should be obvious. If this is including the Arab communities then the figures are very dire for obvious reasons (numeric and the implications thereof)...if it is excluding the Arab population then there is more reason for optimism but still this is only a very small minority. And the figures I posted seem to indicate that both populations hold very different interests and very conflicting opinions mutually exclusive. Opinions which do seem to indicate that they do support continued segregation...mostly driven by the question of land, recognition and control of holy sites.This is rank apologism. If 10% of the Dutch population came out and protested against a policy that you opposed then you wouldn't be able to type for a sticky keyboard. You sure as hell wouldn't be quibbling figures and playing them down.
This sort of nonsense is frustrating when it comes to a discussion with Stalinists on Party Congresses or the like but when applied to the defence of a current "religious apartheid state" (your own words) it's nothing short of disgusting. The same with the bullshit strawmen and TINA arguments that have been aired. (A new Holocaust, really?) And there I was thinking that Ismail had some contrived excuses for mass repression. He and his ilk have got nothing on you.
You and the BA. That it apparently RevLeft policy to permit this egregious apologism for apartheid is a thundering disgrace. Unsurprisingly, it's linked to the personal opinions of select admins rather than any underpinning belief as to what the words 'revolutionary' or 'left' mean.
Devrim
8th June 2014, 23:47
Seeing as how the Israeli regime is propped up by imperialist powers, agitation and propaganda in the great imperialist states should be just as important if you pursue this goal. Surely there is such a thing as workers' solidarity.
Yes, I think that there is such a thing as workers' solidarity, but I see very little of it in the case of Palestine. What I see is the left showing solidarity with various nationalist groups.
I don't think that there is a solution to the Palestinian question within capitalism. I think that this is a very important point which the majority of the left with all its arguments about whether they support a one or two state solution completely misses.
At the present time, I can see three possible courses. The first would be that the situation continues more or less as it is. This is by far the most likely. The second would be that the Israel right manages to impose its 'dream' scenario, and expel the Palestinians to Jordan. It is possible, but not as likely as the first option. The third would be that the Arab states manage to militarily defeat Israel. This is rather unlikely, and would require a major shift in the balance of terror on an international scale.
None of these options are anything that any socialist would support. The idea though that the Palestinians can over throw the Israeli state, or that the Israelis will suddenly turn around, and set up a democratic non-Jewish state are pipe dreams. Neither of them are going to happen.
As a communist I do see a further alternative. That is that a rising tide of class struggle on a regional and global level can change the balance of class forces across the whole Middle East. The Palestinian working class is probably the most defeated in the region. It is completely tied to nationalism, and unable to fight for its own class interests. Rather then, the key to the question lies in the places in the Middle East where the class is strong. It makes more sense to look to Cairo, Tehran, and Istanbul as the laces where there is a possibility of a real class movement that can ultimately pose a challenge on these questions than to the West Bank, or Gaza.
Devrim
PhoenixAsh
8th June 2014, 23:57
So, in other words, you're arguing with a straw man you've made in your head, based on someone else's bad arguments. Wonderful. :glare:
Actually it is a reoccurring argument here on the board and it is not made by one person but by many.
Your figures prove nothing except that there is disagreement over what peace should mean in practical terms. Your extrapolations don't logically follow from that data. For example, an Israeli might say that having settlements isn't a big deal because they support a single-state solution. Or, they might think that settlements are bad but that they don't specifically pose a security threat. You can't just take data like that at face value.
Really? You do not see the incompatibility of the fact that a vast majority argues continued armed resistance if the borders of the 60's are not restored and demands of open religious sites and Jerusalem as a capital....and the other vast majority arguing that this will never happen? And you do not see the problem with a vast majority arguing for continuation of the settler policy opposed to it being a prerequisite for the other side to make peace?
Basically these positions are mutually exclusive and simply amount to a continuation of the current hostile situation.
And about your 1/10th marching in the streets. This refers to the Social Justice protests...which were an all encompassing protest against the state akin to the occupy movement and encompassed such diverse groups as military personal protesting for better pensions and several very large Zionist organizations both secular and religious. A subset of this protest wave was for Palestinian rights within the state of Israel but the main focus points were tax reforms, housing, education and an end to privatization. This was 3 years ago. Even that...considering the 1.8 million Arab citizens in Israel...
I don't know how many protests you've been to but 10% of the population of a state protesting something all at once is nearly unprecedented. Think about how crazy people went over OWS and then realize that all those people over all that time, and in all those places, didn't even get close to being 10% or even 1% of the US population.
And yet, it followed much the same path. Interestingly the movement incorporated Zionists (secular/religious); military and veteran organisations; US based NGO's; conservatives and progressive groups etc.
This is rank apologism. If 10% of the Dutch population came out and protested against a policy that you opposed then you wouldn't be able to type for a sticky keyboard. You sure as hell wouldn't be quibbling figures and playing them down.
See above. You are supporting what was by and large a liberal movement . Or in other words...the occupy movement in Israel.
This sort of nonsense is frustrating when it comes to a discussion with Stalinists on Party Congresses or the like but when applied to the defence of a current "religious apartheid state" (your own words) it's nothing short of disgusting. The same with the bullshit strawmen and TINA arguments that have been aired. And there I was thinking that Ismail had some contrived excuses for mass repression. He's and his ilk have got nothing on you. (A new Holocaust, really?)
What? The fact that the main demands of the protests comuner referred to had little to do with ending the occupation? Or the fact that it was in 2011 and since then reality has changed again?
You and the BA. That it apparently RevLeft policy to permit this egregious apologism for apartheid is a thundering disgrace. Unsurprisingly, it's linked to the personal opinions of select admins rather than any underpinning belief as to what the words 'revolutionary' or 'left' mean.
I am not apologizing for apartheid. And your accusation towards my position on Israel is completely unfounded to such an extend it is laughable.
But I am sure you can provide me with a short term revolutionary option? I am sure you can point me in the direction where I won't find just about every Marxist/ML and MLM organisation in Palestine advocating the continuation of armed resistance?
Oh god damn. I stopped reading a bit ago but seriously everyone needs to calm the fuck down.
Seriously everyone is trying to accuse folks of racism or Zionism or being a lizard or what the fuck ever, for not god damn reason. I suspect that someone has brought in the BA as some sort of monolithic entity that supports racism on RL with their lackeys such as (insert members name here), which $20 bucks says I can find something reminiscent of this (also it reminds me a whole lot of those ridiculous conspiracy theorists that everyone loves to make fun of), This is seriously the dumbest thread in the entire world- I'd rather discuss fork lifts or some shit.
I see everyone trying to prove how they are holier than thou and whatever while purposefully misunderstanding the other folks posts, and simply trying to out revolutionary everyone,
1. There is a huge amount of non-revolutionaries on this forum. This I agree to. However yelling "LIBERAL!!!1!" at someone isn't really helping shit.
There is no 2 numbers just look good.
Tl;dr- I don't even know what I'm trying to say here just everyone you're annoying shut the fuck up. Also:
9476
Danielle Ni Dhighe
9th June 2014, 02:03
Yo your entire reasoning behind your position on prostitution was "choice". Like, that was it.
I said it was a choice for some, and it is. I said it should be my choice, and it should be. Anti-sex work people are basically liberals demanding that the bourgeois state pass laws or do this or do that. The only way to do away with performing sex acts out of economic necessity is to abolish capitalism.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
9th June 2014, 02:24
The "trolling" isn't even the reason why you're all so butthurt (I don't recall that Antideutsche= le ebin trolel 9/10, gud trol : DDD)
It's the thing about israel that pisses you off :laugh:
Frankly, you're a troll, too. I saw those posts you made in Roza's visitor messages section telling her how fun it would be to create an Anti-German group and watch other people wig out.
Oh god damn. I stopped reading a bit ago but seriously everyone needs to calm the fuck down.
Seriously everyone is trying to accuse folks of racism or Zionism or being a lizard or what the fuck ever, for not god damn reason. I suspect that someone has brought in the BA as some sort of monolithic entity that supports racism on RL with their lackeys such as (insert members name here), which $20 bucks says I can find something reminiscent of this (also it reminds me a whole lot of those ridiculous conspiracy theorists that everyone loves to make fun of), This is seriously the dumbest thread in the entire world- I'd rather discuss fork lifts or some shit.
I see everyone trying to prove how they are holier than thou and whatever while purposefully misunderstanding the other folks posts, and simply trying to out revolutionary everyone,
1. There is a huge amount of non-revolutionaries on this forum. This I agree to. However yelling "LIBERAL!!!1!" at someone isn't really helping shit.
There is no 2 numbers just look good.
Tl;dr- I don't even know what I'm trying to say here just everyone you're annoying shut the fuck up. Also:
9476
honestly I just made the thread because the profile pic and tendency "anti german" was strange to me. Hence why I try to gear the discussion in a way to which someone could explain to me what being "anti german" really is, as I live in America and I don't understand. Yet everyone in this thread is throwing a shitfest about zionism.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
9th June 2014, 03:14
Yet everyone in this thread is throwing a shitfest about zionism.
Maybe because the Anti-Germans are pro-Zionist?
Maybe because the Anti-Germans are pro-Zionist?
Maybe shut your face hole for a fucking second? Or get over yourself? Or really anything that means you'll stop posting in this shitty thread? The OP seems to have had good intentions but suddenly this was a shitfest. You're making it worse.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
9th June 2014, 04:44
Maybe shut your face hole for a fucking second? Or get over yourself? Or really anything that means you'll stop posting in this shitty thread? The OP seems to have had good intentions but suddenly this was a shitfest. You're making it worse.
I was just pointing out how a thread about Anti-Germans became a thread about Zionism. Pro-Zionism is actually one of the defining characteristics of the Anti-German tendency. I don't see your contribution doing anything but make it even worse, quite frankly.
Leftsolidarity
9th June 2014, 06:14
I'm a bit surprised that we allow Zionists and Anti-Germans free roam of the board.
Zionists in particular since you have to be good at jumping through theoretical hoops (which by this thread it appears some are) to support, at all, a racist genocidal settler regime which is completely backed by US/NATO imperialism and claim any sort of socialist title.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
9th June 2014, 09:18
Yes, I think that there is such a thing as workers' solidarity, but I see very little of it in the case of Palestine. What I see is the left showing solidarity with various nationalist groups.
I'm not saying that the current strategy of "the left" (which amounts to doing nothing in the imperialist states, except perhaps participating in a peace march along with liberals) is good. Perish the thought.
But suppose that American (for example) workers could be convinced to hot-cargo shipments to Israel. What would happen then? Israel would be brought down on its knees, especially if the workers of other imperialist states follow suit, and would be forced to make some sort of deal with the Palestinian bourgeoisie. That would, in turn (1) alleviate the oppression of Palestinian workers, and (2) help the development of class consciousness in Palestinian workers, potentially among the most militant in the region. Solidarity of the Palestinian workers with Israeli workers would also be increased now that Israeli workers are no longer trying to murder them - a similar thing happened with Norway (and the Swedish occupation of Norway was a trip to Disneyland compared to the situation in Palestine).
I don't think that there is a solution to the Palestinian question within capitalism. I think that this is a very important point which the majority of the left with all its arguments about whether they support a one or two state solution completely misses.
I don't think that the national question can be fully solved under capitalism either. But there are states of affairs that benefit the workers, in a limited sense, that are possible to attain under capitalism, and which can lead to an upsurge in class struggle. For Palestinian workers, Israeli withdrawal (or collapse, but that doesn't seem to be possible at this moment) would be such a state of affairs.
consuming negativity
9th June 2014, 10:15
Actually it is a reoccurring argument here on the board and it is not made by one person but by many.
Really? You do not see the incompatibility of the fact that a vast majority argues continued armed resistance if the borders of the 60's are not restored and demands of open religious sites and Jerusalem as a capital....and the other vast majority arguing that this will never happen? And you do not see the problem with a vast majority arguing for continuation of the settler policy opposed to it being a prerequisite for the other side to make peace?
Basically these positions are mutually exclusive and simply amount to a continuation of the current hostile situation.
And about your 1/10th marching in the streets. This refers to the Social Justice protests...which were an all encompassing protest against the state akin to the occupy movement and encompassed such diverse groups as military personal protesting for better pensions and several very large Zionist organizations both secular and religious. A subset of this protest wave was for Palestinian rights within the state of Israel but the main focus points were tax reforms, housing, education and an end to privatization. This was 3 years ago. Even that...considering the 1.8 million Arab citizens in Israel...
I'm referring to the protests led by Peace Now in September of 1982 after the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the war with Lebanon. It had 400,000 attendees, or 1/10th of the Israeli population at the time. Although I'm sure you'll dismiss this as being "just the Arabs" so that you can continue justifying the ethnic cleansing happening in the region of Palestine.
And no, I don't see any incompatibility between the two groups that amounts to anything other than parroting the same bourgeois political rhetoric that you yourself are parroting in this thread. You've demonstrated to me throughout your posts that your knowledge of the situation is rudimentary and informed by pro-Israeli Westerners who, through muddying the water, create reactionaries out of leftists who think their position is somehow more nuanced. Talk to Palestinians and ask them about their actual experiences; there's quite a large diaspora now.
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 10:57
I'm referring to the protests led by Peace Now in September of 1982 after the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the war with Lebanon. It had 400,000 attendees, or 1/10th of the Israeli population at the time. Although I'm sure you'll dismiss this as being "just the Arabs" so that you can continue justifying the ethnic cleansing happening in the region of Palestine.
Are you aware of the fact that this was over more than 32 years ago? 32 years ago we had a Soviet Union and an East Germany...And there I was thinking you were actually talking about something still relevant. PN has lost wide popular support these days. Which you would have known if you were informed about the situation.
And yet again you fail to understand the nature of the remark about the 27% Arabs living in Israel and the 10% of the entire population protesting. But sure continue to not see the issues in those two numbers.
And no, I don't see any incompatibility between the two groups that amounts to anything other than parroting the same bourgeois political rhetoric that you yourself are parroting in this thread.
Which is why your solutions will simply always come down to some wistful thinking.
If two groups want mutually exclusive things as a prerequisite for peace....and hyou do mot see the problem with that :rolleyes:
You've demonstrated to me throughout your posts that your knowledge of the situation is rudimentary and informed by pro-Israeli Westerners who, through muddying the water, create reactionaries out of leftists who think their position is somehow more nuanced. Talk to Palestinians and ask them about their actual experiences; there's quite a large diaspora now.
[email protected]
I can't get into Israel because I am banned for my pro-Palestinian activism. A fact which I more than once over the years expressed. But yeah my "rudimentary knowledge" on the subject is "informed by pro Israeli Westerners" :laugh:
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 11:44
I'm a bit surprised that we allow Zionists and Anti-Germans free roam of the board.
Zionists in particular since you have to be good at jumping through theoretical hoops (which by this thread it appears some are) to support, at all, a racist genocidal settler regime which is completely backed by US/NATO imperialism and claim any sort of socialist title.
True,
Though. Zionism doesn't completely correlate with support for Israel but the lack of answers to the question: what happens when Israel stops existing. The debates surrounding Israel are completely polarized and that means positions are grouped together, positions which have a different background and different end goal...but which appear the same.
That means that Anti-German (which is not an ideological homogenous movement) support for Israel =/= Zionism (generally speaking). Just like in the Anti-Zionist movement anti-Israel positions =/= Hamas.
Devrim
9th June 2014, 11:47
But suppose that American (for example) workers could be convinced to hot-cargo shipments to Israel. What would happen then?
I think that the first thing to point out is that this is a totally abstract and hypothetical example. The working class in America is not in a position where this is remotely possible. If this is advanced as a stratergy in the present it is absurd, so while discussing it, we should be aware it is totally abstract.
Israel would be brought down on its knees, especially if the workers of other imperialist states follow suit, and would be forced to make some sort of deal with the Palestinian bourgeoisie. That would, in turn (1) alleviate the oppression of Palestinian workers, and (2) help the development of class consciousness in Palestinian workers, potentially among the most militant in the region. Solidarity of the Palestinian workers with Israeli workers would also be increased now that Israeli workers are no longer trying to murder them - a similar thing happened with Norway (and the Swedish occupation of Norway was a trip to Disneyland compared to the situation in Palestine).
What you suggest doesn't at all follow even in this abstract scenario. If the Palestinian bourgeois managed to cut some deal with Israel why would that necessarily lead to an increase in class consciousness amongst Palestinian workers. It could equally lead to an increase in Palestinian nationalism.
More importantly though even the scenario that you raise makes it clear that the solution to the Palestinian situation does not lie in Palestine. but in a general increase in class struggle across the world.
Finally the question arises of why the focus on Israel. If you look at other US allies in the region, such as NATO member Turkey for example, they have had a policy towards minorities which is at least as barbaric and vicious as that of the Israelis. Certainly if you look at it in terms of deaths more Kurds have been murdered by the Turkish state (in a shorter period of time) than Palestinians have been murdered by the Israeli state*.
Devrim
*That said the overall numbers are of course much bigger.
consuming negativity
9th June 2014, 12:02
Are you aware of the fact that this was over more than 32 years ago? 32 years ago we had a Soviet Union and an East Germany...And there I was thinking you were actually talking about something still relevant. PN has lost wide popular support these days. Which you would have known if you were informed about the situation.
And yet again you fail to understand the nature of the remark about the 27% Arabs living in Israel and the 10% of the entire population protesting. But sure continue to not see the issues in those two numbers.
Which is why your solutions will simply always come down to some wistful thinking.
If two groups want mutually exclusive things as a prerequisite for peace....and hyou do mot see the problem with that :rolleyes:
[email protected]
I can't get into Israel because I am banned for my pro-Palestinian activism. A fact which I more than once over the years expressed. But yeah my "rudimentary knowledge" on the subject is "informed by pro Israeli Westerners" :laugh:
When did I claim that Peace Now mattered in the here and now? Stop attacking straw men. You just made a claim that because the incident I'm talking about happened in the 80s, it is no longer relevant to today's attitudes. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why, considering your explanation as to the crisis is based on religious texts pre-dating Christianity.
I noticed you left out the line about how your position of "it's too complicated" supports a continuation of the status quo, which is ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. So, allow me to repeat it. You are arguing in favor of continued ethnic cleansing. That someone can have positions such as yours and be banned from Israel for "activism" just goes to show how awful the state of Israel actually is; it does not in any way validate your opinions. I could list their human rights abuses for hours based just on eye-witness accounts that I've heard from the Palestinian diaspora, but it wouldn't justify me either. What justifies my position is that it stands up in the face of reality.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
9th June 2014, 14:10
I think that the first thing to point out is that this is a totally abstract and hypothetical example. The working class in America is not in a position where this is remotely possible. If this is advanced as a stratergy in the present it is absurd, so while discussing it, we should be aware it is totally abstract.
The inability of the American proletariat to act in this manner is due to consciousness, not power. So I think it is correct to raise this slogan in conjunction with efforts to raise class consciousness among the proletariat. Of course, these efforts will not have an immediate effect, but the mad rush to Do Something Right Now (TM) has always led to opportunism and reformism.
What you suggest doesn't at all follow even in this abstract scenario. If the Palestinian bourgeois managed to cut some deal with Israel why would that necessarily lead to an increase in class consciousness amongst Palestinian workers. It could equally lead to an increase in Palestinian nationalism.
That doesn't seem to be the case - as I said, after the separation of Norway from Sweden nationalism declined and socialism became more prominent among the Norwegian proletariat. There are more examples of this. Currently, the Palestinian bourgeoisie can deflect all criticism of its policies onto Israel, and are able to present themselves as defenders of the Palestinians against Israeli aggression. Not so if Palestine were to achieve independence.
More importantly though even the scenario that you raise makes it clear that the solution to the Palestinian situation does not lie in Palestine. but in a general increase in class struggle across the world.
I never said that it didn't.
Finally the question arises of why the focus on Israel. If you look at other US allies in the region, such as NATO member Turkey for example, they have had a policy towards minorities which is at least as barbaric and vicious as that of the Israelis. Certainly if you look at it in terms of deaths more Kurds have been murdered by the Turkish state (in a shorter period of time) than Palestinians have been murdered by the Israeli state.
The focus on Israel is due to the thread, which is about Israel. I think that everything I've said applies to Turkey, Morocco, Lanka etc. The really odd thing is I don't talk about there regions too much - but I won't stand for the slandering of socialists as anti-semites because they're opposed to one particular settler-colonial outpost.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 17:09
I have dug up your position on Israel, PhoenixAsh. Surprisingly, it is identical to mine. We both support a one-state solution containing both Palestinians and Israelis in a secular and democratic society. As you say:
Certain things are a fait a complis. There are millions of Jews living in the region. Many of which live there and are born there...no matter how that came about....these people are people too with rights and autonomy. This can not be denied.
The ONLY solution without taking this into consideration is genocide either by forcibly removing them or killing them....but realistically it will involve both.
Therefore a one secular state solution within a socialist spectrum is the only viable solution.
How is this not arguing for what you call "the destruction of Israel within the current system" (which you believe will lead to "unprecedented pogroms")? Do you believe that the one secular state will exist within a different system? What system is that?
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 17:40
When did I claim that Peace Now mattered in the here and now? Stop attacking straw men. You just made a claim that because the incident I'm talking about happened in the 80s, it is no longer relevant to today's attitudes. I'd love to hear your explanation as to why, considering your explanation as to the crisis is based on religious texts pre-dating Christianity.
I noticed you left out the line about how your position of "it's too complicated" supports a continuation of the status quo, which is ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population. So, allow me to repeat it. You are arguing in favor of continued ethnic cleansing. That someone can have positions such as yours and be banned from Israel for "activism" just goes to show how awful the state of Israel actually is; it does not in any way validate your opinions. I could list their human rights abuses for hours based just on eye-witness accounts that I've heard from the Palestinian diaspora, but it wouldn't justify me either. What justifies my position is that it stands up in the face of reality.
O I am sorry. I thought I was debating with somebody who understood what they were saying.
So lets recap:
1). There will be no revolutionary solution to this situation on the short term. This means there is a dichotomy in the revolutionary left. Basically all solutions will be either military or bourgeois and the revlefts positions either come down to supporting a military or a bourgeois solution either of Israeli or Palestinian nationalist aspirations. You only have to look at your own position to see what I mean here as you yourself argued a bourgeois solution is much preferable to the current situation. And if you need further proof, just take a look at the post above to see VW basically arguing that Bourgeois solutions will increase class consciousness, an argument he usually vehemently attacks as social democratic drivel outside the Israel context. (Ironically it is just that position he rejects when I stated that the working class voting SP means an increase in class consciousness to the current situation. I just thought I mention this here. Irony.... )
Tell me exactly what you don't like about this argument?
2). Religion is a major factor in the current conflict and plays an important roleYou reject this. Apparently you are not familiar with (to name a few examples to which this issue is not limited) religious-Zionism (since the late 19th century) and its powerful role cross spectrum role in current Israeli politics. You also do not seem familiar with the religious obligation of Muslims to fight their enemies which sparks regional resistance and influence in the conflict. Hamas for one is a religious organisation which holds this position. Nor are you familiar with Christian Zionism which fuels international support for the continuation of the conflict.
I am sure this is all very trivial to you.
Religion isn't however, as I said, limited to this. Religion, and especially the notion that it is a religious obligation to bring land back into Jewish control, is a major driving force behind the Israeli land disownment policy. It is also one of the driving factors of the nature of Israel as a specifically Jewish nation and it fuels a whole range of aspects which govern Israeli policy and politics. We haven't even broached the international religious debate in the Muslim world about suicide bombings over which no consensus apart from it being a religious duty and obligation to fight enemies of the faith has been reached. Incidentally both Hamas and the Mufti support suicide attacks and call them religious duty as do the majority of the Egyptian clergy. Incidentally 76% of the Palestinians supported suicide attacks as an example of religious duty and martyrdom in 2010.
To name a few more examples.
Understanding this is pretty fucking important to realize that a solution needs to overcome very antagonistic religious aspects and therefore excludes options for peace. Such as, for example, the access to holy sites or for example the mutually exclusive nature of peace settlements and the Israeli position as well as the position of Hamas on the religious aspects of the land which will guarantee conflicts. Then of course...Israel will never barter on the Jewish nature of Israel and Palestinians will never accept a secondary position to this or reject the right of return in order to be religiously dominated and some large Palestinian factions will accept nothing short of an Islamic state in Palestine. Failing to comprehend these antagonisms is one of the main reasons why secular solutions have so far failed and problems can not merely be solved by reason alone.
So what exactly is your objection to this?
3).The assertion that the destruction of the state of Israel will create massive reprisal
This is simply a fact. Think USSR invasion of Nazi Germany and its consequences. Spend some time in the movements on the Palestinian side of the conflict to realize that this is a more than likely outcome of a (seriously unlikely) military victory over Israel. If Israel falls that is what is going to happen. Either accept this fact or continue to live a dream that we can all solve this in a puffy pink cloud.
4).Popular movement for peace
Your eventual assertion that a 32 old massive protests led by the PN movement is indicative of the fact that both populations want peace because of 1/10th of the population supporting these protests and the assertion that this is still relevant today for popular opinion is misguided at best. I already mentioned results of 2013 polls which show the fact that this is no longer the case. In the last 32 years the vast majority of the population (53% in june 2010) consider PN a threat to Israel. I also mentioned the position of Palestinians (including Marxist groups) for continuation of the conflict. I also mentioned the fact that rather than peace the popular support for groups and parties whose interest lies in continuation of the conflict is still massive. 62% of the Palestinians support the goals and efforts of Hamas for example and 76% support suicide bombings against civilians in Israel. Hardly a position of peace.
I however do not reject the notion that the population want peace. I do however reject the notion that this wish is anything other than blanket support and that both groups hold very mutually exclusive opinions of what the peace they support needs to entail and that this effectively means there will be no peace. Since these positions are mostly fundamental the idea that one or the other will fold on them is pretty unlikely. You think this antagonism is completely irrelevant and I simply think you are being extremely naive in that assertion.
Even when and if an agreement is reached these antagonisms will ensure that that agreement will be only temporary in nature and will escalate within the scope of 5 years after it is reached....and after all..it will still be a thoroughly bourgeois solution.
So what are the effects of the above? And why do I argue them?
Mainly to show the revolutionary lefts inability to provide short term solutions and that the subject of Israel creates a huge ideological dichotomy inside the left. Slogans towards creating class consciousness (which we always call for) rejects the reality that these slogans simply aren't viable in the short term. Revolutionary ideology and its solutions are long term solutions. And while the conflict will not be truly solved outside a working class solution and in the bourgeois context this bourgeois context is currently the only available solution.
This is a reality which has consequences you need to be aware off and accept before you enter into the debate and pick a position. All bourgeois solutions are undesirable. Yet the left is very active in choosing sides in a mainly bourgeois nationalist conflict and usurping this chosen side within the spectrum of their revolutionary experience. With this I mean that the revolutionary left adopts bourgeois solutions as being somehow more revolutionary than other bourgeois solutions based on nothing more than moralist favoritism.
You need to realize this.
This doesn't entail support for a pro-Israel position, but the rejection of that position based on it being anti-revolutionary while a self maintained position trumping up Palestinian nationalism is of course laughable to the extreme. There is no more revolutionary validity in supporting Israel as a fait a complis because of the possible consequences than there is in supporting the Palestinian nationalist aspirations because of the possible consequences. Equally rejectable is the notion that support for the Palestinian aspirations amounts to antisemitism as (VW correctly states) or support for terrorist organisations. But what you have to realize is that many people inside the revolutionary left have trouble distinguishing where the line is because they are treading on bourgeois grounds in their support.
NEITHER however are revolutionary positions. As is correctly asserted by various users including me, the only revolutionary solution is the working class solution. This however, as said a thousand times, is extremely unlikely in the short term and since the Palestinians do not have long term (given the progress in which their position is decreased) this is basically an unrealistic position for the near future.
In this argument you can not reject the correct assertion made by Devrim about the possible and likely outcomes in the current set of realities. I am sure he doesn't entirely endorse my conclusion, but his position is invariably correct and needs to be take note of...even his conclusion that a probable working class solution will probably need to be reached outside of Israel/Palestine in order to affect it.
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 18:28
I have dug up your position on Israel, PhoenixAsh. Surprisingly, it is identical to mine. We both support a one-state solution containing both Palestinians and Israelis in a secular and democratic society. As you say:
How is this not arguing for what you call "the destruction of Israel within the current system" (which you believe will lead to "unprecedented pogroms")? Do you believe that the one secular state will exist within a different system? What system is that?
It is not surprising as I have known this all along and my position on Israel is pretty well documented and know on this forum as is my militant Anti-Zionism. The reason you had to look it up is because I expect you not take my word for it.
I am not entirely sure how you see the contradiction between my position there and the position here.
The only viable solution is a socialist solution.
However, like I said in this thread, that solution is not a short term solution and requires the destruction of capitalism/imperialism. I do not see this happening shortly.
And like I argued in the other thread, without looking back to reread it, the argument you quote is made in some form of context of the return of the occupied land (which to some, including me, here on this board encompass all of Israel).
This creates however yet another dichotomy: what will happen with the people living on it? I argued then; as I do now:
The ONLY solution without taking this into consideration is genocide either by forcibly removing them or killing them....but realistically it will involve both.
I favor and support attm a continued Palestinian violent and militant opposition to the state of Israel no matter how unlikely the chances of an armed victory. This support will eventually lead to the above situation becoming a problem which will be increasingly more likely. I have no answer for this and it is troubling.
Within the current context of bourgeois solutions there are several possibilities:
1). The status quo which will result in a dissolution of the Palestinian regions and therefore expand the state of Israel creating a single nation. This has the effect that changes the make up of the Israeli population dramatically which will hold possibilities. It will also create a huge stream of refugees into the neighboring arab countries...which will destabilize the current status quo.
2). The military victory of Palestinians. Which will lead to the reprisals I referred too.
3). The creation of a two state solution.
Only option 1 and 2 will lead to a one state solution in which the situation I think is most preferable (a socialist solution), will eventually have to be resolved in the future. A two state solution by the way will disintegrate pretty rapidly.
I do not think there will be a socialist alternative before either of the above three bourgeois solutions happen.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 18:59
It is not surprising as I have known this all along and my position on Israel is pretty well documented and know on this forum as is my militant Anti-Zionism. The reason you had to look it up is because I expect you not take my word for it.
I am not entirely sure how you see the contradiction between my position there and the position here.
The only viable solution is a socialist solution.
However, like I said in this thread, that solution is not a short term solution and requires the destruction of capitalism/imperialism. I do not see this happening shortly.
And like I argued in the other thread, without looking back to reread it, the argument you quote is made in some form of context of the return of the occupied land (which to some, including me, here on this board encompass all of Israel).
This creates however yet another dichotomy: what will happen with the people living on it? I argued then; as I do now:
The ONLY solution without taking this into consideration is genocide either by forcibly removing them or killing them....but realistically it will involve both.
I favor and support attm a continued Palestinian violent and militant opposition to the state of Israel no matter how unlikely the chances of an armed victory. This support will eventually lead to the above situation becoming a problem which will be increasingly more likely. I have no answer for this and it is troubling.
The way you frame your entire approach to the problem is redolent of the second-international division between minimum program (which informs your actual day to day politics) and the maximum program (which is what is invoked in a highly abstract way to give your day-to-day politics a veneer of radicalism).
You and I agree that the only long-term solution to any "national problem" in the epoch of decay is socialist revolution.
What this means when I say it is that whatever secular state might be forged in the region currently encompassing Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories would have to find a place within the imperialist pecking order. It might be the same role Israel is currently playing, that of a foothold for US imperialism and international capital, or it might be one of worker-driven resistance against international capital, which implicitly points to the transcendence of national boundaries. This is what is meant by no solution to the national question under capital. It means that bourgeois nationalism is no longer a progressive force capable of carrying out the so-called "democratic" tasks initially associated with the (petty) bourgeoisie.
You, however, are conflating this above understanding with the idea that a one-state solution can only occur as a result of a socialist revolution. Then, conveniently, you bracket socialist revolution aside as something "not immediately possible" in order to engage in a politics that is functionally (like your second-international forebears) bourgeois. We see this in your three options:
Within the current context of bourgeois solutions there are several possibilities:
1). The status quo which will result in a dissolution of the Palestinian regions and therefore expand the state of Israel creating a single nation. This has the effect that changes the make up of the Israeli population dramatically which will hold possibilities. It will also create a huge stream of refugees into the neighboring arab countries...which will destabilize the current status quo.
2). The military victory of Palestinians. Which will lead to the reprisals I referred too.
3). The creation of a two state solution.
Only option 1 and 2 will lead to a one state solution in which the situation I think is most preferable (a socialist solution), will eventually have to be resolved in the future. A two state solution by the way will disintegrate pretty rapidly.
I do not think there will be a socialist alternative before either of the above three bourgeois solutions happen.Notice how none of these options are connected in any way with a class analysis, or with a militant international working class becoming conscious of its interests against imperialism. That was only mentioned in the beginning, abstract portion of your post, and has no applicability and no relevance to your analysis of what to do now. Removed from the list of possibilities entirely is the option that the international working class, in struggle, gains enough leverage to force a one-state solution, but hasn't yet arrived at a point where it is capable of pulling of a socialist revolution internationally or even in any one country.
Your entire methodology is premised on an unbridgeable divide between diffuse "socialist" or "anarchist" aspirations, and an actual political program that has no link whatsoever between those aspirations.
Devrim
9th June 2014, 19:22
The inability of the American proletariat to act in this manner is due to consciousness, not power. So I think it is correct to raise this slogan in conjunction with efforts to raise class consciousness among the proletariat. Of course, these efforts will not have an immediate effect, but the mad rush to Do Something Right Now (TM) has always led to opportunism and reformism.
I think that it is essentially meaningless to raise this slogan in the US today. It is essentially empty sloganeering which has no effect on the class whatsoever. If anything it ends up giving support to nationalist groups.
The Sparticists take part in a lot of this. Their absurd slogans about North Korea would be a good example. The reason is not though to 'raise class consciousness' within the class as a whole, but to pick up individual members of other left groups.
That doesn't seem to be the case - as I said, after the separation of Norway from Sweden nationalism declined and socialism became more prominent among the Norwegian proletariat.
I don't think that one example from a very different situation in a very different period offers us much to work from.
Currently, the Palestinian bourgeoisie can deflect all criticism of its policies onto Israel, and are able to present themselves as defenders of the Palestinians against Israeli aggression. Not so if Palestine were to achieve independence.
First this presumes that Palestine will become independent. Apart from the development of some sort of 'Bantustan', I don't really see any mechanism for this happening. Second even if this were to happen, I believe that it is quite possible that the Palestinians would continue to blame the Israelis just as, to use a completely unrelated example, those in newly independent Ireland continued to blame the Brits. Of course, there was a logic in their argument as Ireland was still economically dominated by Britain, but as 'true national independence' is an impossibility in today's world, one could see how that would be the case.
The focus on Israel is due to the thread, which is about Israel. I think that everything I've said applies to Turkey, Morocco, Lanka etc. The really odd thing is I don't talk about there regions too much - but I won't stand for the slandering of socialists as anti-semites because they're opposed to one particular settler-colonial outpost.
And the thread is because there is a focus in the left on Israel.
The really odd thing is I don't talk about there regions too much - but I won't stand for the slandering of socialists as anti-semites because they're opposed to one particular settler-colonial outpost.
I don't believe I have used that term at all.
Devrim
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 19:22
You, however, are conflating this above understanding with the idea that a one-state solution can only occur as a result of a socialist revolution. Then, conveniently, you bracket socialist revolution aside as something "not immediately possible" in order to engage in a politics that is functionally (like your second-international forebears) bourgeois. We see this in your three options:
eh. No. Actually I am not arguing that at all and if that is what you take away from my posts then you seriously miscomprehend what I am saying. Given your use of the words: "in order to" create bourgeois politics...I am thinking this is on purpose. I am pretty much clarifying it in my possible outcomes that a one state solution does not in fact only occur as a result of a socialist revolution like you say I argue.
Notice how none of these options are connected in any way with a class analysis, or with a militant international working class becoming conscious of its interests against imperialism. That was only mentioned in the beginning, abstract portion of your post, and has no applicability and no relevance to your analysis of what to do now. Removed from the list of possibilities entirely is the option that the international working class, in struggle, gains enough leverage to force a one-state solution, but hasn't yet arrived at a point where it is capable of pulling of a socialist revolution internationally or even in any one country.
Wauw. *facepalm*
Maybe I left it out because that option is bloody fucking unlikely, unrealistic and will not come before one of the three points I mentioned will be reached. I call this position highly idealistic and divorced from any sense of reality. But I am sure you will now post evidence of this not being the case and point me in the direction where I can find this mass movement forming right now. Of course I am also highly curious in what country you actually consider the working class to have reached the point where they can actively leverage any force against the state....not to mention where this working class actually reached a point of ideological unity across vastly different cultures and nations. Hmmm?
So no. Not likely and therefore I dismissed this as part of the short and medium term solutions already.
Your entire methodology is premised on an unbridgeable divide between diffuse "socialist" or "anarchist" aspirations, and an actual political program that has no link whatsoever between those aspirations.
Actually I am saying that all aspirations towards a short term or mid term goal are all in fact bourgeois and non revolutionary in nature.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 19:43
eh. No. Actually I am not arguing that at all and if that is what you take away from my posts then you seriously miscomprehend what I am saying. Given your use of the words: "in order to" create bourgeois politics...I am thinking this is on purpose. I am pretty much clarifying it in my possible outcomes that a one state solution does not in fact only occur as a result of a socialist revolution like you say I argue.
What do you think I am not understanding about your argument? Just because you don't like or don't agree with the way I am characterizing the implications of your argument does not mean that I am not understanding the argument itself. If you want me or anybody else to believe I am not understanding the specifics of your argument, you're going to have to do more than just declare it to be so, which always seems to be your over-riding point in arguments you have with people.
Wauw. *facepalm*
Maybe I left it out because that option is bloody fucking unlikely, unrealistic and will not come before one of the three points I mentioned will be reached.This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The outcome I describe, which doesn't entail a socialist revolution at all, won't be likely if people don't struggle to make it happen, justifying their inaction by saying it is "unlikely." This is the refrain of all reformists: a mass independent struggle by the working class against capital isn't "likely" in the near future, so we just have to snuggle up to the capitalists and their political representatives.
It has been pointed out to you again and again that if revolutionaries are left with a set of options, and only one of them involves not cozying up to the bourgeoisie, its colonial-settler states, and its reformist political parties, revolutionaries choose that option, even if it is more difficult and doesn't show profound results the following day.
You use the banal observation that something is unlikely to be accomplished soon as an excuse not to try to accomplish it at all, and divert course into the arms of the bourgeoisie. As I said, socialist in name, bourgeois in substance. The hallmark of all social democrats, whatever fancy radical-sounding political label they want to hide under.
I call this position highly idealistic and divorced from any sense of reality. But I am sure you will now post evidence of this not being the case and point me in the direction where I can find this mass movement forming right now. Of course I am also highly curious in what country you actually consider the working class to have reached the point where they can actively leverage any force against the state....not to mention where this working class actually reached a point of ideological unity across vastly different cultures and nations. Hmmm?I am not sure why you are bringing up the absence of a mass movement when my argument has been that the role of revolutionaries is to try to forge such a mass movement, which is the only type of movement capable of pressuring international imperialism into backing off its support for an Israeli government intent on driving Palestinians off their land. Talk about completely misunderstanding or dodging the substance of a person's argument.
But of course, for you the absence of a mass movement is a way for you to try to endorse socialist politics in the abstract, while in reality jumping in a sandbox to play around with bourgeois politicians and proposals while pretending that what you are doing is somehow "sophisticated" and "realistic."
who reads this shit? everyone shut the fuck up already, make another thread. Mods close this.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 19:57
who reads this shit? everyone shut the fuck up already, make another thread. Mods close this.
Is anybody forcing you to come into this thread and read it? :confused:
Comrade Jacob
9th June 2014, 20:14
I think the group should be re-named 'Anti-Germany'. 'Anti-Germans' is certainly coming off as racist (and the 'do it again' isn't helping). I do not think Roza is a racist but this is just a very poor choice of things.
And no, I haven't read anything from the thread, cos I don't have infinite time on my hands.
QueerVanguard
9th June 2014, 20:22
I am opposed to national states and the idea behind them, but nothing good would result from destroying all national boarders in this very moment. "No borders, no nations" is a great concept as a long-term goal, but it wouldn't work RIGHT NOW, because of exactly what you mentioned would happen.
I'm disappointed that you actually buy into that kind of liberal apologist horseshit, Rosa. "Yeah no borders in a century from now, the people aren't ready today, doing that would just cause chaos so we need to keep people isolated within the shitty little lines the ruling classes made up and if they cross them then they are illegal *aliens* that deserve punishment". Gimmie a fuckin' break.
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 20:36
What do you think I am not understanding about your argument? Just because you don't like or don't agree with the way I am characterizing the implications of your argument does not mean that I am not understanding the argument itself. If you want me or anybody else to believe I am not understanding the specifics of your argument, you're going to have to do more than just declare it to be so, which always seems to be your over-riding point in arguments you have with people.
Actually I am saying your counter arguments are full of shit and purpose fully so. The conclusion you draw is entirely in opposition to the post you quote evident in the fact that the argument I make is exactly contrary to what you are claiming I am saying.
When you claim I am asserting the only way to reach a one state solution is through socialism while I am actually arguing in the cited post that this is not the case....then yeah...you are full of shit.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The uotcome I describe, which doesn't entail a socialist revolution at all, won't be likely if people don't struggle to make it happen, justifying their inaction by saying it is "unlikely." This is the refrain of all reformists: a mass independent struggle by the working class against capital isn't "likely" in the near future, so we just have to snuggle up to the capitalists and their political representatives.
We have gone over this before. So lets recap:
Actually this is realism. The fact that we try does not negate the fact that we haven't reached anywhere near a point where your argument actually comes into play at all. So the solutions which are going to actually happen outside of your little theoretical idealism are in fact bourgeois in nature.
So it would be very nice if the revolution happens tomorrow. But it is ultimately more than likely that we will have to accept the fact that several decades of bourgeois rule will pass before that actually happens again.
This is not reformism. This is what is going to happen. Accept it.
It has been pointed out to you again and again that if revolutionaries are left with a set of options, and only one of them involves not cozying up to the bourgeoisie, its colonial-settler states, and its reformist political parties, revolutionaries choose that option, even if it is more difficult and doesn't show profound results the following day.
And it has continuously been pointed out to you again and again that this is:
1). Not the actual case
2). Doesn't help the working class in the short term
3). Completely validates my argument that short term solutions in this thread.
Thank you.
You use the banal observation that something is unlikely to be accomplished soon as an excuse not to try to accomplish it at all, and divert course into the arms of the bourgeoisie.
Sigh. Jesus you are a fucking asinine idiot aren't you?
Of course you can actually quote me arguing we shouldn't try?
No, you actually can't. Because I am not arguing that and you pretty damned well know it. But since you lack any form of actual substance and simply trump a counter revolutionary tendency...well...this is pretty much unsurpring
As I said, socialist in name, bourgeois in substance. The hallmark of all social democrats, whatever fancy radical-sounding political label they want to hide under.
Yes, that is exactly what I think of you and pretty much what I was arguing about you in the other thread.
I am not sure why you are bringing up the absence of a mass movement when my argument has been that the role of revolutionaries is to try to forge such a mass movement, which is the only type of movement capable of pressuring international imperialism into backing off its support for an Israeli government intent on driving Palestinians off their land. Talk about completely misunderstanding or dodging the substance of a person's argument.
But of course, for you the absence of a mass movement is a way for you to try to endorse socialist politics in the abstract, while in reality jumping in a sandbox to play around with bourgeois politicians and proposals while pretending that what you are doing is somehow "sophisticated" and "realistic."
Actually the absence of a mass movement shows how completely unrealistic your goal is on the short and mid term. In fact it shows your complete lack of any sense of reality and the fact that while we are building a mass movement the bourgeois will not sit down and wait for us to finish before shit happens. And what is going to happen is one of the three possible solutions I mentioned.
Learn to live with that fact.
It must really gall you that the MLM position in Palestine is the continuation of armed conflict and peace without concessions and the return of land ownership to the Palestinians and opposses Judaizition of Jerusalem and the violation of Islamic holy sites and like ALL Marxist organisations is actively engaged in the struggle for national rights and are all thoroughly immersed in a front of national union with non revolutionary factions. Further more it will probably really bother you that in debates within the Marxist groups the possible and likely outcomes I gave posted in abbreviated form are being discussed as likely options and how this will actually affect the direction of revolutionary goals and which one would be preferable.
A point you will not reach because of your complete insane and obstinate refusal to actually accept reality and the fact that revolutionaries do not make the world go round in the coming years.
So either you accept reality and debate the different strategies which should be followed in likely bourgeois events and moves or you continue down the road of your completely hollow sloganeering and theoretical posturing.
Now...given the fact I do NOT consider you to be part of the revolutionary left but consider you to be the left side of capital and history has in fact proven this position I seriously suggest you get with the fucking program and climb down your high horse. Lying piece of scum.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 21:18
Actually I am saying your counter arguments are full of shit and purpose fully so. The conclusion you draw is entirely in opposition to the post you quote evident in the fact that the argument I make is exactly contrary to what you are claiming I am saying.
When you claim I am asserting the only way to reach a one state solution is through socialism while I am actually arguing in the cited post that this is not the case....then yeah...you are full of shit.
So then why in your list of three options "short of socialism" did you not mention a one-state solution that entailed a multi-ethnic and religiously diverse population with equal rights encompassing the entirety of the people living in what is now the OPT/Israel? The only options you mentioned were "military victory for the Palestinians" (complete with pogroms), the status quo, and a two-state solution.
This is where debating you begins to resemble nailing Jello to a wall. You say one thing, and somebody responds to it in depth, pointing out the implications of what you are saying. Then you get offended that you have been misrepresented, pointing to a contradictory statement you've made elsewhere in the thread.
So which is it? If a one-state solution doesn't entail a socialist revolution, and doesn't necessarily entail pogroms, where is it in your list of non-socialist options? I can't seem to find it.
We have gone over this before. So lets recap:
Actually this is realism. The fact that we try does not negate the fact that we haven't reached anywhere near a point where your argument actually comes into play at all. So the solutions which are going to actually happen outside of your little theoretical idealism are in fact bourgeois in nature.You are using "bourgeois in nature" to refer to two distinctly different things: (1) cuddling up to and endorsing bourgeois solutions, while working in conjunction with the bourgeoisie and its political representatives; and (2) an independent working-class-imposed action that leaves the bourgeois framework in tact, but is done in staunch opposition to all bourgeois and imperialist forces.
So it would be very nice if the revolution happens tomorrow. But it is ultimately more than likely that we will have to accept the fact that several decades of bourgeois rule will pass before that actually happens again.
This is not reformism. This is what is going to happen. Accept it.Nobody here thinks that the revolution is going to happen tomorrow. Please stop repeating this as though it were a compelling revelation to anybody here. The question is whether this far-off goal is one you work toward today, in reality, regardless of whether it will pay immediate results tomorrow, or whether the "way off" nature of revolution means we just put class politics on the back burner and opportunistically give a pass to a solution that strengthens the bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Sigh. Jesus you are a fucking asinine idiot aren't you?How does somebody get to be a moderator conducting themselves in a discussion in the way you have?
Actually the absence of a mass movement shows how completely unrealistic your goal is on the short and mid term. In fact it shows your complete lack of any sense of reality and the fact that while we are building a mass movement the bourgeois will not sit down and wait for us to finish before shit happens. And what is going to happen is one of the three possible solutions I mentioned.The long-term goal is a mass movement. The short-term goal is try to build one. You want to refer to the long-term nature of the larger goal as a justification for abandoning it in your actual day-to-day political work.
I guess in your estimation the long-term goal will just happen spontaneously on its own, without unrealistic and stupid people like me trying to work toward it in the short-term, incrementally, doing the hard and thankless work of trying to expand an independent working-class politics.
It must really gall you that the MLM position in Palestine is the continuation of armed conflict and peace without concessions and the return of land ownership to the Palestinians and opposses Judaizition of Jerusalem and the violation of Islamic holy sites and like ALL Marxist organisations is actively engaged in the struggle for national rights and are all thoroughly immersed in a front of national union with non revolutionary factions. Further more it will probably really bother you that in debates within the Marxist groups the possible and likely outcomes I gave posted in abbreviated form are being discussed as likely options and how this will actually affect the direction of revolutionary goals and which one would be preferable.It doesn't really gall me that revolutionaries support the armed resistance in a military conflict between a puppet of the world's major imperialist power, and a terrorized colonized population being pushed off its land. It would only gall somebody who ignores the class nature of the conflict, and how it is being conducted militarily already.
Your argument has been that a military defeat of the Israeli occupation would result in pogroms. The first question that comes to mind is: if you support a one-state solution, and that solution doesn't come from socialism or the armed defeat of the Israeli occupation forces, how exactly do you think this one-state solution will come about?
It also raises the issue that others have pointed to you multiple times: that a blow to international imperialism is more important than the threat of less-than-progressive forces seizing power in victory because the politics of those reactionary forces thrive on the imperialist system, which keeps the working class divided and weak and confused about how to struggle for its interests.
And in any event, there is absolutely no sane argument you advance that suggests any force capable of pressuring Israel into military resignation would be of the kind that would launch widespread pogroms. It's as laughable as the argument that South Africa needed to be white, lest the black populations rise up and slaughter the white people.
Now...given the fact I do NOT consider you to be part of the revolutionary left but consider you to be the left side of capital and history has in fact proven this position I seriously suggest you get with the fucking program and climb down your high horse. Lying piece of scum.You think I care about your opinions of me? I am here to debate politics with you, not win acceptance as your friend, r-r-rrrevolutionary friend or otherwise.
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 22:40
So then why in your list of three options "short of socialism" did you not mention a one-state solution that entailed a multi-ethnic and religiously diverse population with equal rights encompassing the entirety of the people living in what is now the OPT/Israel? The only options you mentioned were "military victory for the Palestinians" (complete with pogroms), the status quo, and a two-state solution.
duhuh.
Within the current context of bourgeois solutions there are several possibilities:
This is where debating you begins to resemble nailing Jello to a wall. You say one thing, and somebody responds to it in depth, pointing out the implications of what you are saying. Then you get offended that you have been misrepresented, pointing to a contradictory statement you've made elsewhere in the thread.
Actually the failure is entirely on your part. I have pretty much spelled it out. There wouldn't be jello if you read and do not leave out vital parts of what I am saying. So lets do this again:
There is not going to be a socialist solution in the near future.
This means any solution to the current situation will be bourgeois in nature. Any support from the revolutionary left of short term solutions are pretty much all going to be bourgeois in nature since they will not be revolutionary. Hence why there is no real reason to reject the support for either Israel or Palestine as being non revolutionary...since they both are in fact...non revolutionary. (which means that anti-German position is not inherently anti-revolutionary because of support for the continued immediate existence of Israel in one form or the other since the opposite position of support for Palestine is equally anti-revolutionary).
> lets add a little more flavor. No revolutionary group argues that in the current situation the current is going to shift from national liberation towards class struggle. This is a struggle for national liberation. A thoroughly bourgeois aspiration in and off itself. <
I go a little further.
The inability of the revolutionary ideology, to pose real workable solutions, outside the scope of revolution and working towards this, in the short term means that any short term policy are going to be made within the context of bourgeois frame work...where for the current moment the working class is neither class conscious nor revolutionary and, in the specific context of this conflict, massively supports factions and groups which are interested in perpetuating the conflict.
Currently the situation will be solved in a bourgeois, non revolutionary fashion in one of the three mentioned ways. A unity state is absent from this list because it is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible and what is more...not in the interest of the bourgeois on either side of the conflict.
Given the fact that no revolutionary solution is going to be reached any time soon and since the bourgeois is NOT sitting on its hands until we get our shit together the situation is going to change. This change will be bourgeois in nature. Any change in the situation will affect how the revolutionary left needs to react and creates new possibilities and cuts off others.
This is a fact. You can not like this fact. But you will have to accept this fact.
Where I get offended is your asinine BULLSHIT of constantly and purposefully misrepresenting, misquoting and creating the construct that I am arguing to abandon revolutionary work in the face of often overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not seldom inside the quote you try to peddle as evidence of it.
So which is it? If a one-state solution doesn't entail a socialist revolution, and doesn't necessarily entail pogroms, where is it in your list of non-socialist options? I can't seem to find it.
Well that means you simply can't read because they are spelled out and numbered.
You are using "bourgeois in nature" to refer to two distinctly different things: (1) cuddling up to and endorsing bourgeois solutions, while working in conjunction with the bourgeoisie and its political representatives; and (2) an independent working-class-imposed action that leaves the bourgeois framework in tact, but is done in staunch opposition to all bourgeois and imperialist forces.
Point 1 has nowhere been argued by me. And point 2 is an unrealistic pipe dream in the short term...and will in fact not happen any time soon and certainly not before a bourgeois solution creates a whole new situation
Nobody here thinks that the revolution is going to happen tomorrow. Please stop repeating this as though it were a compelling revelation to anybody here. The question is whether this far-off goal is one you work toward today, in reality, regardless of whether it will pay immediate results tomorrow, or whether the "way off" nature of revolution means we just put class politics on the back burner and opportunistically give a pass to a solution that strengthens the bourgeoisie and imperialism.
Actually that is only YOUR continued question since you are unable to grasp the difference of immediate reality vs revolutionary work.
I am however too experienced to make the mistake to think that society only develops when revolutionaries think it does. It simply doesn't hold up but is the basis of your entire argument. Society changes regardless if we are ready for it or not...pointing this out isn't counter revolutionary, anti revolutionary or reformism. Get the fuck over it.
How does somebody get to be a moderator conducting themselves in a discussion in the way you have?
O you mean that I don't accept your slanderous lies and asinine straw manning?
The long-term goal is a mass movement. The short-term goal is try to build one. You want to refer to the long-term nature of the larger goal as a justification for abandoning it in your actual day-to-day political work.
Actually...once again...point out where I am doing that with a nice quote to that effect.
I have challenged you repeatedly and so far you have been unable to come up with one. You know this and are aware that your entire position is based on creating a suitable narrative. And this is why I am calling you out on your two faced lies continuously.
I guess in your estimation the long-term goal will just happen spontaneously on its own, without unrealistic and stupid people like me trying to work toward it in the short-term, incrementally, doing the hard and thankless work of trying to expand an independent working-class politics.
Sigh.
I am calling you unrealistic because you think revolutionary work will pay off in the near future in such a way that a mass movement will be able to affect the situation in Israel in such a way that it creates a solution before one of the three options I mentions goes in effect.
There is however a huge difference between my position and your claim that I am arguing for the abandonment of revolutionary movement building. Nowhere have I ever come close to actually arguing that.
It doesn't really gall me that revolutionaries support the armed resistance in a military conflict between a puppet of the world's major imperialist power, and a terrorized colonized population being pushed off its land. It would only gall somebody who ignores the class nature of the conflict, and how it is being conducted militarily already.
Your argument has been that a military defeat of the Israeli occupation would result in pogroms. The first question that comes to mind is: if you support a one-state solution, and that solution doesn't come from socialism or the armed defeat of the Israeli occupation forces, how exactly do you think this one-state solution will come about?
There we go again. Nowhere did I argue that the defeat of Israeli occupation would result in pogroms. I argued that the military destruction of Israel and the collapse of the state would lead to pogroms in the current situation.
I have explicitly stated how these one state solutions will come about.
It also raises the issue that others have pointed to you multiple times: that a blow to international imperialism is more important than the threat of less-than-progressive forces seizing power in victory because the politics of those reactionary forces thrive on the imperialist system, which keeps the working class divided and weak and confused about how to struggle for its interests.
And I am going to point out to you that such a blow to imperialism is impossible on the short term. I am also pointing out to you that there is no "international imperialism" as a unified concept. "International imperialism" are the international aspirations of conflicting factions within the bourgeois. So HOW do you propose this blow should come about and what does this blow look like? I am perfectly willing to agree with you on the sentiment of the statement. But what I want you to do for once is actually answer the questions of: how, what, where, when.
Which you repeatedly fail to do. Why? Because your slogans are empty theoretical posturing without any material to back them up.
The facts are that a revolutionary solution will come too late in the current situation. The fact is that we are nowhere near bringing vital blows to imperialism.
And in any event, there is absolutely no sane argument you advance that suggests any force capable of pressuring Israel into military resignation would be of the kind that would launch widespread pogroms. It's as laughable as the argument that South Africa needed to be white, lest the black populations rise up and slaughter the white people.
Again. I am not arguing Israel needing to be Jewish. I am arguing that a military defeat of Israel will lead to pogroms. Spend some time in the united front. This will be enlightening for you.
The forces necessary to bring Israel to defeat are EXACTLY the forces which will create pogroms, mass evictions and refugees and wide spread killings.
Think Rhodesia by the way.
You think I care about your opinions of me? I am here to debate politics with you, not win acceptance as your friend, r-r-rrrevolutionary friend or otherwise.
Me neither.
Devrim
9th June 2014, 23:02
So then why in your list of three options "short of socialism" did you not mention a one-state solution that entailed a multi-ethnic and religiously diverse population with equal rights encompassing the entirety of the people living in what is now the OPT/Israel?
What mechanism do you see as bring this about? Do you think that the Palestinian national movement has the power to impose it by force? Do you think that the Israeli state will transform itself into this type of state?
Personally I think that neither of these is possible within the foreseeable future, and I do not think that this state has any likelihood of coming about.
Devrim
PhoenixAsh
9th June 2014, 23:19
Outside a mutually coordinated working class effort to that effect it won't. Especially not on the short term.
There are those who argue that the expansion of Israel is objectively speaking the best option for a united working class on the long run which can then, through the mechanism Aufheben argues, leverage the state itself or preferably overthrow it. Another argument is that the usurpation of territory will create a whole new social make up of the population which will imbalance the current political status quo and create new power dynamics. Initially this however will lead to repression and increased discrimination against Palestinians.
Five Year Plan
9th June 2014, 23:22
If you know I don't care about your opinions of me, PhoenixAsh, then stop going on and on about how you think I'm counter-revolutionary. Nobody cares. Vent somewhere else.
As for the substance of your post, you just keep circling the wagons and repeating that a socialist solution isn't going to happen tomorrow. The problem here, as I have repeated multiple times, is that nobody here is arguing for a socialist solution to happen tomorrow. I am arguing for such an independent working-class movement in the present, incrementally, so that when circumstances are more favorable, the socialist solution will actually be realizable and we're not all scrambling to catch up.
In more concrete terms, this means struggling right now for a one-state solution in Israel/Occupied Palestine on terms set by the working class, even if that outcome won't happen for another year or ten or thirty. It also means supporting right now a military bloc with anybody willing to resist imperialist aggression in the region. These are "bourgeois solutions" only in the sense that they don't require a socialist revolution in advance, and therefore could potentially occur in a bourgeois society (albeit a weakened one).
Some parts of your post, quite frankly, are incomprehensible. Take this gem:
Hence why there is no real reason to reject the support for either Israel or Palestine as being non revolutionary...since they both are in fact...non revolutionary.
(which means that anti-German position is not inherently anti-revolutionary because of support for the continued immediate existence of Israel in one form or the other since the opposite position of support for Palestine is equally anti-revolutionary).
What do you mean by "support for the continued immediate existence of Israel"? Does this mean working to strengthen the Israeli military in its attacks on Palestinians, out of fear that that a Palestinian victory would be a "bloodbath"? Supporting its government's policies? Supporting some of its policies? We see you once again talking in such vague abstractions that it is impossible to have a real discussion with you.
I don't support Israel's "continued immediate existence" in the same way that I don't support the "continued immediate existence" of the bourgeoisie or the bourgeois state of my own country, or bourgeois political parties. I struggle against them while taking account of the fact that I know, regardless of what I want or choose as a person, these things will continue to exist tomorrow and the day after, and probably even next decade.
To repeat the distinction I made earlier: there is a big difference between functioning within a bourgeois society, while fighting to build an independent working-class alternative capable of establishing an alternative to that society; and, on the other hand, actually and directly strengthening bourgeois society by supporting its state, its state's policies, its imperialist stooges in the Middle East and so forth.
You claim you aren't doing the latter thing. But then the question is: what is your immediate course of action? Well, you don't say, and instead make more highly general and abstract statements about revolution, class struggle and the like:
Lets add a little more flavor. No revolutionary group argues that in the current situation the current is going to shift from national liberation towards class struggle. This is a struggle for national liberation. A thoroughly bourgeois aspiration in and off itself.No revolutionary leftist group has illusions that class-struggle revolutionaries are going to acquire hegemony within national liberation struggles. That we agree on.
But then what implications should that have? Should we say, "Well, there aren't a lot of class-struggle revolutionaries in this movement, so I guess we have to support a policy that keeps the bourgeoisie within acceptable boundaries?"
You know what that logic entails? You guessed it! Abandoning independent working-class politics and adopting the role of a mediator of bourgeois problems within the existing system, choosing a better bourgeois system against supposedly worse alternatives. We call this crossing the class line, and it's the stock in trade of petty bourgeois social democrats.
I go a little further.
The inability of the revolutionary ideology, to pose real workable solutions, outside the scope of revolution and working towards this, in the short term means that any short term policy are going to be made within the context of bourgeois frame work...where for the current moment the working class is neither class conscious nor revolutionary and, in the specific context of this conflict, massively supports factions and groups which are interested in perpetuating the conflict. The distinction needs to be made again: there's a difference between acknowledging that a system will continue to exist in the foreseeable future, and buying into that system under guise of making it "less worse." Which is what any person who proactively supports a settler-colonial state's existence right now is doing. Your counter-argument that the only alternative is pogroms is not persuasive at all, as you have not shown many any example of a force capable of curtailing Israel's regime short of independent working-class politics (which is DIFFERENT than a socialist revolution). Unless you want to argue that independent working-class movements will be the people carrying out the pogroms.
Currently the situation will be solved in a bourgeois, non revolutionary fashion in one of the three mentioned ways. A unity state is absent from this list because it is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible and what is more...not in the interest of the bourgeois on either side of the conflict.Which raises the question of what you actually do support presently, not in the distant future. I suspect you won't answer it because you are afraid of the justifiable blowblack you'll get by coming out as an unwitting lackey of Israel's apartheid settler-expansionist policies. People on this forum are bright enough to know that your "ideal" and "currently unrealistic" solutions are moralistic window dressing to the actual politics you're pursuing right now.
Given the fact that no revolutionary solution is going to be reached any time soon and since the bourgeois is NOT sitting on its hands until we get our shit together the situation is going to change. This change will be bourgeois in nature. Any change in the situation will affect how the revolutionary left needs to react and creates new possibilities and cuts off others.
This is a fact. You can not like this fact. But you will have to accept this fact.Thank you for taking another two paragraphs to explain something nobody here is disputing.
Where I get offended is your asinine BULLSHIT of constantly and purposefully misrepresenting, misquoting and creating the construct that I am arguing to abandon revolutionary work in the face of often overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not seldom inside the quote you try to peddle as evidence of it.You have not shown a single instance of where I have misquoted you or misrepresented your position. You are just whining about how you disagree with my opinions on your position. Instead of actually debating it out, which you are utterly incapable of doing, you want to try to make it a debate about the debate, which as anybody who has seen you operate before, knows is your fallback tactic when you are out of your depth.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
10th June 2014, 00:05
I think that it is essentially meaningless to raise this slogan in the US today. It is essentially empty sloganeering which has no effect on the class whatsoever. If anything it ends up giving support to nationalist groups.
The Sparticists take part in a lot of this. Their absurd slogans about North Korea would be a good example. The reason is not though to 'raise class consciousness' within the class as a whole, but to pick up individual members of other left groups.
I think the Spartacists can be faulted for a lot of things, but empty sloganeering is not one of them. Often they punch above their weight, but if they raise a slogan, they really mean it. In the nineties, when most of the "orthodox Trotskyist" and Pabloist organisations had a formal line about the defence of the degenerated and deformed workers' states - which they ignored, either doing nothing or supporting Yeltsin. The Spartacists - the Trotskyist League of Germany and the Spartacist League itself - organised an extended intervention in the DDR and the Soviet Union, trying to win over the workers and SED/KPSS members, printing and distributing special bulletins to the workers in those countries, and so on, all at great risk to themselves (M. Philips, the coordinator for Russia, was killed).
I don't think raising a slogan that is impossible to fulfill immediately is empty sloganeering. "All power to the soviets!" was an implausible thing to ask for when the slogan was first raised, as was "Rob the robbers!" and so on. The question is, is the organisation that has raised the slogan willing to fight for it?
Spartacists genuinely believe the deformed workers' state in the north of the Korean peninsula needs to be defended from foreign intervention, and that this extends to their nuclear programme (unlike, for example, USEC, who have an anachronistic horror of all things nuclear). At the moment the American workers are unwilling to defend the DPRK. Therefore the Spartacists try to win them over to the programme of unconditional defence of the workers' states. But if there was a movement to, for example, stop the sanctions against the DPRK, the SL would not abstain from the movement and it would not betray it. So the slogan is not empty.
Incidentally, Soviet defencism brings them nothing but grief from what I know, it's not the sort of slogan that's going to attract people from other groups. If they wanted to do that, they would be tripping over themselves to prove that they're the most committed to Left Unity (TM), Marxism for a New Century (TM) and so on, and so on.
I don't think that one example from a very different situation in a very different period offers us much to work from.
I'd think of a cute example, but I'm dead tired. Tomorrow.
First this presumes that Palestine will become independent. Apart from the development of some sort of 'Bantustan', I don't really see any mechanism for this happening. Second even if this were to happen, I believe that it is quite possible that the Palestinians would continue to blame the Israelis just as, to use a completely unrelated example, those in newly independent Ireland continued to blame the Brits. Of course, there was a logic in their argument as Ireland was still economically dominated by Britain, but as 'true national independence' is an impossibility in today's world, one could see how that would be the case.
But in fact, nationalist sentiment did weaken in Ireland, with the stickies moving towards something approximating a revolutionary standpoint, increased strike activity (from what I recall; I could be wrong on that point) and so on.
And the thread is because there is a focus in the left on Israel.
The thread exists because a ridiculous group of self-flagellants on a national basis who advocate for the defence of settler-colonialism in Israel is apparently close to the hearts of many of the staff members here, which is a worrying thought. To be honest, I think the supposed focus of the left on Israel is non-existent. What groups do you think disproportionately focus on Israel?
I don't believe I have used that term at all.
You haven't, and to be honest I don't think we're on opposite sides of this dispute. But psycho, for example, certainly seems to think that anyone who objects to Israeli colonialism is an anti-semite who is waiting in the bushes to slaughter all Israeli Jews the moment the great Israeli state shows any signs of weakness. He doesn't say so, but that's what his arguments amount to anyway.
PhoenixAsh
10th June 2014, 02:06
If you know I don't care about your opinions of me, PhoenixAsh, then stop going on and on about how you think I'm counter-revolutionary. Nobody cares. Vent somewhere else.
I am sorry, you must have me confused with somebody who gives a fuck about what you want or what you actually say.
Provide some quotes where I am arguing against building a revolutionary movement or are you going to continue your poor excuse for mental masturbation trolling of this forum?
It also means supporting right now a military bloc with anybody willing to resist imperialist aggression in the region
Awesome. So instead of propping Israel you are propping Hamas. Wonderful.
Finally you are actually getting to the foundation of my argument. It took you a while but you are getting there. Since there isn't going to be a revolution any time soon (thank god you are finally on the same page here after disputing this simple fact for several posts and then making a 180 on the subject admitting it) the only solutions going to be bourgeois solutions on the short term (you say you understand this concept. Marvelous). Any position revolutionary groups take are therefore confined within a bourgeois spectrum. Your argument above fits splendidly as a shining example of this. So after several posts where you dispute my position you are coming right out to prove it. Either you support the continued existence of the state of Israel or you ally yourself with (supposed) anti-imperialist factions. Both aren't revolutionary and the concept that they serve a revolutionary ideal is actually a matter of perspective. None of these factions are actually anti-Imperialist though since all factions currently involved in the conflict are all supported by foreign interest.
So I am very curious as to which anti-Imperialist factions you are supporting right now. Hmmm?
Tied into the above argument is your argument that the support for anti-imperialist factions is actually working towards a long term revolutionary goal. Nice. So it took you only 7 posts to actually arrive at an aggregate of the same position I arrived at from my first few posts here in this thread.
:rolleyes:
I suspect you won't answer it because you are afraid of the justifiable blowblack
Actually I already answered this question. I really feel like arguing with a Korsakov patient
PhoenixAsh
10th June 2014, 03:22
Anti-German position on Israel stems from the fact that they see antisemitism as a world encompassing and explanatory ideology which represents in their opinion the most barbarous reaction thinkable to people being forced into capitals productivity and state loyalty which antisemitism props. To anti-Germans antisemitism is not simply about hating Jews, but rather about hating everything that Jews embody for the anti-Semites according to anti-German currents. Their argument is that Israel is no different from any other state; being formed by the interest of capital, bourgeois exploitation and is structured by racist segregation; and as such does not deserve any special rejection. As the only place where Jews can effectively defend themselves though; the state of Israel needs to be protected. Its necessity, according to anti-Germans is proved by history and the continuation of wide spread antisemitism.
Do note that anti-German currents are not a homogeneous group and that depending on the current opinions may very well vary.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 03:48
To anti-Germans antisemitism is not simply about hating Jews, but rather about hating everything that Jews embody for the anti-Semites according to anti-German currents.
Since Jews have been used as scapegoats for capitalism, does that mean anti-capitalism is viewed as antisemitism by Anti-Germans?
Their argument is that Israel is no different from any other state; being formed by the interest of capital, bourgeois exploitation and is structured by racist segregation; and as such does not deserve any special rejection. As the only place where Jews can effectively defend themselves though; the state of Israel needs to be protected.
So they're arguing it's no different than other bourgeois states, while also arguing that it's a special snowflake among bourgeois states that needs protected.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 09:44
It also means supporting right now a military bloc with anybody willing to resist imperialist aggression in the region
This is the logic end of the position of those who support Palestinian nationalism. Who is it a military bloc with? The Syrian state? The Egyptian state? Perhaps alongside fascists?
Almost certainly it would ultimately involve arguing that workers should unite with their class enemies in the national interest. Where is the class analysis now?
Devrim
Devrim
10th June 2014, 09:46
So they're arguing it's no different than other bourgeois states, while also arguing that it's a special snowflake among bourgeois states that needs protected.
I wasn't under the impression that he was arguing his own position there. Rather I thought he was explaining the position of the 'anti-Germans', and as he said:
Do note that anti-German currents are not a homogeneous group and that depending on the current opinions may very well vary.
Devrim
PhoenixAsh
10th June 2014, 10:42
Since Jews have been used as scapegoats for capitalism, does that mean anti-capitalism is viewed as antisemitism by Anti-Germans?
So they're arguing it's no different than other bourgeois states, while also arguing that it's a special snowflake among bourgeois states that needs protected.
The anti-Germans are not a single current. "Anti-German" is an umbrella term used to desribe a whole range of groups who hold some correlating (and sometimes paculiar for those who are non German) opinions which by and large seem similar but are very differently interpretated depending on tendency. The current itself is cross section between far left and center left (and not the right to far right for obvious reasons).
Basically they state that Israel is a necessity for the defence of Jews from widespread and fundamental antisemitism and that a nation is necessary for the defence against this antisemitism. In that respect history has shown that Jews are not safe outside their own nations. This is in specific relations to the Shoa, but also in respect to world wide pogroms and persecution of Jews. Antisemitism is still wide spread and fundamental in non-Jewish society. The Jewish state has a right to self defence.
When they argue that the state is no different from other states they mean that in respect to Israel's nature it is obvious that the country is both bourgeois, capitalist and structurally racist like other countries and not because it is a Jewish state. It deserves the same status as other states. (note that the communist anti-German current does not argue for a state based communist solution but that presently in the capitalist reality this is the only option for the Jewish people to defend themselves from anti-semitism)
SOME of the anti-German currents argue that a large section of the revolutionary left is in fact equating capitalism with Jews/Judaism. They argue that on the basis of early socialist texts (like Marx, Bakhunin etc) there is an obvious link being made between capital and Jews and also argue that a large part of the contemporary left is inherently antisemetic (either consious of unconscious). This is based on specific experience within Germany. And does not mean the revolutionary section (communist) rejects Marxism or Anarchism or is pro-capitalist. They merely conclude part of the revolutionary lefts anti-capitalism is based on antisemitism or confused with Jewish stereotype.
SOME of the anti-German non revolutionary currents do indeed also argue that anti-capitalism is inherrently antisemitic in nature. It is also this part of the current where there is a more likely ocurene of unlimted support for militant zionism.
consuming negativity
10th June 2014, 10:44
Text removed for the sake of everyone's middle mouse scroll button.
This is a lot of hot air, but I've decided to wade through it, probably because I hate myself.
"1). There will be no revolutionary solution to this situation on the short term."
Nobody has disagreed with you. At least, nobody who I've seen and agreed with has done it. What we take issue with isn't this assertion, but what you extrapolate from it.
"2). Religion is a major factor in the current conflict and plays an important role"
No it isn't. I reject this because it's bullshit, as evidenced by the period between approximately 600 AD and 1950 AD where there was no conflict between an Israeli Jewish state created by the UN, and a pre-existing Palestinian people who were already living there. Just because something sounds logical doesn't make it the truth. Lies also do not become truth if you repeat them a lot, which is unfortunate for you in this case.
"the vast majority of the population (53% in june 2010)"
LOL. Yeah, like I said...
"I however do not reject the notion that the population want peace."
"Mainly to show the revolutionary lefts inability to provide short term solutions and that the subject of Israel creates a huge ideological dichotomy inside the left."
...you just proved me right in my previous guess that you're just playing devil's advocate to be an asshole, without actually putting any solutions forward yourself. I'm not here to argue with you for your entertainment, nor am I here to be the lube for your intellectual masturbation. Find a more productive hobby.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
10th June 2014, 10:50
The anti-Germans are not a single current. "Anti-German" is an umbrella term used to desribe a whole range of groups who hold some correlating (and sometimes paculiar for those who are non German) opinions which by and large seem similar but are very differently interpretated depending on tendency. The current itself is cross section between far left and center left (and not the right to far right for obvious reasons).
Basically they state that Israel is a necessity for the defence of Jews from widespread and fundamental antisemitism and that a nation is necessary for the defence against this antisemitism. In that respect history has shown that Jews are not safe outside their own nations. This is in specific relations to the Shoa, but also in respect to world wide pogroms and persecution of Jews. Antisemitism is still wide spread and fundamental in non-Jewish society. The Jewish state has a right to self defence.
When they argue that the state is no different from other states they mean that in respect to Israel's nature it is obvious that the country is both bourgeois, capitalist and structurally racist like other countries and not because it is a Jewish state. It deserves the same status as other states. (note that the communist anti-German current does not argue for a state based communist solution but that presently in the capitalist reality this is the only option for the Jewish people to defend themselves from anti-semitism)
SOME of the anti-German currents argue that a large section of the revolutionary left is in fact equating capitalism with Jews/Judaism. They argue that on the basis of early socialist texts (like Marx, Bakhunin etc) there is an obvious link being made between capital and Jews and also argue that a large part of the contemporary left is inherently antisemetic (either consious of unconscious). This is based on specific experience within Germany. And does not mean the revolutionary section (communist) rejects Marxism or Anarchism or is pro-capitalist. They merely conclude part of the revolutionary lefts anti-capitalism is based on antisemitism or confused with Jewish stereotype.
SOME of the anti-German non revolutionary currents do indeed also argue that anti-capitalism is inherrently antisemitic in nature. It is also this part of the current where there is a more likely ocurene of unlimted support for militant zionism.
The "socialists" who supported the French colonial regime in Algeria argued in the same manner. In fact there were Jews among the Algerian settlers as well. Of course, then the socialist left still had some bloody sense and refused to associate with those who supported the French colonists.
I'm still waiting for a reason why we should tolerate supporters of one particular settler-colonial regime, other than some German and Dutch members being nationally-limited opportunists.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 11:12
I wasn't under the impression that he was arguing his own position there.
Yes, which is why I said "they" and not "you" in response to him.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 11:25
Basically they state that Israel is a necessity for the defence of Jews from widespread and fundamental antisemitism and that a nation is necessary for the defence against this antisemitism.
Which is the same position Zionist reactionaries take: the world hates Jews and Israel is the only safe haven. Never mind that many people justify antisemitism now because of what Israel does in the name of the Jews.
And what about the necessity of Palestinians to defend themselves from ethnic cleansing? Why do the anti-Germans not address that? Or do they see Jews as more valued than non-Jewish Arabs?
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 11:28
Nothing I've heard yet about anti-Germans has changed my mind about them being typical guilt ridden liberals, which always means messed up non-revolutionary politics.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 13:30
Nothing I've heard yet about anti-Germans has changed my mind about them being typical guilt ridden liberals, which always means messed up non-revolutionary politics.
I don't think that they have any influence at all outside of German though, and even within Germany they are very controversial. I think that you would be hard pressed to find anyone at all outside of Germany who didn't think that their support for the State of Israel is completely reactionary.
They do remeind me of much of the American left though. What is an organisation such as the PSL expect an American version of anti-Germanism? That is just an example though. It is something that is spread across the whole American left, and is deeply influential.
I'm still waiting for a reason why we should tolerate supporters of one particular settler-colonial regime, other than some German and Dutch members being nationally-limited opportunists.
I'd be against banning them. It's not that I think their politics are OK. I think that they are a deeply reactionary current. However, people who support lots of other types of reactionary nationalism are tolerated on here, so why not them? We could of course ban all those who supported any nationalism, but I don't think there would be many people left afterwards.
Devrim
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 13:32
They do remeind me of much of the American left though. What is an organisation such as the PSL expect an American version of anti-Germanism? That is just an example though. It is something that is spread across the whole American left, and is deeply influential.
How so? I'm not hugely familiar with the PSL's politics.
Tim Cornelis
10th June 2014, 13:38
How so? I'm not hugely familiar with the PSL's politics.
Supporting any crackpot dictator that is anti-US; from DPRK and China to Zimbabwe.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 13:42
How so? I'm not hugely familiar with the PSL's politics.
The anti-Germans support the (war time) enemies of Germany. This picture is a nice example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Antideutsche_rassisten.jpg/220px-Antideutsche_rassisten.jpg
Much of the US left, and the PSL is only one of the clearest examples of this, will support anybody, no matter how anti-working class they are, if they are perceived as an enemy of the US. Hence their support for people like Gaddafi, Sadaam Hussein, etc.
While this is preferable to supporting your own country, it is just a support for another type of nationalism. I think it is very similar to the Anti-Germans.
Devrim
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 13:42
Supporting any crackpot dictator that is anti-US; from DPRK and China to Zimbabwe.
Thank you. Yes, that does seem to be a trend on the US Left.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
10th June 2014, 13:45
Much of the US left, and the PSL is only one of the clearest examples of this, will support anybody, no matter how anti-working class they are, if they are perceived as an enemy of the US. Hence their support for people like Gaddafi, Sadaam Hussein, etc.
Good point. That is a common position found on the US Left, and an unhealthy one at that. It's especially true of the section of the US Left that considers itself anti-imperialist.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 16:05
Good point. That is a common position found on the US Left, and an unhealthy one at that. It's especially true of the section of the US Left that considers itself anti-imperialist.
It is something that is not confined to the US. It exists in other countries too but they do seem to have more than their far share of it over there.
I think that a lot of it is to do with a deep contempt for the working class. These sort of groups end up charecterising the working class in their own country as some sort of labour aristocracy, and when they see no hope at home, they end up looking abroad for salvation. As they had no class analysis in the first place, its easy for them to then fall behind anything that seems really radical (read:anti-American)
Devrim
Devrim
10th June 2014, 16:15
Actually one thing that I always wondered about the anti-Germans is how do they manage to marry their Islamophobia to the fact that the biggest ethnic majority in German is Turks, a mostly Islamic people.
Devrim
Devrim
10th June 2014, 16:27
The thread exists because a ridiculous group of self-flagellants on a national basis who advocate for the defence of settler-colonialism in Israel is apparently close to the hearts of many of the staff members here, which is a worrying thought. To be honest, I think the supposed focus of the left on Israel is non-existent. What groups do you think disproportionately focus on Israel?
I'm not sure who actually runs RedLeft anymore. Is it still Malte? I haven't see him on here for ages. I think there is an emphasis placed on Israel by many on the left, though I am not claiming that any particular groups are particularly obsessed about it.
You haven't, and to be honest I don't think we're on opposite sides of this dispute. But psycho, for example, certainly seems to think that anyone who objects to Israeli colonialism is an anti-semite who is waiting in the bushes to slaughter all Israeli Jews the moment the great Israeli state shows any signs of weakness. He doesn't say so, but that's what his arguments amount to anyway.
Some people on here are soft on Israel, so what? Whatever type on nationalism you put forward, you can find a leftist somewhere to drape a red flag over it.
But in fact, nationalist sentiment did weaken in Ireland, with the stickies moving towards something approximating a revolutionary standpoint, increased strike activity (from what I recall; I could be wrong on that point) and so on.
Yes, You are, wrong that is.
I will think about starting a new thread on the demands and the North Korea stuff as it is really off-topic here.
Devrim
Five Year Plan
10th June 2014, 16:42
I am sorry, you must have me confused with somebody who gives a fuck about what you want or what you actually say.
It's obvious you don't care about anything that I say, because your response here indicates you haven't read any of it. I, on the other, hand simply don't care what you think about me as a person. I care enough about your political arguments to read them before ripping them to shreds.
Provide some quotes where I am arguing against building a revolutionary movement or are you going to continue your poor excuse for mental masturbation trolling of this forum?You are arguing against my position, which is to try to and build such a movement, by saying that "it is a pipe dream" and pretending that building a movement is the same thing as the delusional idea that the movement will exist en masse tomorrow.
If you now want to accept that we are in agreement on the importance of building a militant and independent working-class movement, then the question is: how do you build such a movement while "supporting the right of Israel to exist"? Do you think that Israel and its settler policies are not an obstacle to this movement? If so, at what point do you actually begin struggling against this obstacle, rather than "supporting its right exist" out of some misguided (pro-bourgeois) "realism"? Ten years from now? Twenty years from now?
Awesome. So instead of propping Israel you are propping Hamas. Wonderful.I think you should read up on the distinction between military and political support. I support blocs and military support to any force fighting the Israeli settler regime and its aggression against the Palestinians, limited to the point where they and I are struggling against a common enemy of the working class. This is different than endorsing their politics, and in fact, is totally compatible with decrying how those people's politics (though not military actions) makes them enemies of the working class also.
Finally you are actually getting to the foundation of my argument. It took you a while but you are getting there. Since there isn't going to be a revolution any time soon (thank god you are finally on the same page here after disputing this simple fact for several posts and then making a 180 on the subject admitting it) the only solutions going to be bourgeois solutions on the short term (you say you understand this concept. Marvelous).I can quote myself three times where I have explained that nobody here is disputing this, and yet here you are, for perhaps the fifth time, repeating it. The distinction that needs to be drawn is between a solution that occurs within a bourgeois society, and a solution that occurs with in a bourgeois society that actively supports the bourgeoisie rather than adhering to independent working-class politics. You want to ignore this distinction, so you can "support the right" of bourgeois states to exist in the name of "understanding that a solution will be bourgeois."
The resolution to a strike in a single workplace will also be "bourgeois in nature" insofar as it won't be capable of bringing capitalism to its knees. That doesn't mean I support the "right of management to pursue its interests." But this is analogous to your argument about Israel and supporting it.
So after several posts where you dispute my position you are coming right out to prove it. Either you support the continued existence of the state of Israel or you ally yourself with (supposed) anti-imperialist factions.Yes, you either support Israel's settler apartheid expansionism, or you oppose it. It's clear, based on your hand-wringing about Hamas and pogroms, whose side you are actually on in this struggle: the side of imperialism.
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
10th June 2014, 16:46
I'm not sure who actually runs RedLeft anymore. Is it still Malte? I haven't see him on here for ages.
The situation with Malte gives of a definite "eternal president" vibe, but that's neither here nor there. Malte, as you said, doesn't really post here anymore. But there are other administrators that are always ready to jump to the defence of the anti-Germans and Israel (among other things).
I think there is an emphasis placed on Israel by many on the left, though I am not claiming that any particular groups are particularly obsessed about it.
Aright, but can you give some examples of this emphasis? I will concede that my experience with the left is but a fraction of your experience, but to me it seems that "the left's obsession with Israel" is much like "the left's obsession with feminism/the women's question", something that certain groups constantly bring up but that doesn't actually exist as a noticeable phenomenon.
(Which is not to say that the left doesn't criticise Israel - but Israel shouldn't excepted from criticism, and ignoring the oversensitivity of critics does not constitute an undue emphasis.)
Some people on here are soft on Israel, so what? Whatever type on nationalism you put forward, you can find a leftist somewhere to drape a red flag over it.
Is that really the case, though? I don't see a lot of French or American or German nationalism, not even on RevLeft, and it seems to me that you might be misinterpreting some positions (for example the SL position on North Korea, China and so on) as support for "foreign" nationalism.
Yes, You are, wrong that is.
Fair enough; I will look into the matter.
Actually one thing that I always wondered about the anti-Germans is how do they manage to marry their Islamophobia to the fact that the biggest ethnic majority in German is Turks, a mostly Islamic people.
As I said in a previous discussion, the anti-Germans give off a definite nationalist vibe - they don't so much care for the victims of German capitalism as they love its alleged enemies (and actual allies). Their "anti-nationalism" is the nationalism of the NDP stood on its head; instead of long speeches about how Germany is Best we get long speeches about how Germany is Worst, which, while marginally less retch-inducing than positive patriotic feeling, is still a nationally-limited viewpoint. If everyone followed it I would have to go around with a picture of vozhd Miloević and you would presumably have to sing the praises of the Greek colonels. It's bizarre.
DOOM
10th June 2014, 17:58
The anti-Germans are not a single current. "Anti-German" is an umbrella term used to desribe a whole range of groups who hold some correlating (and sometimes paculiar for those who are non German) opinions which by and large seem similar but are very differently interpretated depending on tendency. The current itself is cross section between far left and center left (and not the right to far right for obvious reasons).
Basically they state that Israel is a necessity for the defence of Jews from widespread and fundamental antisemitism and that a nation is necessary for the defence against this antisemitism. In that respect history has shown that Jews are not safe outside their own nations. This is in specific relations to the Shoa, but also in respect to world wide pogroms and persecution of Jews. Antisemitism is still wide spread and fundamental in non-Jewish society. The Jewish state has a right to self defence.
When they argue that the state is no different from other states they mean that in respect to Israel's nature it is obvious that the country is both bourgeois, capitalist and structurally racist like other countries and not because it is a Jewish state. It deserves the same status as other states. (note that the communist anti-German current does not argue for a state based communist solution but that presently in the capitalist reality this is the only option for the Jewish people to defend themselves from anti-semitism)
SOME of the anti-German currents argue that a large section of the revolutionary left is in fact equating capitalism with Jews/Judaism. They argue that on the basis of early socialist texts (like Marx, Bakhunin etc) there is an obvious link being made between capital and Jews and also argue that a large part of the contemporary left is inherently antisemetic (either consious of unconscious). This is based on specific experience within Germany. And does not mean the revolutionary section (communist) rejects Marxism or Anarchism or is pro-capitalist. They merely conclude part of the revolutionary lefts anti-capitalism is based on antisemitism or confused with Jewish stereotype.
SOME of the anti-German non revolutionary currents do indeed also argue that anti-capitalism is inherrently antisemitic in nature. It is also this part of the current where there is a more likely ocurene of unlimted support for militant zionism.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I actually abandoned this thread, since I don't believe that namecalling is beneficial in solving this anti-german "issue". It was all about LIBRUHLS, reactionaries, imperialists and "ethnic cleansing", without actually trying to contribute to a civic discussion.
However, I see much bias and misconceptions about the anti-germans here, mainly because of their support for Israel. I'll try it one more time. It's pretty summarized and you'll have to research further into Critical Theory, regressive anti-capitalism and antisemitism to get most of the stuff.
The anti-german current has its intellectual roots in the Critical Theory. Critical Theory states, that with preceeding Enlightment, mythology also preceeds, untill enlightment suddenly turnes into mythology. That's what happened back in 1933. Modernity got despised and the "good old days" got romanticized. For the fascists, the scapegoat for modern phenomena such as globalization, multi-culturalism and sexual liberation, is the jew. And this is the part where the anti-germans come in. Especially the german ideology, the german way of socialization, tends to return to mythology/fascism and holds an eliminatory form of antisemitism. That's the reason why such an atrocity as the Shoah only could happen in "german" (as in german ideology) states. Because of that, the anti-germans oppose the german state.
However, that's just one part of the anti-german theory. The other part is the analysis of antisemitism and its reasons. To clarify the term antisemitism, I'll quote some stuff
There's a difference between Anti-judaism and antisemitism. You know, antisemitism isn't just one of many forms of racism, it's far more than that. Antisemitism has been the reaction to the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Anti-judaist stereotypes have been used to "explain" the abstract processes that came with capitalism, as for example accumulation of capital, compound interest and other capitalist functions. For every abstract phenomena that came with capitalism, there was one mysterious group of people, that pulls the strings: The jews.
So anti-semitism isn't just plain and stupid racism. It's a image of humanity, a (false) way to describe capitalist phenomenas.
The thing is, that over the time antisemites have stopped using the term "jew" explicetly in every sentence of their rubbish-texts. They're now using far broader terms like "they", "the capitalists", "the zionists", "the illuminati". However, one just needs to examine their theories superficially to find references to jews, people of jewish origin, or jewish sounding names.
We have the exact same problem in the left movement, maybe not as bad as within the right, but it's there. Our "jews" are the bankers, managers and CEOs. We give them attributes, like greediness, absence of emotions, hideosity and so on. We reduce their materialist class interest to some shitty human nature moralist stuff. We don't use the term jew explicitly, but this false criticism can function as a hotbed for real, primary antisemitism. That's the reason why on every fucking anti-globalization/occupy/Anti-WEF protest, one can easily observe antisemitic banners and right wingers infiltrating the protests. That phenomena is usually referred to as structural antisemitism.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2748541&postcount=36
“Labour = good. Capital = bad”
Although this regressive anti-capitalism is allowed to pass off as theory, it remains very short of the critique of capitalism we must make. The object of this criticism is only exploitation, ie. the production of surplus-value and its appropriation by capitalists. As necessary as this critique is, it is also important, in order to understand the nature of capital, to understand the crisis and to develop an emancipatory perspective. The key to this is to recognize that we live in a commodity-producing society, which is not driven by the production of material wealth, but by the recovery of value. In a society ruled by value, everything, even people, become commodities. Ultimately, value is the social relationship between individuals who confront each other as commodity-owners. The value of commodities is measured by the socially-necessary labour-time needed to their production or reproduction. Capital itself is self-expanding value. Thus: capital is in the end nothing else than accumulated labour. Then, regressive anti-capitalism claims commodity-producing and value-adding labour and establishes it as a positive opposite pole against capital. Therefore, it designs the working-class as bearer of social emancipation.
Although Karl Marx laid the foundations for a reflective critique of capitalism (which are overlooked by most Marxists), he was not always without his own problematic reductions. Unfortunately, mass-murderers such as Stalin, Mao, etc. used his unfortunate phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” in order to claim a filiation to him. Even today, more-revolutionary-than-thou fighters despise “in the name of the working-class” the achievements of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and strive for a party dictatorship.
But the idea that commodities, value and labour are as natural as the air we breathe is no invention of the Left tradition. It originates from its never having called the bluff of commodity fetishism, which dominates bourgeois society (see MEW 23, 85ff.).
“Finance capital”—Obsession instead of analysis
As long as money is supposedly a means of exchange of commodities, that is, as long as it represents something concrete, it is deemed “perfectly natural” for the unthinking inhabitants of the commodity-producing society. There is some conscious discomfort when considering credit—but without it, the commodity production could not maintain itself. A significant aversion to the noticeable abstraction which rules society is made into an aversion to interest-rates—which are also necessary, since in the end the money-commodity also has its value. This feeling turns to complete hatred, as seen as it considers the figure of the speculator. Speculation in commodity production, the justification of which is not said to be material needs, but the anonymous market, is unavoidable. The commodity-subject, however, fantasizes about a good capital (which is supposed to be “productive”) and a bad capital (supposedly “unproductive”).
This misunderstanding of the nature of commodity-production also leads to the construction of an especially evil “finance capital”, which is supposed to be distinct from the lesser evil of “capital”. For example, Lenin’s imperialism theory is based on this assumption, which accuses this “finance capital” of all sorts of “machinations”, “swindles”, “corruption”, “parasitism”, etc. (see, LW 22, 187ff.), which paved the way for the spreading of conspiracy-fantasies among the Left. The “reformist” Left hardly differs on this issue from Leninists —no wonder, as Lenin had drawn a lot from the Social-Democrat theory-writer Hilferding. Many people who do not identify as “Left”, subscribe nonetheless to this most restricted critique of capitalism and direct all of their aversion uniquely against “finance capital” and its representatives. National-Socialists also directed and direct their hatred against the “nationless finance capital”. So once again, a large social consensus is reached from “extreme left” to “extreme right” against the supposedly “unproductive parasites”, which comes from a poor understanding of the relationships which underlies the commodity-producing society.
Dangerously close
There is no point avoiding the issue: this type of “critique of capitalism” is not far from anti-Semitic resentment. The film “Jud Süß” (1940) presents the hard-working, deceived “people like you and me”, against a greedy manipulative financer who is responsible for their misfortune, and ends up being hanged under popular acclaim. Over 20 million people, a record at the time, flocked to the cinema and watched with glee what they thought they felt and wished for. Hardly a year and a half later, the Wannsee Conference decided the organized extermination of the greedy who suck us dry… “Naturally” the greedy in the National-Socialist film was “the Jew”. But the same pattern is still at work today: Wherever it is believed that greedy people are to blame for our misfortune, the desire for blood is not far behind.(also the reason why anti-germans oppose leninite anti-imperialism)
http://korynmalius.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/translation-what-is-regressive-capitalism-by-emanzipationundfrieden/
So now we know that (structural) antisemitism is a worldview, putting "the good working people" on one side and the "evil (capitalist) jewish leeches" on the other. To solve this supposed problem, a "german" fascist only knows one solution: the total annihilation of the jewish people. And this is exactly what Nazi germany tried. And if the Allies hadn't intervened, well then maybe they would've succeeded.
To protect the jews from another Shoah, the state Israel was established (oh and don't come with "western imperialist" interests, it's not the topic atm). The thing is, Israel is surrounded by notoriously antisemitic countries, which have only accepted the jewish state reluctantly, after trying to destroy it several times. The Hamas (which got the sympathy of some leftists, for being "anti-imperialists", even if they hold reactionary beliefs) is still not accepting Israel's right to exist and holds an extreme eliminatory form of antisemitism, comparable to the one the Nazis held. This organization is holding Gaza in its power and shoots Qassam rockets all over the surrounding cities. Great, huh, having islamist neighbours, trying to kill you and having to accept them, because of western antisemites going full apeshit when bad Israel does something?
The far left is too onesided when it comes to this issue. It's almost like an obsession. And the reason for this is deep embedded (structural) antisemitism.
DOOM
10th June 2014, 18:19
The War Against the Jews
Why the global public is turning against Israel during the economic crisis
The political reactions to the war in Gaza show that the more threatening the military situation for Israel becomes, the less friends it has. A tectonic shift in the balance of forces is occurring. It was always the case that the Middle East conflict was not just a limited scuffle between regional interests, but rather an exemplary and ideologically loaded proxy conflict. In the era of the Cold War, the conflict between Israel and Palestine was regarded as a paradigm for the antagonism between western imperialism under the leadership of the USA and an anti-imperialist camp for whose leadership China and Russia competed. The propaganda of both sides ignored the double character of the state of Israel, which on the one hand was a normal state within the framework of the world market, and on the other hand was an answer by Jews to the eliminatory ideology of exclusion of European and particularly German anti-Semitism. Israel was subsumed to a geopolitical constellation into which it could not be completely absorbed.
After the collapse of state socialism and the national liberation movements that had formulated a program of belated development on the basis of the world market, the character of this proxy conflict was altered fundamentally. In place of the secular developmental regime emerged so-called Islamism, which only ostensibly operates as a traditional religious movement. In fact, it is a postmodern culturalist crisis-ideology of a part of the long since westernized elites in the Islamic countries, who represent the authoritarian potential of the postmodern and who have imbibed the completely non-Islamic ideology of European anti-Semitism. The segments of capital in the region that had failed on the world market declared the war against the Jews to be an exemplary struggle against western dominance. Conversely, western crisis-imperialism, with the USA at its head, made Islamism its new main enemy, after pampering it during the Cold War and providing it with weapons.
This new constellation led to ideological dislocations of unexpected proportions. Neoliberalism, with its capitalist war of world order against the failed states of crisis-prone regions and in the Middle East, appeared to identify with Israel. Since then, neo-fascist currents throughout the world have lined up with the anti-semitic Islamist resistance struggle, even while simultaneously fomenting racist sentiments against immigrants from Islamic countries. A large part of the global left also began to unconditionally transfer the glorification of the old anti-imperialism to Islamic movements and regimes. This can only be described as an act of ideological neglect, since Islamism is opposed to everything for which the left ever stood: it persecutes Marxist thought with merciless oppression and torture, it punishes homosexuality with the death penalty, and treats women as second-class people. Traditional religion is also not responsible for this; rather, it is the result of a capitalist patriarchy in crisis, which can also be felt in other ways in the west. The unholy alliance of the socialist caudillismo of Hugo Chavez with Islamism merely constitutes a geopolitical confirmation of this ideological degeneration, which does not contain any emancipatory perspective.
Since the historically unparalleled financial crash in Autumn of 2008, the global constellation is turning once more. Now it becomes clear that the collapse of state socialism and the national developmental regimes was only the surfacing of a giant crisis of the world market. Neoliberalism is in ruins, and the capitalist wars of world order are no longer financially viable. In this situation, it becomes clear that Israel was never anything more than a pawn on the chessboard of global crisis-imperialism. Already the Bush administration had trivialized the Iranian atomic program. The interests of Israel and the USA are diverging: Obama no longer has any political-military room for maneuver. The Islamic war against the Jews is being accepted. For that reason, the missile attack by Hamas against Israeli civilians appears insignificant; the global public overwhelmingly describes Israel's counter-attack as disproportionate. The Palestinians in Gaza are equated as victims with Hamas, as if this government had not prevailed in a bloody civil war with the secular Fatah.
Thus the Islamic propaganda concerning a massacre against civilians falls on fertile soil. In fact, Hamas just like the Lebanese Hezbollah in 2006 has taken the civilian population hostage, while it converts Mosques into weapons caches and allows its cadres to open fire from schools and hospitals. Global opinion overlooks this, since it has already recognized Hamas as a force for order within the social crisis. For this reason, capitalist pragmatism, reaching as far as the liberal bourgeois press, is increasingly turning against Israel's self-defense. This is actually the secret of the neo-statist turn during the crash of the global economy: the impoverished masses should be pacified in an authoritarian manner: and for that even Islamism is acceptable, provided it has democratic legitimacy. And a left that no longer has any socialist aims, and gloats about the postmodern loss of all certainties threatens to be absorbed into the authoritarian crisis management and accept the Islamic war against the Jews as ideological flanking. The proxy conflict has achieved an ideological dimension of global proportions. Against the ideological mainstream, it must be maintained that the elimination of Hamas and Hezbollah is an elementary condition not only for a precarious capitalist peace in Palestina, but also for an improvement in the social conditions. If the chances for this are bad, then the chances are good for global society's descent into barbarism.
http://www.exit-online.org/textanz1.php?tabelle=autoren&index=20&posnr=395&backtext1=text1.php
consuming negativity
10th June 2014, 18:20
and "ethnic cleansing"
Is this your way of not-so-subtly denying that there is, in fact, ethnic cleansing going on, perpetrated by the state of Israel?
newdayrising
10th June 2014, 19:37
Actually one thing that I always wondered about the anti-Germans is how do they manage to marry their Islamophobia to the fact that the biggest ethnic majority in German is Turks, a mostly Islamic people.
Devrim
One of the weirdest things I've read about this subject was German antifas sabotaging turkish shops because they were flying the German flag during the world cup.
Personally, I've seen antigermans talking about muslim immigrants in a manner that would be considered pretty racist anywhere else, making generalisations like "they are sexist and backwards". Regarding palestineans they were even worse and would say they were all fascists. I actually had a pamphlet saying something like "THE IDF IS THE ANTIFA". This was a long time ago, I had never heard of them and was quite shocked.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 20:18
think you should read up on the distinction between military and political support. I support blocs and military support to any force fighting the Israeli settler regime and its aggression against the Palestinians, limited to the point where they and I are struggling against a common enemy of the working class. This is different than endorsing their politics, and in fact, is totally compatible with decrying how those people's politics (though not military actions) makes them enemies of the working class also.
Why should anybody bother to read up on the different definitions that various Trotskyists groups give to various types of support?
I can't remember many Trotskyist groups giving actual military support to anybody. What they give is political support to the military.
At the time of the allied interventions against the revolution the left communists in Germany (KAPD) gave military support to the their Russian comrades. They organised military attacks against trains transporting weapons to the whites. This was military support.
What Trotskyists give to the various groups they support across the world is political support, and as much as they might object to it that is essentially what it is. In their discussions between various Trotskyist sects they might draw some difference, but in the world beyond that it is a meaningless differentiation.
It is political support, nothing else.
Devrim
Devrim
10th June 2014, 20:33
Some people on here are soft on Israel, so what? Whatever type on nationalism you put forward, you can find a leftist somewhere to drape a red flag over it.
Is that really the case, though? I don't see a lot of French or American or German nationalism, not even on RevLeft, and it seems to me that you might be misinterpreting some positions (for example the SL position on North Korea, China and so on) as support for "foreign" nationalism.
I think what I said was true. You can always find a leftist (organisation) who will support every kind of nationalism. For the examples that you quote above I think that you would find enough people on this board who would support the US during the second world war, the KPD supported german nationalism during the Ruhr crisis. I don't know that much about the groups in France, but I would bet you a nights drinking in Zagreb that I could find one if I took a couple of hours to look into it.
Aright, but can you give some examples of this emphasis? I will concede that my experience with the left is but a fraction of your experience, but to me it seems that "the left's obsession with Israel" is much like "the left's obsession with feminism/the women's question", something that certain groups constantly bring up but that doesn't actually exist as a noticeable phenomenon.
(Which is not to say that the left doesn't criticise Israel - but Israel shouldn't excepted from criticism, and ignoring the oversensitivity of critics does not constitute an undue emphasis.)
Israel is a shockingly barbaric racist state. I think that there is an obsession about it though. I think that this board again would bear witness to that. I'd say that if Israel shot dead for Palestinians tomorrow, there would be a lot more discussion of it on this board that there would be than if Turkey had shot four Kurds dead in Diyarbakır province last week.
Oh, they did.
Devrim
Anglo-Saxon Philistine
10th June 2014, 20:47
I think what I said was true. You can always find a leftist (organisation) who will support every kind of nationalism. For the examples that you quote above I think that you would find enough people on this board who would support the US during the second world war, the KPD supported german nationalism during the Ruhr crisis. I don't know that much about the groups in France, but I would bet you a nights drinking in Zagreb that I could find one if I took a couple of hours to look into it.
Actually, I could name one, but one of our mutual, ah, friends, would not like it. Alright, point taken, but I still think there's a difference between supporting (or having supported) idiotic rubbish in the past - not that groups that have done so, including incidentally the SL with its paint-thinner-drinkingly awful support for Israel in 1948, should not be criticised - and doing so in the present.
So, I think that supporters of the JVP, for example, or those members of the Lutte Ouvriere who support their bizarre crusade in favour of the French bourgeois state harassing Muslims who wear veils, should be restricted.
Israel is a shockingly barbaric racist state. I think that there is an obsession about it though. I think that this board again would bear witness to that. I'd say that if Israel shot dead for Palestinians tomorrow, there would be a lot more discussion of it on this board that there would be than if Turkey had shot four Kurds dead in Diyarbakır province last week.
Oh, they did.
Devrim
Right, but bear in mind that we're limited by what stories the news agencies decide to pick up - and even then most of us don't have the time to comb through multiple news sources and so on. If there is a bias, it exists, I think, in the media, not because these are pro-Palestinian, but because the Israel-Palestine conflict sells.
Five Year Plan
10th June 2014, 20:48
Why should anybody bother to read up on the different definitions that various Trotskyists groups give to various types of support?
Because it might be a useful distinction to non-Trotskyists as well? Or are we going to play the childish game that suggests that an idea must be totally without merit because Trotskyists adhere to it?
I can't remember many Trotskyist groups giving actual military support to anybody. What they give is political support to the military.What are the definitions of "political support" and "military support" you're working with here?
At the time of the allied interventions against the revolution the left communists in Germany (KAPD) gave military support to the their Russian comrades. They organised military attacks against trains transporting weapons to the whites. This was military support.
What Trotskyists give to the various groups they support across the world is political support, and as much as they might object to it that is essentially what it is. In their discussions between various Trotskyist sects they might draw some difference, but in the world beyond that it is a meaningless differentiation.Again, you're just repeating that Trotskyists groups give political support without actually explaining what that means. Military support means just that-military support-the shipment of arms, the sharing of intelligence to locate military adversaries, etc. Political support means endorsing the political program of a particular group.
If we are to adopt what appears to be your operational definition of these terms, people who supported the Iraqis, including Baathist soldiers, repelling the American invasion in 2003, were giving political support to Baathism.
And while you are correct that many Trotskyist groups are so small that military support is often used propagandistically as a slogan (though not always--see the example that Vincent West pointed out earlier of the Spartacists in the Soviet Union), that point has no essential bearing on the issue at hand. Revolutionaries should *want* people struggling militarily against Israel to succeed in repelling Israeli expansionism, even if that "want" doesn't translate into actual logistical support.
To take an abstentionist view of a pox on both your houses in favor of some non-existent third option is actually doing exactly what PhoenixAsh has decried repeatedly in this thread: burying your head in the sand to the real struggle going on in favor of some non-existent pipe dream. It's the opposite of realism, and it effectively gives a free pass for the status quo, which just happens to be imperialist domination.
Devrim
10th June 2014, 21:41
To take an abstentionist view of a pox on both your houses in favor of some non-existent third option is actually doing exactly what PhoenixAsh has decried repeatedly in this thread: burying your head in the sand to the real struggle going on in favor of some non-existent pipe dream. It's the opposite of realism, and it effectively gives a free pass for the status quo, which just happens to be imperialist domination.
This is the crux of the matter, so we may as well start here. First I don't think that my views are the same as Phoenix Ash's. To be honest I haven't read all of his contributions to this thread. I have merely skipped through them, but I'd appreciate it if you argued against me based on what I said, not based on what someone else may have said, which you are amalgamating. I'm certainly not going to take up his methods of debate and throwing personal insults at you, and, on a personal level, I would appreciate it if you didn't behave in that way towards me.
I don't think that there is a third option. No massive workers' movement is about to erupt uniting Palestinian and Israeli workers. What I would say is that there is no option at all. You haven't offered any means by which you think your fantasy non-sectarian, non-racist one state solution could conceivably come about, and until you do, I will continue to believe that it is actually you who is entertaining pipe-dreams and not myself.
I don't think there is any foreseeable solution within capitalism to the situation within Palestine that socialists could in any way support. That is my assessment. You can argue that it is wrong, but then you must offer something to back up your argument.
Because it might be a useful distinction to non-Trotskyists as well? Or are we going to play the childish game that suggests that an idea must be totally without merit because Trotskyists adhere to it?
I don't think it is a useful distinction for non-Trotskyists. What I believe it is is a concept that allows Trotskyists to claim not to be supporting some pretty anti-working class things whilst actually supporting them.
I don't think it is a useful distinction. It is also a Trotskyists distinction. The second is not dependent on the first. Various other political currents make distinctions that only they use. For example, anarchists draw a difference between authoritarian, and libertarian socialism. I think this is also a meaningless distinction. It is also an anarchist one. I do not think that it is meaningless because anarchists hold it though, rather because I think it is meaningless in itself.
What are the definitions of "political support" and "military support" you're working with here?
Let's accept yours then. If we want to understand an idea, we have to understand it in its context.
How do you define it then?:
Military support means just that-military support-the shipment of arms, the sharing of intelligence to locate military adversaries, etc.
It seems a reasonable definition. I don't know which group you are a member of, and to be honest if your group was involved in these sort of activities, I wouldn't want to know details, and I am sure you wouldn't publish them on an open forum.
Answer this question honestly though. Do you think that there are any Trotskyist groups that are giving military support under this definition to the Palestinian resistance? We will leave out people giving money to these groups, as money can be spent on anything and is not essentially military support.
I don't want any details whatsoever, just an honest answer. Do you really think that there is any Trotskyist organisation that you know of that is giving military support to the Palestinian resistance?
Political support means endorsing the political program of a particular group.
I don't except this definition at all. I think lots of people support many things without agreeing with their political programme. I think it is a meaningless concept.
If we are to adopt what appears to be your operational definition of these terms, people who supported the Iraqis, including Baathist soldiers, repelling the American invasion in 2003, were giving political support to Baathism.
But I don't think that this concept of 'political support' has any meaning whatsoever in this sort of context.
And while you are correct that many Trotskyist groups are so small that military support is often used propagandistically as a slogan
So they are not actually giving any military support at all then?
(though not always--see the example that Vincent West pointed out earlier of the Spartacists in the Soviet Union)
They didn't give any military support either. From what Vincent said I presume they gave out leaflets.
I have heard that the Sparticists did offer real military support in sending volunteers to Afghanistan in 1979. As far as I know the Soviets didn't take them at all seriously. I am not sure if this is true though. Either way, no military support was given.
that point has no essential bearing on the issue at hand. Revolutionaries should *want* people struggling militarily against Israel to succeed in repelling Israeli expansionism, even if that "want" doesn't translate into actual logistical support.
So what you are saying is that there is no military support whatsoever, and actually it is political support as I previously said it was.
You can want whatever you like. It doesn't mean you are giving military support at all though.
Devrim
Devrim
10th June 2014, 21:47
Actually, I could name one, but one of our mutual, ah, friends, would not like it. Alright, point taken, but I still think there's a difference between supporting (or having supported) idiotic rubbish in the past - not that groups that have done so, including incidentally the SL with its paint-thinner-drinkingly awful support for Israel in 1948, should not be criticised - and doing so in the present.
I have no idea who you are referring to. Please pm me to explain.
So, I think that supporters of the JVP, for example, or those members of the Lutte Ouvriere who support their bizarre crusade in favour of the French bourgeois state harassing Muslims who wear veils, should be restricted.
I don't agree with this. I don't think that these people are right. On the contrary, I think that these people are very wrong, and I think that LO's policy is objectively racist.
I wouldn't be in the same organisation as people who held those views. This however is not an orgaistation, it is a discussion forum, and I am willing to argue against those views, and think that the discussion could potentially be useful.
Right, but bear in mind that we're limited by what stories the news agencies decide to pick up - and even then most of us don't have the time to comb through multiple news sources and so on. If there is a bias, it exists, I think, in the media, not because these are pro-Palestinian, but because the Israel-Palestine conflict sells.
This is obviously true. I read the Turkish media so I picked up on that story.
Devrim
PhoenixAsh
10th June 2014, 21:55
Because it might be a useful distinction to non-Trotskyists as well?
So wait. You just stated you support a bourgeois, nationalist, anti-working class group on the basis of the fact that they not only strive towards in part a common goal and have the same enemy. You see nothing wrong with it because it is only military support and not political support and therefore is a perfectly acceptable revolutionary position to hold. And this position is somehow NOT hypocritical in the face of all the criticism and abuse you gave me?
Military support is tantamount to political support.
You can drape it in excuses and political fervor but all you are doing is choosing a bourgeois side to throw your lot in with. That is what it comes down to.
Now personally I don't give a shit about the consequences of your argument here because I already stated that in lieu of a truly revolutionary solution any solution is going to be bourgeois in nature (= based on subjective preference in which bourgeois outcome you think the most favorable climate is going to be achieved to reach revolutionary potential)....and this is perfect example of it.
So I am not going to attack you for having this position. But I am going to point out the obvious contradiction with this argument and your attack towards me.
PhoenixAsh
10th June 2014, 22:50
It's obvious you don't care about anything that I say, because your response here indicates you haven't read any of it. I, on the other, hand simply don't care what you think about me as a person. I care enough about your political arguments to read them before ripping them to shreds.
So far you have been doing a bang up job of actually proving what I am actually arguing.
You are arguing against my position, which is to try to and build such a movement, by saying that "it is a pipe dream" and pretending that building a movement is the same thing as the delusional idea that the movement will exist en masse tomorrow.
Actually you inferred and assumed from my position, which simply stated that a revolutionary solution wasn't a short term possibility, means I am arguing against building such a revolution. This however is a correlation you can not make since I am not arguing that.
This is a position which I already in several debates where you simply propped it brought up. This is why I am calling you out on misrepresenting what I am saying because you simply add thing I haven't anywhere argued; or you leave out pretty vital parts of statements and arguments which do not suit the narrative that I am opposing building such a movement.
That assumption of your part of me making an argument I am not making is the basis for our continued debate and the fact why we two never ever get anywhere. You are simply arguing against a position I am not making, hence your counter-arguments do nothing to address my arguments because these two do not line up.
If you now want to accept that we are in agreement on the importance of building a militant and independent working-class movement,
We were never in disagreement and I explicitly and implicitly told you so so over and over.
then the question is: how do you build such a movement while "supporting the right of Israel to exist"?
I am also not arguing that Israel has a right to exist.
I am however arguing that the position that Israel is a reality and therefore has a right to exist in the bourgeois framework is not inherently different from the support of Palestinian nationalism and bourgeois factions.
I am arguing this in the context of this thread of the anti-German position and I do not see this position as substantially different from the position to support organisations like Hamas. Both are equally non revolutionary BUT support for either of these is wide spread within the revolutionary left. We trump this up as some form of revolutionary position because we know we do not have an actual revolutionary solution to offer on the short term. So it is fitted into the revolutionary narrative. anti-German communists argue that the support of Israel is revolutionary and we are arguing that the support for Palestine or anti-Zionism is revolutionary. Why? Because the support for the faction of our choosing creates in our opinions the best possible change to eventually reach a revolutionary goal.
Do you think that Israel and its settler policies are not an obstacle to this movement? If so, at what point do you actually begin struggling against this obstacle, rather than "supporting its right exist" out of some misguided (pro-bourgeois) "realism"? Ten years from now? Twenty years from now?
Again. Personally I began 20 years ago. The result of my activism is that I am not presently very welcome in Israel in fact.
I can however answer the obstacle part:
The argument I am familiar with of a subsection of the anti-German current holds the position that within a bourgeois reality Israel is a necessity and offers the best possible framework for building a working class resistance against the bourgeois state as it has had a full capitalist revolution. So in their opinion the state of Israel, nor its expansion, would be detrimental to building such a movement and would actually be preferable.
Personally I do find the state of Israel an obstruction towards a revolutionary solution and I prefer a Palestinian state as the building grounds for a mass movement because the population is already radicalized. (I already mentioned that I am fully aware of the consequences of this goal plus I am thoroughly aware that this support (lets just say that I can answer Devrim's question posed to you) is non revolutionary in nature and actually grew from a time that I wasn't actually considering the possible future consequences for the Israeli population. I am currently finding a solution for this)
I think you should read up on the distinction between military and political support. I support blocs and military support to any force fighting the Israeli settler regime and its aggression against the Palestinians, limited to the point where they and I are struggling against a common enemy of the working class. This is different than endorsing their politics, and in fact, is totally compatible with decrying how those people's politics (though not military actions) makes them enemies of the working class also.
Actually no. It isn't. Military support props the power balance and is tantamount to political support. There is no factual distinction outside the scope of rhetorics.
Propping a military power base means the expansion of domination of a group/bloc meaning it gains influence and therefore grows (maybe not much, but it does) enabling it to spread its political doctrine. I do however agree with you that political support =/= endorsing a specific political program.
I do not see the contradiction between political support as situational tactic and decrying politics on broader principle.
I can quote myself three times where I have explained that nobody here is disputing this, and yet here you are, for perhaps the fifth time, repeating it. The distinction that needs to be drawn is between a solution that occurs within a bourgeois society, and a solution that occurs with in a bourgeois society that actively supports the bourgeoisie rather than adhering to independent working-class politics. You want to ignore this distinction, so you can "support the right" of bourgeois states to exist in the name of "understanding that a solution will be bourgeois."
There you go assuming again.
You just proved the position you are holding here wrong. My position is that it is BOTH actually bourgeois and the distinction is semantics.
Take for example your position for Hamas. You are supporting Hamas from an anti-imperialist perspective and because they fight a common enemy. Yet Hamas is thoroughly imperialist and it is thoroughly reactionary and in fact poison to the working class. This support is bourgeois support. You are doing it out revolutionary motives because you think this will create the most beneficial outcome for the creation of a working class movement....but you are still propping a bourgeois solution.
I don't make this distinction however and just dismiss it as semantics.
The resolution to a strike in a single workplace will also be "bourgeois in nature" insofar as it won't be capable of bringing capitalism to its knees. That doesn't mean I support the "right of management to pursue its interests." But this is analogous to your argument about Israel and supporting it.
Again. I do not support Israel.
I am however saying that there is NO analogy in supporting the factions like Hamas resistance and a working class strike. Hamas is NOT a working class organisation. In fact most of the Palestinian resistance save a few small groups are working class organisations.
A better analogy would be to support on or the other faction in a hostile corporate merger.
Yes, you either support Israel's settler apartheid expansionism, or you oppose it. It's clear, based on your hand-wringing about Hamas and pogroms, whose side you are actually on in this struggle: the side of imperialism.
I am simply going to say: spend some time in Hamas. Then report back to me about your findings.
Alexios
11th June 2014, 22:58
I don't know if the Anti-German group is "racist" but the picture is outrageous, whether or not it's meant to be ironic. Having a picture of the Twin Towers being attacked with that caption would not be very different. If you support the bombing of a country's population, no matter what the regime's crimes, then you are anti-communist.
PhoenixAsh
11th June 2014, 23:07
DO IT AGAIN!!
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQph2Zu7CYsVnkf217yfwesIQzDTpZkf _kxTzPuVieA_07tsrEh
exeexe
12th June 2014, 00:21
DO IT AGAIN!!
Just a reminder
http://www.revleft.com/vb/please-read-before-t35154/index.html
Five Year Plan
12th June 2014, 02:43
This is the crux of the matter, so we may as well start here. First I don't think that my views are the same as Phoenix Ash's. To be honest I haven't read all of his contributions to this thread. I have merely skipped through them, but I'd appreciate it if you argued against me based on what I said, not based on what someone else may have said, which you are amalgamating. I'm certainly not going to take up his methods of debate and throwing personal insults at you, and, on a personal level, I would appreciate it if you didn't behave in that way towards me.
I don't think that there is a third option. No massive workers' movement is about to erupt uniting Palestinian and Israeli workers. What I would say is that there is no option at all. You haven't offered any means by which you think your fantasy non-sectarian, non-racist one state solution could conceivably come about, and until you do, I will continue to believe that it is actually you who is entertaining pipe-dreams and not myself.
I don't think there is any foreseeable solution within capitalism to the situation within Palestine that socialists could in any way support. That is my assessment. You can argue that it is wrong, but then you must offer something to back up your argument.
I don't think it is a useful distinction for non-Trotskyists. What I believe it is is a concept that allows Trotskyists to claim not to be supporting some pretty anti-working class things whilst actually supporting them.
I don't think it is a useful distinction. It is also a Trotskyists distinction. The second is not dependent on the first. Various other political currents make distinctions that only they use. For example, anarchists draw a difference between authoritarian, and libertarian socialism. I think this is also a meaningless distinction. It is also an anarchist one. I do not think that it is meaningless because anarchists hold it though, rather because I think it is meaningless in itself.
Let's accept yours then. If we want to understand an idea, we have to understand it in its context.
How do you define it then?:
It seems a reasonable definition. I don't know which group you are a member of, and to be honest if your group was involved in these sort of activities, I wouldn't want to know details, and I am sure you wouldn't publish them on an open forum.
Answer this question honestly though. Do you think that there are any Trotskyist groups that are giving military support under this definition to the Palestinian resistance? We will leave out people giving money to these groups, as money can be spent on anything and is not essentially military support.
I don't want any details whatsoever, just an honest answer. Do you really think that there is any Trotskyist organisation that you know of that is giving military support to the Palestinian resistance?
I don't except this definition at all. I think lots of people support many things without agreeing with their political programme. I think it is a meaningless concept.
But I don't think that this concept of 'political support' has any meaning whatsoever in this sort of context.
So they are not actually giving any military support at all then?
They didn't give any military support either. From what Vincent said I presume they gave out leaflets.
I have heard that the Sparticists did offer real military support in sending volunteers to Afghanistan in 1979. As far as I know the Soviets didn't take them at all seriously. I am not sure if this is true though. Either way, no military support was given.
So what you are saying is that there is no military support whatsoever, and actually it is political support as I previously said it was.
You can want whatever you like. It doesn't mean you are giving military support at all though.
Devrim
Yes, Trotskyists give military support to non-socialist and sometimes even bourgeois groups when those groups are waging a military struggle against imperialism. Your point that weapons aren't actually being sent in some cases, and that the support involves political propaganda, is irrelevant. Whether the support takes the form of a political speech or actual weapons, the support is only for a group's military activity and that alone, not the group's political positions, which socialists should decry in the strongest possible terms, pointing out that if a bourgeois group takes power upon the defeat of the imperialists, they will turn their guns on the working class. You don't think this is an important distinction because you don't see how a military struggle against imperialists is inherently a pro-working-class struggle in an international context even if bourgeois forces within the subaltern country itself might latch onto it for their own, non-working-class interests. If you dont see this, your analysis lacks class content in the same way that Phoenix's does.
Devrim
12th June 2014, 14:10
Yes, Trotskyists give military support to non-socialist and sometimes even bourgeois groups when those groups are waging a military struggle against imperialism. Your point that weapons aren't actually being sent in some cases, and that the support involves political propaganda, is irrelevant. Whether the support takes the form of a political speech or actual weapons, the support is only for a group's military activity and that alone,
So what you seem to be saying, after defining military support as "mean just that-military support-the shipment of arms, the sharing of intelligence to locate military adversaries, etc." is now that military support also means giving a 'political speech', and that it can take the form of 'political propaganda'. This seems to be in direct contradiction with your earlier statement.
Personally, I would say that '[I]political speeches' and 'political propaganda' are just that; political support. It may be political support of a military struggle, but it is political. As far as I am aware, no Trotskyist group today is involved in any military support, in the real sense of the term, for anything. What they give is political support.
the support is only for a group's military activity and that alone, not the group's political positions, which socialists should decry in the strongest possible terms, pointing out that if a bourgeois group takes power upon the defeat of the imperialists, they will turn their guns on the working class.
And as often as not they often turn their guns on the working class during the struggle itself. Despite this, you still seem to believe that it is a class analysis that states that the working class has to support alien class interests, and support a class which won't hesitate to massacre it.
You don't think this is an important distinction because you don't see how a military struggle against imperialists is inherently a pro-working-class struggle in an international context even if bourgeois forces within the subaltern country itself might latch onto it for their own, non-working-class interests.
Please explain why getting workers to die on behalf of national capital, and then if the struggle is successful, get massacred by those same forces is a 'pro-working class struggle', 'in an international context' of course.
If you dont see this, your analysis lacks class content
...and what you are claiming is that is you urge workers to abandon their class interests it somehow does have a class content. :confused:
Devrim
Five Year Plan
12th June 2014, 16:08
So what you seem to be saying, after defining military support as "mean just that-military support-the shipment of arms, the sharing of intelligence to locate military adversaries, etc." is now that military support also means giving a 'political speech', and that it can take the form of 'political propaganda'. This seems to be in direct contradiction with your earlier statement.
I've said all along that it can be either.
Personally, I would say that '[I]political speeches' and 'political propaganda' are just that; political support. It may be political support of a military struggle, but it is political. As far as I am aware, no Trotskyist group today is involved in any military support, in the real sense of the term, for anything. What they give is political support.You keep getting hung up on the form some kind of support takes, and what the support is actually for. Trotskyists call military support "military support" because it is support for limited and tactical military blocking, whether that support takes the form of military-logistical support or political propagandizing. They don't call it "military support" because it can never be delivered in the form of a political speech. You are conflating and mixing together the substance and nature of a policy being supported, and the medium through that policy is being supported. All this has been explained to you already, yet you keep obsessing over it as though it were an important point. In fact, you've yet to demonstrate its importance at all and are just caught up in a mystifying amount of self-congratulation about finding something out that Trotskyists would never dispute in the first place.
And as often as not they often turn their guns on the working class during the struggle itself. Despite this, you still seem to believe that it is a class analysis that states that the working class has to support alien class interests, and support a class which won't hesitate to massacre it.And to the point where non-worker forces are in fact turning their guns on the workers, the bloc ends. A basic principle of Trotskyism is the political independence of the working-class, which must come as something of a shock to people who speak glowingly of the Dutch SP as "the best option the working class has right now," of Israel's "right to exist in a bourgeois society."
Please explain why getting workers to die on behalf of national capital, and then if the struggle is successful, get massacred by those same forces is a 'pro-working class struggle', 'in an international context' of course.Nobody here is arguing for workers to die for any kind of capital, and if you think that, you clearly don't understand what is being argued. Surprisingly, this is why I initially invited you to read up on the distinction you were about to try to have a debate on. But of course, you know it all already, as can be seen from your wildly off-base accusations.
The purpose of the military bloc is to fight international imperialism without offering any sort of political boost to enemies of the working class. It is a kind of united front action. I suppose you would think that passing out picket signs to bourgeois supporters in a strike is a betrayal of class interests, too.
PhoenixAsh
12th June 2014, 18:47
The amount of hypocritical word wrangling is astounding.
So you give material and moral support to anti-working class factions based on some subjective classification on which one is the "lesser of two evils". You call this something which can be classified as revolutionary tactical prioritization while pretending there is actual (and not just hypothetical and "paper") working class independence simply because you say there is.
You completely ignore the fact that giving material and moral support and allying tactically means the expansion of anti-working class movements and platforming them within the working class. You conveniently ignore the extension of these groups power base and political influence over the working class. You completely ignore this material support being converted into real political absorption of the working class and you completely ignore the fact that you surrender working class independence from these factions.
All based on some hypothetical redefinition of words on paper completely alienated from any sense of reality and consideration for the very real consequences of this word wrangling put into practical implication.
In fact...you are just a hypocrite....subjectively condemning others for doing a similar, yet completely different, thing. But since these people and users aren't Trotskyists THEY of course are complete social democrat liberal anti-revolutionaries.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
You are in fact actively propping for bourgeois domination over the working class as a revolutionary strategy.
Bala Perdida
14th June 2014, 08:28
Would anybody care if I made a group called anti-americans? It would be attacking the consumerist, nationalist, imperialist culture. As well as seeking the liberation from this mindset for the people living in the regime. Refuting the regimes idiotic shouts of "freedom!" and things like that. As well as toppling the attitude of it being the 'best country in the world'. And the land of opportunity, as well as american dream, all that cultural propagandist horse shit.
Five Year Plan
14th June 2014, 18:06
The amount of hypocritical word wrangling is astounding.
So you give material and moral support to anti-working class factions based on some subjective classification on which one is the "lesser of two evils". You call this something which can be classified as revolutionary tactical prioritization while pretending there is actual (and not just hypothetical and "paper") working class independence simply because you say there is.
You completely ignore the fact that giving material and moral support and allying tactically means the expansion of anti-working class movements and platforming them within the working class. You conveniently ignore the extension of these groups power base and political influence over the working class. You completely ignore this material support being converted into real political absorption of the working class and you completely ignore the fact that you surrender working class independence from these factions.
All based on some hypothetical redefinition of words on paper completely alienated from any sense of reality and consideration for the very real consequences of this word wrangling put into practical implication.
In fact...you are just a hypocrite....subjectively condemning others for doing a similar, yet completely different, thing. But since these people and users aren't Trotskyists THEY of course are complete social democrat liberal anti-revolutionaries.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
You are in fact actively propping for bourgeois domination over the working class as a revolutionary strategy.
Your argument amounts to the idea that arming and working with a bourgeois-led national liberation force struggling against imperialism hurts a working class movement. I have pointed out to you repeatedly that it might hurt the working-class movement down the road, if the bourgeois forces turn their guns against the workers, at which point even military support ends. But the point you are missing is that the victory of such a force is not the end objective, and the betrayal of the bourgeois leadership is precisely the point. The objective is the defeat of imperialism, and the arming of the workers and the propagandizing of the workers to pursue an independent political line (hence only military support is given, not political support) so that they can take power. This is why, in cases where there are multiple factions or armies fighting for national self-determination, and one of them is led by the workers themselves, obviously no material support should be given to bourgeois armies. Like all tactics, military support is one deployed on the basis of analyzing the concrete situation from a class perspective.
The idea here is that the defeat of imperialism not only hastens the success of the international class struggle, but that the giving of military (but not political) support to an army with a worker rank-and-file but a bourgeois leadership will domestically expose the growing contradictions between what the the bourgeois leadership (if it exists) is willing to pursue in the cause of national self-determination, and what the working masses will grow to expect more and more as a national solution comes to seem more plausible.
Here it is important to remember what I suggested earlier: there is no progressive, pro-worker solution to the national problem in the epoch of decay. Any bourgeois leadership struggling for self-determination will, as the struggle comes closer to conclusion, will become more tepid in its aims and will cozy more and more with the imperialists, if for no other reason than that it sees the working class itself as the larger threat. As that process occurs, military support should be rescinded except to sections of the military who are pro-working class, the traitorous bourgeois leadership having been exposed after being given the rope to hang themselves with. The idea here being to foment a split within the army so as to have a working-class bid for leadership.
synthesis
14th June 2014, 20:10
I have pointed out to you repeatedly that it might hurt the working-class movement down the road, if the bourgeois forces turn their guns against the workers, at which point even military support ends. But the point you are missing is that the victory of such a force is not the end objective, and the betrayal of the bourgeois leadership is precisely the point.
So... leading a nation's working class to be betrayed by their national bourgeoisie is "precisely the point"? Because that's precisely what you're saying here, and would in fact be remarkably honest if this were not undoubtedly some bourgeois social-democratic plot to twist your words around.
Also: was this thread always in Tech Support? Because if so, holy shit.
Would anybody care if I made a group called anti-americans? It would be attacking the consumerist, nationalist, imperialist culture. As well as seeking the liberation from this mindset for the people living in the regime. Refuting the regimes idiotic shouts of "freedom!" and things like that. As well as toppling the attitude of it being the 'best country in the world'. And the land of opportunity, as well as american dream, all that cultural propagandist horse shit.
It's not quite the same, though, or at least your analysis is missing something - namely, the actual political positions it would lead the "anti-American" to take with regards to geopolitical blocs. "Anti-Americans" are almost uniformly anti-Israel, just as anti-Germans are characteristically pro-Israel, and that is essentially what the debate is almost always about. It seems like you're interpreting the "anti-German" group as the OP did - as some sort of racism or national chauvinism - except from the opposite position - correct me if I'm wrong.
Five Year Plan
14th June 2014, 20:21
So... leading a nation's working class to be betrayed by their national bourgeoisie is "precisely the point"? Because that's precisely what you're saying here, and would in fact be remarkably honest if this were not undoubtedly some bourgeois social-democratic plot to twist your words around.
The betrayal of the bourgeoisie will be foremost a political betrayal. The role of revolutionaries is to explain the need for the political independence of the working class, and to offer absolutely no political support for bourgeois forces, even in cases where military blocing is occurring with bourgeois forces, so I fail to see how you can say that a revolutionary in such an instance would be setting up the working class for betrayal. On the contrary, revolutionaries point out to workers the inevitability of betrayal. The point, to repeat is to try to split the working class from bourgeois leadership as quickly as possible, while still advancing the military struggle against imperialism (upon which, in the long run, every national bourgeoisie will have to rely in order to combat the working classes of their own countries). This is the idea behind "military support not political support," and the reason I encouraged people to read up on it was so that I wouldn't be attacked for suggesting policies that have nothing to do with the tactic. But here I am, having to spend a long time explaining the details and elementary principles behind it in order to deflect exactly those attacks.
synthesis
14th June 2014, 20:29
The betrayal of the bourgeoisie will be foremost a political betrayal. The role of revolutionaries is to explain the need for the political independence of the working class, and to offer absolutely no political support for bourgeois forces, even in cases where military blocing is occurring with bourgeois forces, so I fail to see how you can say that a revolutionary in such an instance would be setting up the working class for betrayal. On the contrary, revolutionaries point out to workers the inevitability of betrayal.
But you're the one who's (hypothetically) putting them in the position to be betrayed in the first place! How do you not see that? I'm not even trying to make a point here, I legitimately don't understand how this makes sense to you.
Five Year Plan
14th June 2014, 20:42
But you're the one who's (hypothetically) putting them in the position to be betrayed in the first place! How do you not see that? I'm not even trying to make a point here, I legitimately don't understand how this makes sense to you.
Let's be clear here. What we are talking about is a mass militia movement under the control of a bourgeois leadership, but with significant support and/or participation from the working class. It's not "me" or any revolutionary who would be putting the working class in that position. The workers themselves find themselves in that position because of the dominance of bourgeois ideology in that society.
The purpose of the military but no political support tactic is to peel the workers away from bourgeois leadership by advancing the struggle against imperialism to the point where workers begin to understand the need for a different political leadership, and the reality that their aligning with bourgeois forces is not in their best interests, even from the perspective of anti-imperialism (as explained repeatedly above). This is explained openly to the workers from the beginning, and is not kept secret in some kind of anti-worker effort to set proletarians up for betrayal. Winning working class leadership through advancing the anti-imperialist struggle is the essence of the tactic, and sometimes this entails having to do specific concrete military tasks in conjunction with the bourgeoisie in societies where the bourgeoisie still enjoys a kind of political hegemony in an anti-imperialist struggle. This is just reality, even if it violates your delicate moral sensibilities.
synthesis
14th June 2014, 20:49
Let's be clear here. What we are talking about is a mass militia movement under the control of a bourgeois leadership, but with significant support and/or participation from the working class. It's not "me" or any revolutionary who would be putting the working class in that position. The workers themselves find themselves in that position because of the dominance of bourgeois ideology in that society.
The purpose of the military but no political support tactic is to peel the workers away from bourgeois leadership by advancing the struggle against imperialism to the point where workers begin to understand the need for a different political leadership, and the reality that their aligning with bourgeois forces is not in their best interests, even from the perspective of anti-imperialism. This is explained openly to the workers from the beginning, and is not kept secret in some kind of anti-worker effort to set proletarians up for betrayal.
But how do you go up to workers and say "fight for this cause, even though the only people who will actually benefit from it will use you and then throw you away or worse when they don't need you any more," and then also say that the supposed rise in class consciousness engendered by this defeat is exactly what you were aiming for all along?
I mean, saying that "aligning with bourgeois forces is not in the best interests" of the working class is like the understatement of the century. In the context of this argument though, it's more than just a mere understatement. It's equivocation on the most important issue - class collaboration - that has faced communists since, well, ever.
Five Year Plan
14th June 2014, 22:57
But how do you go up to workers and say "fight for this cause, even though the only people who will actually benefit from it will use you and then throw you away or worse when they don't need you any more," and then also say that the supposed rise in class consciousness engendered by this defeat is exactly what you were aiming for all along?
Because that's not what you would say. As I explained repeatedly, the tactic under discussion here is one where the workers are already fighting for national independence under bourgeois leadership. Your hypothetical scenario makes it seem as though revolutionaries are out trying to rouse workers to fight for the bourgeois leaders, and that's just not the case at all. The arguments a revolutionary would make would be to get workers already widely engaged in, or supportive of, the struggle of a bourgeois-led army to take command of that army, to take command of the struggle, in a way that demonstrates their political independence from the bourgeois misleaders. The alternative, as we have seen in this thread, is to wash your hands of the military struggle under way and give a free pass to imperialism, just because the leadership of those struggle against it isn't revolutionary from the start (big surprise!).
I mean, saying that "aligning with bourgeois forces is not in the best interests" of the working class is like the understatement of the century. In the context of this argument though, it's more than just a mere understatement. It's equivocation on the most important issue - class collaboration - that has faced communists since, well, ever.As I said, "class collaboration" in your scenario would be literally denying a sympathetic bourgeois supporter a sign to join in on a picket line led by unionized workers. It would also, hilariously, deny Engels (that bourgeois thug) any space for printing his ideas in a workers' press. No wonder Sinister Intents has this need to flagellate himself on this forum because of his class position. He's just an observant read of threads like this, where bourgeoisie ceases to be an analytic category, and instead becomes absolute marker of moral turpitude.
synthesis
14th June 2014, 23:37
Because that's not what you would say. As I explained repeatedly, the tactic under discussion here is one where the workers are already fighting for national independence under bourgeois leadership. Your hypothetical scenario makes it seem as though revolutionaries are out trying to rouse workers to fight for the bourgeois leaders, and that's just not the case at all. The arguments a revolutionary would make would be to get workers already widely engaged in, or supportive of, the struggle of a bourgeois-led army to take command of that army, to take command of the struggle, in a way that demonstrates their political independence from the bourgeois misleaders. The alternative, as we have seen in this thread, is to wash your hands of the military struggle under way and give a free pass to imperialism, just because the leadership of those struggle against it isn't revolutionary from the start (big surprise!).
First off, this isn't "my" hypothetical situation we're talking about here; you're advocating a tactic, and I'm trying to delve into how you see it playing out in real life.
I mean, I guess at this point you're advocating that "military support" for national struggles can function as a sort of "entryism" for socialist agitation, or whatever, in the same way that Trotskyist parties supposedly get into parliamentary elections to show that the elections won't do anything, or something. I suppose that's the common thread in why your advocacy, that socialists should support national struggles, militarily or politically - on the basis of propagating the idea that the national struggle won't help the working class - doesn't make any sense to me.
So what does it mean, in actuality, to "[not] give a free pass to imperialism"? How do you imagine the working class will "assume control" of that struggle in a way that does not end as all such struggles do - with the victory of a different faction of the bourgeoisie?
How do workers "assert their political independence," in a national cross-class struggle, when the only real way this can be achieved meaningfully is in international working class struggle? How you don't see the contradiction here, in terms of the proper socialist approach towards these struggles, escapes me.
As I said, "class collaboration" in your scenario would be literally denying a sympathetic bourgeois supporter a sign to join in on a picket line led by unionized workers. It would also, hilariously, deny Engels (that bourgeois thug) any space for printing his ideas in a workers' press.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you have a very different idea of what "class collaboration" means than I do, or what most socialists I know of do. Of course individual members of different classes can act in class interests that are not their own. "Class collaboration" in this scenario means that the working class and the bourgeoisie, on a macrosocial scale, are working under the same umbrella to achieve, ostensibly, the same goals.
You're arguing that such phenomena can be tactically useful insofar as they can be used to organize the working class against their national bourgeoisie on the basis of the latter's inevitable betrayal of the former during the course of the conflict. Again, how this makes sense to anyone is beyond me.
No wonder Sinister Intents has this need to flagellate himself on this forum because of his class position. He's just an observant read of threads like this, where bourgeoisie ceases to be an analytic category, and instead becomes absolute marker of moral turpitude.
I don't think this is the case at all, and is a result of extrapolating the words you've inexplicably put into my mouth above, about individual alignment. I don't know of anyone who thinks that no individual member of the haute or petite bourgeoisie ever can align him or herself with working class politics. Well, maybe the WPA, or at least the former admin Miles, but I don't see that sort of bizarre mutation of socialism into identity politics gaining sway here or anywhere else any time soon.
Finally:
Your hypothetical scenario makes it seem as though revolutionaries are out trying to rouse workers to fight for the bourgeois leaders, and that's just not the case at all.
I'm not sure how it can be claimed that "it's not the case at all" when it has been the case in many examples that have been provided in this thread.
Bala Perdida
15th June 2014, 00:47
It's not quite the same, though, or at least your analysis is missing something - namely, the actual political positions it would lead the "anti-American" to take with regards to geopolitical blocs. "Anti-Americans" are almost uniformly anti-Israel, just as anti-Germans are characteristically pro-Israel, and that is essentially what the debate is almost always about. It seems like you're interpreting the "anti-German" group as the OP did - as some sort of racism or national chauvinism - except from the opposite position - correct me if I'm wrong.
Basically yes. I guess the blocs issue is up for debate. Specifically Israel. Weather you support the existence or not that is. But any 'ant-american' should also be anti-NATO. I'll get back to this later.
Five Year Plan
15th June 2014, 01:09
First off, this isn't "my" hypothetical situation we're talking about here; you're advocating a tactic, and I'm trying to delve into how you see it playing out in real life.
I mean, I guess at this point you're advocating that "military support" for national struggles can function as a sort of "entryism" for socialist agitation, or whatever, in the same way that Trotskyist parties supposedly get into parliamentary elections to show that the elections won't do anything, or something. I suppose that's the common thread in why your advocacy, that socialists should support national struggles, militarily or politically - on the basis of propagating the idea that the national struggle won't help the working class - doesn't make any sense to me.
It is formally similar to entryism, but entryism is different because that entails offering political support to a particular candidate or slate, or at the very least subjected yourself to the political discipline of a party, at least temporarily. The military bloc tactic being discussed here entails no political support, and is more akin to the united front, with its idea of "strike together, march separately."
So what does it mean, in actuality, to "[not] give a free pass to imperialism"? How do you imagine the working class will "assume control" of that struggle in a way that does not end as all such struggles do - with the victory of a different faction of the bourgeoisie?I am not sure why you are having such a hard-time wrapping your mind around moving a significant faction of a military force in the direction of a different political program and different leadership. How would it look? It would look like working-class soldiers caucasing and organizing together politically independent of the military leadership and independent of the bourgeois political parties in existence, and deciding that the struggle for national independence must also be a struggle to topple capitalism.
How do workers "assert their political independence," in a national cross-class struggle, when the only real way this can be achieved meaningfully is in international working class struggle? How you don't see the contradiction here, in terms of the proper socialist approach towards these struggles, escapes me.You almost rule out form the start the idea that military cooperation does not preclude political independence, then act confused when I talk about scenarios where workers are politically independent but fight alongside bourgeois forces. Your logic, it seems, is "you can't be politically independent of the bourgeoisie if you do anything with any of them. Because that means you are no longer just workers!" I have explained systematically the problem with this logic, and you just keep not getting it.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I think you have a very different idea of what "class collaboration" means than I do, or what most socialists I know of do. Of course individual members of different classes can act in class interests that are not their own. "Class collaboration" in this scenario means that the working class and the bourgeoisie, on a macrosocial scale, are working under the same umbrella to achieve, ostensibly, the same goals.Working together for what? Where your distinction between "individual members" of a class and "macrosocial collaboration" breaks down is that my point is you cannot read political program off from class location. Often you can, but not always! And in a case where an indigenous bourgeoisie is engaged in a struggle for national self-determination, they are implicitly (in a way that may very well be unbeknownst to them) struggling against an international system to which they themselves would necessarily have to be economically subordinate if they did indeed find themselves in a position of political leadership following "independence." That the bourgeoisie of colonized countries happen to find themselves in this position, in a way that makes them inclined to be on the right side of a military struggle, is what allows for the unique idea of a "united front" type policy with the bourgeoisie.
You're arguing that such phenomena can be tactically useful insofar as they can be used to organize the working class against their national bourgeoisie on the basis of the latter's inevitable betrayal of the former during the course of the conflict. Again, how this makes sense to anyone is beyond me.I explained it above. As you have done repeatedly throughout our exchange here, you just keep conflating political with military co-ordination, and exclaiming, "Well it's contradictory to support the bourgeoisie then saying you're independent of them!" I explained how the betrayal will be political, and is not "set up" by revolutionaries, but is a natural extension of the way that a subordinate bourgeoisie in a colonized country will find itself wedged between the only two forces capable of running their state: the working class on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie on the other. Revolutionaries do not hide this to "ensnare" workers or any such thing. They state it openly and forthrightly to get the workers fighting to organize politically around a program to smash capitalism.
I'm not sure how it can be claimed that "it's not the case at all" when it has been the case in many examples that have been provided in this thread.Can you see the difference between these two slogans: "Hands off! Support Iraqis' struggle against American imperialist invasion!" and "All hail the B'athist Army!"
Think about the difference, then consider how what I said wasn't the case at all, is, indeed, not the case at all.
Creative Destruction
15th June 2014, 01:15
I don't see this as any different than Americans who are Anti-American... like I am.
Remus Bleys
15th June 2014, 01:24
Do you call for the murder and bombing of Americans? Do you support all of America's enemies? If so, youre a reactionary. To call for the indiscriminate death of the proletariat because of the actions of the bourgeois state is idiotic on so many levels.
Creative Destruction
15th June 2014, 01:47
Do you call for the murder and bombing of Americans?
No.
Do you support all of America's enemies?
Not all, no.
If so, youre a reactionary.
Okey-dokey.
To call for the indiscriminate death of the proletariat because of the actions of the bourgeois state is idiotic on so many levels.
Then I may have misunderstood what "Anti-German" meant.
Remus Bleys
15th June 2014, 01:52
That was precisely my point. I was not accusing you of those things, but pointing out what defines the anti German movement.
Creative Destruction
15th June 2014, 01:52
Alright, then, I guess it's not like anti-Americanism.
synthesis
15th June 2014, 02:58
FYP, I've cut out some of the extraneous material from your post for the purpose of clarity.
I am not sure why you are having such a hard-time wrapping your mind around moving a significant faction of a military force in the direction of a different political program and different leadership. How would it look? It would look like working-class soldiers caucasing and organizing together politically independent of the military leadership and independent of the bourgeois political parties in existence, and deciding that the struggle for national independence must also be a struggle to topple capitalism.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around it because I don't understand why you need to support the military force at all, why you can't just say fuck the military struggle and just organize the working class around internationalist class politics and around resistance to ruling classes both domestic and foreign. I also don't get how you can say that "the struggle for national independence" can become "a struggle to topple capitalism" without the participation of the international working class outside the region seeking national independence. That's a very bourgeois perspective on class politics.
You don't seem to be able to explain, in practice, why a national cross-class struggle is in any way beneficial for the international working class struggle.
Working together for what? Where your distinction between "individual members" of a class and "macrosocial collaboration" breaks down is that my point is you cannot read political program off from class location. Often you can, but not always!
My point is that you can read class interests from political positions, and that the political position of supporting bourgeois nationalist regimes and their "struggles" - no matter what qualifiers you place on that support - indicates class interests that are alien to socialism.
That the bourgeoisie of colonized countries happen to find themselves in this position, in a way that makes them inclined to be on the right side of a military struggle, is what allows for the unique idea of a "united front" type policy with the bourgeoisie.
Yeah, see, this is the opposite of class politics, that the interest of any particular working class lies with their local bourgeoisie. You keep saying there's a distinction between their collaboration and your collaboration but all you've provided in support of that claim is a load of meaningless jargon.
I explained it above. As you have done repeatedly throughout our exchange here, you just keep conflating political with military co-ordination, and exclaiming, "Well it's contradictory to support the bourgeoisie then saying you're independent of them!"
Actually I think I have gone to considerable lengths to try to understand this distinction you argue is a real thing and to incorporate it into my responses to your points.
I explained how the betrayal will be political, and is not "set up" by revolutionaries, but is a natural extension of the way that a subordinate bourgeoisie in a colonized country will find itself wedged between the only two forces capable of running their state: the working class on the one hand, and the international bourgeoisie on the other. Revolutionaries do not hide this to "ensnare" workers or any such thing. They state it openly and forthrightly to get the workers fighting to organize politically around a program to smash capitalism.
Again, why does this scenario have to involve socialists supporting, in any way, the military struggle itself? You seem to be trying to find a really roundabout way to defend the policies of certain Trotskyist groups with regard to their support for bourgeois nationalist regimes.
Can you see the difference between these two slogans: "Hands off! Support Iraqis' struggle against American imperialist invasion!" and "All hail the B'athist Army!"
Think about the difference, then consider how what I said wasn't the case at all, is, indeed, not the case at all.
What is the functional difference between those slogans in areas where the Ba'athist army is not likely to need to be hailed any time soon? And why not just skip the support for national struggles entirely, in favor of straightforward international working class organization?
Bala Perdida
15th June 2014, 08:31
I'm going to go ahead and make the group. If it's unpopular or controversial, then I'll take it down I guess.
Tim Cornelis
15th June 2014, 09:24
Even 'anti-Americanism' I find infantile (and, pardon me french, liberal) because it suggests that the problem is the USA, a sort of essentialist feature of its existence. As if removing the USA from existence would remove imperialism and aggression. It also leads to absurdities, such as supporting, as the PSL and WWP do, anti-American dictators.
Bala Perdida
15th June 2014, 10:12
Even 'anti-Americanism' I find infantile (and, pardon me french, liberal) because it suggests that the problem is the USA, a sort of essentialist feature of its existence. As if removing the USA from existence would remove imperialism and aggression. It also leads to absurdities, such as supporting, as the PSL and WWP do, anti-American dictators.
Yeah I get what you mean. I hate the foreign policy and all of that, but when I talk about being 'anti-american' I usually like to emphasize my opposition to 'American values' and such. I've lived in the country most of my life, and I have never really felt 'American'. I've always hated the attitude that people display when they express their 'love' for the country, and their irrational name calling "terrorist" when you express any discontent with the country.
One of my biggest problems with the culture is seeing it's effect on immigrants. I find it sad that they call themselves American, and beg to be American citizens. I mean I've seen (almost first hand) how horribly the nation treats them, and the damage it does to some of their home countries, and they still hold such respect to the country. It's suff like this that led to my rejection of 'American' things. Also the idea that everything good has to be American.
When it comes to foreign policy, I can't think of a time when I favored U.S. intervention. Also, holding an anarchist view of things, I am usually critical of the largest opposing side. Half the time I see them being just as bad as the western imperialist, but I am familiar with the 'black and white' tendency within the left. That being, "if their against America, their good." like the views of Chavez and many communist parties around the world.
Anyways, I made the group if anyone wants to check it out. I tried to make it clear that it's not a racist group, but I'll let the people be the judge as to how offensive it is.
DOOM
15th June 2014, 10:25
That was precisely my point. I was not accusing you of those things, but pointing out what defines the anti German movement.
That's a horrible fallacious analogy but whatever.
Five Year Plan
15th June 2014, 16:43
It's hard for me to wrap my head around it because I don't understand why you need to support the military force at all, why you can't just say fuck the military struggle and just organize the working class around internationalist class politics and around resistance to ruling classes both domestic and foreign. I also don't get how you can say that "the struggle for national independence" can become "a struggle to topple capitalism" without the participation of the international working class outside the region seeking national independence. That's a very bourgeois perspective on class politics.
Yes, I keep saying over and over again that fighting alongside the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie is fighting the same military opponent as you are does not mean that you are forgoing "organizing the working class around internationalist class politics and around resistance to ruling classes both domestic and foreign." And you keep just saying you don't get it. I guess if you rule out the possibility from the start, there's not much point in repeating it yet again, so I won't.
You don't seem to be able to explain, in practice, why a national cross-class struggle is in any way beneficial for the international working class struggle. I need to explain to you why the defeat of imperialism in a given country is beneficial for the international working class struggle?
My point is that you can read class interests from political positions, and that the political position of supporting bourgeois nationalist regimes and their "struggles" - no matter what qualifiers you place on that support - indicates class interests that are alien to socialism.Here you go again with your ambiguous use of the phrase "supporting." Supporting how? To what extent? Why? The struggle for national self-determination, as I explained earlier, isn't just a "bourgeois" struggle. It's a struggle against imperialism that the bourgeoisie of any country actually can't carry out successfully and completely. Why you keep ignoring this in my argument for limited tactical military support for working-class-supported but bourgeois-led armies (for the purpose of splitting the working-class base from its leadership so that they organize themselves separately) is anybody's guess. But I suspect it has something to do with this desire to play "gotcha!" and try to show me up.
Yeah, see, this is the opposite of class politics, that the interest of any particular working class lies with their local bourgeoisie. You keep saying there's a distinction between their collaboration and your collaboration but all you've provided in support of that claim is a load of meaningless jargon.Pointing out that both a local bourgeoisie in a colonized country and the proletariat both might have an interest in trying to expel the colonizers is so obvious that it runs the risk of becoming a truism. Yet here you are, boldly claiming that making this observation flies in the face of class politics and is "jargony." What is worse, you seem to think it points to *gasp* "collaboration" (as does a workers' newspaper printing an article from that terrible bourgeois figure, Freddie Engels). Yes, it does point to a limited and tactical form of collaboration, called military blocing. That's what the whole discussion is about. And building your conclusions into your argument rather than working your way up to them through a series of propositions isn't going to advance the discussion at all.
Again, why does this scenario have to involve socialists supporting, in any way, the military struggle itself? You seem to be trying to find a really roundabout way to defend the policies of certain Trotskyist groups with regard to their support for bourgeois nationalist regimes.I'm sorry. I think I now understand the problem here. You must have a very different understanding of what imperialism is. I operate from the Leninist understanding of imperialism as the result of monopoly capitalism, with trusts exerting disproportionate control over state policies, leading to violent conquest of foreign countries for the purpose of propping up business interests. With this understanding, it's easier to understand why when a military struggle is taking place between international capitalism and a colonized country, that being involved in the military struggle itself is implicitly directed against the international capitalist order at its current stage of development. And it's not by chance that it is implicitly directed at this order: it points to the fact that the only class capable of leading a successful national struggle is the working-class itself.
So when you ask, "why is it important to get involved?" The answer is two-fold: the struggle is in the interests of the working class both international and domestic, and it is a way for the working class to realize its political interests are antagonistic to those of their local bourgeoisie. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and the most I've gotten in response is you hollering about "collaboration." Not an impressive response.
What is the functional difference between those slogans in areas where the Ba'athist army is not likely to need to be hailed any time soon? And why not just skip the support for national struggles entirely, in favor of straightforward international working class organization?The functional difference is between imploring workers to struggle militarily against the imperialists in the name of a pro-working class political program, and imploring the workers to die for an anti-worker bourgeois political program. You and others here have constantly accused me of the second, when in fact I've advocated only the first.
As for your second question, the point of supporting national independence struggles goes back to the point I made earlier in my response to you in this post: it points in practice, not just in theory, to the need for an international working class solution. It's a way for workers in a country to learn through struggle, at the same time that it deals a blow to international capital. That's why.
Bad Grrrl Agro
15th June 2014, 22:20
1. I got no issues with revleft banning me, since the only purpose of returning was not to continue discussing as before but to clarify things in this thread that biazed told me about.
2. I'm not trolling in the sense of inventing some position to have people freak out, but exaggerating the position I hold because I find it remarkable in how far this state is way more observed than any other state, be it by leftists, fascist or whomever. It seems that Israel is the center of the world to people with every type of political position, as Sasha already explained above.
I find it ridiculous that such a position qualifies me as a zionist, but well, be it so.
Well I wish you'd stay. :)
Alexios
16th June 2014, 01:17
That's a horrible fallacious analogy but whatever.
What's wrong with it? Maybe the fucking image should be changed if you don't want to put forward those messages. Plus, it's not like the Anti-Deutsch isn't already full of maniacs who openly support American imperialism in the Middle East. It's a profoundly reactionary group that shouldn't be allowed on this website.
synthesis
16th June 2014, 06:34
FYP, I've cut out some of the extraneous and/or overly eristic material from your post again.
The struggle for national self-determination, as I explained earlier, isn't just a "bourgeois" struggle. It's a struggle against imperialism that the bourgeoisie of any country actually can't carry out successfully and completely.
First off, what do you mean when you say the "bourgeoisie of any country can't carry out a struggle against imperialism [by themselves, I'm assuming]"? Because obviously in all military situations the bourgeoisie needs the working class to fight their battles for them. So I'm going to assume you're not being disingenuous here and you actually mean that a struggle for national self-determination cannot be won without proletarian class consciousness.
What historical trends, specifically, have led you to this conclusion? Doesn't pretty much the entire history of the capitalist mode of production indicate that the only group that benefits from "the struggle for national self-determination" is the bourgeoisie? Would you like me to list some instances where a national bourgeoisie has successfully and completely overthrown foreign imperialism for their own benefit? It's going to be a pretty long list.
Pointing out that both a local bourgeoisie in a colonized country and the proletariat both might have an interest in trying to expel the colonizers is so obvious that it runs the risk of becoming a truism.
Maybe to you, but to anyone who has an inkling of an idea of what happened in the latter half of the 20th century, the victors of anti-colonial struggles have always been the bourgeoisie. The working class has absolutely nothing to gain from it, at least certainly not in 2014.
Yet here you are, boldly claiming that making this observation flies in the face of class politics and is "jargony." What is worse, you seem to think it points to *gasp* "collaboration" (as does a workers' newspaper printing an article from that terrible bourgeois figure, Freddie Engels).
This claim you continue to make seems absurd on its head - about how reading Engels would be "class collaboration" just as much as advocating that the working class and the bourgeoisie fight for the same cause (LOL) - so I would like you to explain your reasoning behind it. I'm arguing that the working class being wedged into the same fight as their national bourgeoisie, a fight that the latter has always won and always at the expense of the former - is class collaboration; you seem to think that this concept extends all the way down to the most atomized, microsocial level - where individual workers collaborating with individual bourgeois in the interest of the working class is the same as a political program arguing that workers should join a bourgeois struggle because it will somehow benefit them - a conflation that is just ridiculously dishonest on your part, as I'm 100% sure you know better than this.
And it's not by chance that it is implicitly directed at this order: it points to the fact that the only class capable of leading a successful national struggle is the working-class itself.
LOL, okay, again, assuming you're working from the same non-disingenuous framework above, I'd like to see what historical events you're basing this on; you link this to "an international working class solution" in "practice, not just in theory," which is hilarious.
The functional difference is between imploring workers to struggle militarily against the imperialists in the name of a pro-working class political program, and imploring the workers to die for an anti-worker bourgeois political program. You and others here have constantly accused me of the second, when in fact I've advocated only the first.
Right, you are arguing that there is a distinction, between the first and the second, where in reality there is none. They are the same, because national self-determination is a relic of early 20th-century Marxism - one, to be completely honest, I used to argue for even more vehemently then you are here - and it's not surprising that living fossils such as yourself continue to maintain that the concept and the struggles have any use for the international working class in 2014. A "pro-working class political program" in the context of a national struggle is the nationalist equivalent of social democracy - pulling the wool over the eyes of the working class, or at least attempting to.
Five Year Plan
16th June 2014, 06:41
First off, what do you mean when you say the "bourgeoisie of any country can't carry out a struggle against imperialism [by themselves, I'm assuming]"? Because obviously in all military situations the bourgeoisie needs the working class to fight their battles for them. So I'm going to assume you're not being disingenuous here and you actually mean that a struggle for national self-determination cannot be won without proletarian class consciousness.
I've explained what I mean by this in an earlier post in this thread when I mentioned how there is no progressive role for national independence (a traditionally "bourgeois task") in the epoch of decay. Not sure how you claim there's anything "disingenuous" about this.
What historical trends, specifically, have led you to this conclusion? Doesn't pretty much the entire history of the capitalist mode of production indicate that the only group that benefits from "the struggle for national self-determination" is the bourgeoisie? Would you like me to list some instances where a national bourgeoisie has successfully and completely overthrown foreign imperialism for their own benefit? It's going to be a pretty long list.No, in the period when the bourgeoisie was fighting against feudalism, the bourgeoisie represented what Marx called a "universal class." Why? Not because they didn't exploit anybody, obviously, but because everybody's interest was served by the progressive development and socialization of the means of production represented by the capitalist mode of production. One of the offshoots of this development was the modern nation-state.
And, yes, I would like for you to list examples of where the bourgeoisie of a colonized state has managed, in the past 100 years, to overthrow imperialist rule without then becoming the puppet of more powerful foreign powers (or becoming imperialist in its own right). You aren't going to be able to name any, for the reasons I have repeated throughout this thread.
Maybe to you, but to anyone who has an inkling of an idea of what happened in the latter half of the 20th century, the victors of anti-colonial struggles have always been the bourgeoisie. The working class has absolutely nothing to gain from it, at least certainly not in 2014.See my above comment. My point throughout this thread is that "the bourgeoisie" have been the victors in the sense that "national independence" has always been nominal, co-opted by international capital and antithetical to the democratic rights that animate the working class to struggle for independence in the first place. This is precisely the point I have been making time and again about how a blow against imperialism is implicitly always a blow for the international working class. Citing examples of where imperialism has co-opted independence struggles doesn't disprove this. It actually strengthens my point.
This claim you continue to make seems absurd on its head - about how reading Engels would be "class collaboration" just as much as advocating that the working class and the bourgeoisie fight for the same cause (LOL) - so I would like you to explain your reasoning behind it. I'm arguing that the working class being wedged into the same fight as their national bourgeoisie, a fight that the latter has always won and always at the expense of the former - is class collaboration; you seem to think that this concept extends all the way down to the most atomized, microsocial level - where individual workers collaborating with individual bourgeois in the interest of the working class is the same as a political program arguing that workers should join a bourgeois struggle because it will somehow benefit them - a conflation that is just ridiculously dishonest on your part, as I'm 100% sure you know better than this.I have explained already how your macrosocial/microsocial distinction breaks down. I won't repeat myself.
PhoenixAsh
16th June 2014, 07:41
What's wrong with it? Maybe the fucking image should be changed if you don't want to put forward those messages. Plus, it's not like the Anti-Deutsch isn't already full of maniacs who openly support American imperialism in the Middle East. It's a profoundly reactionary group that shouldn't be allowed on this website.
It is not a group. Saying anti-Germans are a group is like saying the entire left is a group and shows a profound lack of understanding. It is a current crossing political lines with no uniform ideology but certain loosely correlating themes/ideas. There is a huge difference between the expression of anti-Germany ideas/concepts in the revolutionary left and the bourgeois left as well as the liberal left.
Five Year Plan
16th June 2014, 19:02
It is not a group. Saying anti-Germans are a group is like saying the entire left is a group and shows a profound lack of understanding. It is a current crossing political lines with no uniform ideology but certain loosely correlating themes/ideas. There is a huge difference between the expression of anti-Germany ideas/concepts in the revolutionary left and the bourgeois left as well as the liberal left.
But surely there is an "essence" to the ideology that makes it that ideology, and not any other ideology, in a way that makes generalizations about it possible. Just as it is possible to make generalizations about "the left", like the fact that people who take a leftist position on some issue stand on the side of egalitarianism versus hierarchy.
The question is whether "anti-Germanism" is in its very essence reactionary or not.
PhoenixAsh
16th June 2014, 19:41
But surely there is an "essence" to the ideology that makes it that ideology, and not any other ideology, in a way that makes generalizations about it possible. Just as it is possible to make generalizations about "the left", like the fact that people who take a leftist position on some issue stand on the side of egalitarianism versus hierarchy.
The question is whether "anti-Germanism" is in its very essence reactionary or not.
Well there would be a huge difference of opinion based on your generalization of the left when it comes to standing on the side of egalitarianism vs hierarchy. And that is just the problem I have here. Generalizations are pretty damned useless when you try to establish if something is reationary or not based on currents that is cross tendency/politics and tends to be broadly grouped together on certain similar concepts which are interpreted in a completely different way depending on tendency.
Alexios
17th June 2014, 01:38
It is not a group. Saying anti-Germans are a group is like saying the entire left is a group and shows a profound lack of understanding. It is a current crossing political lines with no uniform ideology but certain loosely correlating themes/ideas. There is a huge difference between the expression of anti-Germany ideas/concepts in the revolutionary left and the bourgeois left as well as the liberal left.
Fascists and conservatives are not groups either. They're both still banned from this forum. Time to go into your pre-made argument box and find a better option.
PhoenixAsh
17th June 2014, 01:43
Fascists and conservatives are not groups either. They're both still banned from this forum. Time to go into your pre-made argument box and find a better option.
Actually Fascist is a very specific tendency and fascists adhere to it.
Conservatives aren't banned because they are a singular group either (there are conservatives in the revolutionary left) but because they usually aren't revolutionary or predominantly are capitalists. And if you refer to the party...then yes they are a party...meaning a group.
anti-Deutsch is a current. Which is something entirely different. As a current anti-German idea's are found within the revolutionary left aswell as in the liberal left and the bourgeois center. These ideas loosely form from several common themes which are widely differently interpreted and applied depending on tendency.
So no....your argument here is pretty much off base. So come back when you actually have a comparison that holds water.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.