Left Nationalists opposing the concept of Israel?

[karlkropotkin]

Since I've been interested in leftist politics I've always been split regarding whether to side with Israel or Palestine. I've come to the conclusion that I support the concept of a nation for Jewish people where they are safe from discrimination and can live in self-determination. However, I oppose the crimes committed by the Israeli government against the Palestinians. During all of this, I have seen many leftists who support the liberation of ethnic groups such as the Kurds or the Tamils, who at the same time completely dismiss the existence of Israel. Is there any logic to this or is this simply anti-semitism?

[ckaihatsu]

'Left nationalists' are still nationalists, and revolutionaries are *not* nationalists.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

That aside, here's this:





Herzl regarded the previous efforts to gain entry into Palestine as hopeless. He argued the only guarantee of an eventual Jewish state would be one based on what he called “assured supremacy”. This meant obtaining imperialist backing. He recognised the ultimate importance of Britain:

England with her possessions in Asia should be most interested in Zionism, for the shortest route to India is by way of Palestine. England’s great politicians were the first to recognise the need for colonial expansion ... And so I believe in England the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily understood. [5]




In 1917, before the British had assumed control of the area, Weizmann was invited to secret discussions with the British government. These led to the famous “Balfour Declaration”, which both expressed British support for Zionist settlement in Palestine and Zionist acceptance of British control of Palestine. The Declaration promised a “national home for the Jewish people”. Winston Churchill understood the significance of a “national home for the Jewish people” only too well.

... a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four million Jews ... would from every point of view be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire. [11]




John Rose

Israel: The Hijack State

America’s Watchdog in the Middle East

(1986)

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/hijack/4-origin.htm

[Atsumari]

I would not be surprised to see leftists disillusioned with the PKK and YPG the same way we did with Israel. In the early days of Israel, lots of leftists supported Israel on the grounds of antifascism and even with evidence of human rights violations popping, up, it was not until their invasion of Lebanon until it became clear that Israel has a lot of skeletons in her closet. And with that, I would not be surprised if in the future, with accusations of ethnic cleansing and US support, leftists will find themselves protesting against a Kurdish state

[John Nada]

Since I've been interested in leftist politics I've always been split regarding whether to side with Israel or Palestine. I've come to the conclusion that I support the concept of a nation for Jewish people where they are safe from discrimination and can live in self-determination. However, I oppose the crimes committed by the Israeli government against the Palestinians. During all of this, I have seen many leftists who support the liberation of ethnic groups such as the Kurds or the Tamils, who at the same time completely dismiss the existence of Israel. Is there any logic to this or is this simply anti-semitism?First, what is a nation:
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1 This is a common Marxist description of what's a nation, derived from a great debate within the 2nd International between Kautsky and Bauer, not just used by "Stalinism" and even used by tendencies that disagree with Stalin to varying degrees. Lenin agreed with it(Trotsky did too, but he suspected it was ghost-written by Lenin), and Stalin's Marxism and the National Question influence goes beyond even just Marxists. Regardless of what one might think of Stalin or whether he consistently upheld his original ideas in the National Question, it's a pretty solid descriptive theory, though not without its flaws.

The Kurds and Tamils are nations as described(historically constituted stable community, with a common language, territory, economic life and psychological makeup manifesting as a common culture), as are modern Israelis and Palestinians(though some argue they're part of a larger Arab nation), but not Jewry as a whole(which stretches across many different nationalities). There's nation-states(countries where the state boundaries and nation for the most part coincide), multinational states(like Switzerland or Britain), and there's stateless nations(like Kurdistan, Kashmir, Palestine or Basque Country). Nationhood is based on existing communities, not religion or bloodlines.

Arguments against the existence of an Israeli nation(besides some antisemitic bullshit masquerading as "left") might be that Israel is really more of a privileged part of a Palestinian nation or that it hasn't been around long enough for a stable community, so closer to an American/British/German colonial outpost.

I'd say it is a nation, abet one oppressing Palestinians. But it doesn't matter, because whether a group is a nation is not some "choice", but a fact or not. Most the nations of the world existed before formal independence, regardless if some imperialist chose to admit it. Israel is as of now a nation within a multinational state. But there's a large section of the state that wants a homogenous Jewish nation-state to the exclusion of Palestinians. Which would entail some extreme reactionary and anti-human, if not genocidal, actions to achieve. That might be the not-antisemitic opposition to the existence of Israel, as exclusively a Jewish nation-state.

Now what's imperialism:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm Unambiguously, nations like the US, UK, France and Germany are imperialist. I'd throw in China and Russia(both supporting Iran as a counterweight to US-UK-France-Germany backed Saudi Arabia and Israel), but that's neither here nor there.

There's a big difference between the Israeli state and the Kurdish or Tamil nation(hell, there's big difference between Eelam and Kurdistan, or between many other nations). They're comparatively old nations. They occupy different positions in the imperialist system. Eelam and Kurdistan are colonies of subimperialist(Turkey and Iran in the case of Kurdistan, India in the case of Eelam) and semi-colonies(Syria, Iraq, Sir Lanka). Almost like "their" colonizers are doing it at the behest of imperialist nations.

Israel is a settler-colony, kind of like the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Africa or Liberia to an extent. The first three are at the imperialist phase of capitalism, second two after are in an intermediate state either referred to as semicolonial-expansionist or subimperialist, and the last one essentially a neo-colony of the US(though it too was expansionist! More theorizing needs to be done in that area IMO).

Israel is closer to Brazil and South Africa in having some of the characteristics of a semi-colony tied to US imperialism in importing capital, aid, loans and as a military proxy, yet having some traits traditionally associated with imperialism, like colonialism, monopolies and cartels, expansionism, export of capital, ect with rather developed capitalism(if unevenly spread) and a high degree of independence politically. It may well have even reached the imperialist phase. Not common in this epoch, but it's possible and some have argue this.

It's not a colony of the usual type, but closer to South Africa or formerly Rhodesia, in that there's a dominate nation that's pretty much at a 1st-World level of development, side by side with an oppressed indigenous nation of Palestine that's 3rd-world, with a racist system, Zionism, similar to Jim Crow or apartheid. In South Africa this was called a colonialism of a special type by the SACP. https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/sacp/1962/road-freedom.htm (Modern SACP is revisionist and shit, in a people's front with the outright anti-worker ANC, and the South African proletariat moving far advance of it, but that's another topic)

However, socialist Moshe Machover argued that Zionism isn't like apartheid, but closer to the US's policy towards Native Americans:
In one model of colonization, their labor power became one of the indigenous resources – indeed, the main resource – to be exploited by the settlers. The ethnic conflict between the two groups thus assumed the nature of a kind of class struggle. This model is represented, in almost pure form, by apartheid South Africa.

In the other model, the native population was to be eliminated; exterminated or expelled rather than exploited. Israel is an active instance of this model. If you wish to find an instructive parallel, look not at South Africa. Rather, read Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/machover/2004/11/apartheid.html

What's the difference between Kurdistan and Eelam vs. Israel? Besides the settler-colonial nature which essentially means the indigenous people are going to be oppressed, Israel serves the function of kind of a "watchdog" over the Middle East at the behest of imperialist nations like the UK, Germany and in particular the US. One US official described Israel as like a permanent aircraft carrier. It's a place for US arm manufactures to dump weapons and test them out.

Israel has also been instrumental in propping up semi-feudalism and reactionary comprador-bourgeoisie(basically puppet capitalists)like the Hashemites Kingdom of Jordan, first Egypt's Mubarak then Sisi, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. They may occasionally talk like anti-imperialists, but they're more likely to just fight each other or "their own" people. This effectively sank what could've been a progressive Arab bourgeois-democratic revolutions and a workers socialist movement. And this kept semi-feudalism and (semi-neo)colonialism in the Middle East alive. Then, because of the semi-feudal base, you get semi-feudal movements like Al-Qaeda and Daesh in place of previously strong workers and socialist movements.

This is why Israel's "only democracy in the Middle East" is a sham. Israel and Palestine have never even had a democratic revolution, let alone a proletarian socialist revolution. The Israeli state, as it is now, is actively holding back other democratic and socialist revolutions in the Middle East. It makes it less likely, not more, for the workers of Palestine and Israel even to have a socialist revolution. Since it's not progressive at all, it's not fighting imperialism and the backward vestiges of feudalism, not opening the doors for a socialist revolution and in fact actively obstructing anything towards that end, there's really no reason to support the Israeli state anymore the Egyptian or Saudi one.
I would not be surprised to see leftists disillusioned with the PKK and YPG the same way we did with Israel. In the early days of Israel, lots of leftists supported Israel on the grounds of antifascism and even with evidence of human rights violations popping, up, it was not until their invasion of Lebanon until it became clear that Israel has a lot of skeletons in her closet. And with that, I would not be surprised if in the future, with accusations of ethnic cleansing and US support, leftists will find themselves protesting against a Kurdish stateLOL, they got like three cantons, and most of these "leftists" couldn't tell the difference between Ocalan and Barzani if their lives depended on it. Or point Kurdistan out on the map(yeah it's not recognized but still). And they seem to expect someone to give up on an objectively just revolutionary war, simply because they became co-belligerents in an unjust war. Commit suicide is the revolutionary answer apparently.:rolleyes:

Israel has very specific historical circumstances that led to what it became, that Kurdistan does not have. I'd say it has more in common with Poland. You have what was once one of the most radical revolutionary movements in Europe arising out of an oppressed nation, split up between three countries. Marx and Engels damn near thought it was impossible to be a socialist and not support Ireland and Poland. Many great revolutionaries like Luxembourg came from Poland. They were internationalist to a fault. Even gave up demands for an independent Polish nation-state for mere autonomy. A revolutionary slogan was "For our freedom and yours!", shouted in revolutionary wars up to the Spanish Civil War.

Yet it was highjacked by bourgeois nationalists. "For our freedom and yours" came to mean Bush's invasion of Iraq was worth Poland's support. I don't think it'll come from the PKK, but the KDP. They try to play up the Kurdistan can be like the UAE. I don't think it can be anything more than a neo-colony under capitalism, but that nationalist and capitalist pull with promises of quick economic development resonates with some Kurds. Under the KCK I think it would strike at semi-feudalism and be a democratic revolution with the potential to radicalize the Middle East for the better. Under the KDP not so, Barzani would be like Pilsudski.

[Comrade #138672]

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.That is more like a bourgeois description than a Marxist description. A Marxist description would inevitably involve the state and its function, and how it is related to class.

[John Nada]

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.That is more like a bourgeois description than a Marxist description. A Marxist description would inevitably involve the state and its function, and how it is related to class.States=/=Nations. A lot of nations do not have "their own" state, some have more than one state and a lot of states rule over more than one nation. For example, Switzerland has German, Italian and French speaking regions in that state. The UK contains England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with some other ones. These are examples of multiple nations with one state, these are multinational state.

Others have the state bounders coincide with the nation. Japan, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Mongolia, Italy and mainland France.(yeah, some have smaller nations within, but for simplicity) These are nation-state, more or less, but note there is almost never a homogenous ethnicity. There's almost always been national minorities(immigrant communities, Jews, Roma, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, ect.) within nations, in spite of what reactionary nationalists(redundant?) like to pretend in their heads about some imaginary pristine culture that's "being destroyed by foreigners".

And you even have one nation with more than one state. Germans are both in Austria and FRG, Korea is divided between the DPRK and ROK. And there's a ton of Spanish or Arabic speaking states that could conceivably be part of a single nation split up between a bunch of state. Though I don't think Marxist should advocate for the unification of the German nation. That didn't work out too good last time.:lol:

The state is part of the superstructure erected on top of a nation. Community, territory, language, and economic life are productive forces and productive relations, these are the base. State and culture are the superstructure on top of this base.

And I don't know what Comrade #138672 was reading, if at all, but in Marxism and the National Question Stalin does address class directly.

According to him, nations are a product of the capitalist epoch, arising from the move from feudalism to capitalism. The subjugated national bourgeoisie seek to carve out "their own" market and run into conflict with the dominate nation's big bourgeoisie, landlords and bureaucracy. The dominate nation's bourgeoisie hinders the national bourgeoisie's development. It'll result in what's externally an inter-bourgeoisie conflict. Then the national bourgeoisie will try to rally all classes for the cause of ending national oppression. Often a dangerous nationalism takes hold, even drawing in the proletariat.

However, the proletariat too bears the blunt of national oppression, sometimes the most. Closing schools, banning language, suppressing their culture and denying basic democratic rights directly affects the proletariat. The bourgeoisie will try to stir up nationalism and chauvinism, use "divide and rule". The proletariat's interests lies wit internationalism, but they have no interest in upholding national oppression either. So the right to self-determination means supporting the right of nations to determine their fate. But not at the expense of class, nor does this mean every nation has to exercise that right to secede, nor is it always desirable.

[karlkropotkin]

I would not be surprised to see leftists disillusioned with the PKK and YPG the same way we did with Israel. In the early days of Israel, lots of leftists supported Israel on the grounds of antifascism and even with evidence of human rights violations popping, up, it was not until their invasion of Lebanon until it became clear that Israel has a lot of skeletons in her closet. And with that, I would not be surprised if in the future, with accusations of ethnic cleansing and US support, leftists will find themselves protesting against a Kurdish state

Isn't the situation with the Kurds different as they follow socialist ideals? Also I don't assume the US sees anything positive about the YPG besides the fact that they're fighting the Daesh. Afaik, the PKK is seen as a terror organization by most western states. I might be wrong though as I don't know much about the subject.


'Left nationalists' are still nationalists, and revolutionaries are *not* nationalists.



Thanks for the very informative graphic. I'm a very convinced antifascist/antinationalist and oppose every form of racism and xenophobia right wing nationalism. However, wouldn't a left nationalist movement be beneficial in a case where there is a strong revolutionary movement in a certain region that is part of another nation? Wouldn't the high chance of reaching the revolutionary goals in a small area be better than a pretty much non-existent chance of reaching them in a bigger area? I don't know if there currently is a situation like this but it would seem like it is better than not achieving anything. Couldn't the revolutionary zone then be a stronghold for the revolutionaries and serve as an example for how much better a society can work than the current capitalist ones? Of course all of this is coming from a rather uninformed point of view and could be complete nonsense :grin:.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for the very informative graphic.


Yeah, no prob, that's what it's for, and thanks for the thanks. (I'm still amazed that there's no standard linear left-right 'political spectrum' continuum out there, with the various political orientations laid out relativistically, so I did that one.)





I'm a very convinced antifascist/antinationalist and oppose every form of racism and xenophobia right wing nationalism. However, wouldn't a left nationalist movement be beneficial in a case where there is a strong revolutionary movement in a certain region that is part of another nation? Wouldn't the high chance of reaching the revolutionary goals in a small area be better than a pretty much non-existent chance of reaching them in a bigger area? I don't know if there currently is a situation like this but it would seem like it is better than not achieving anything. Couldn't the revolutionary zone then be a stronghold for the revolutionaries and serve as an example for how much better a society can work than the current capitalist ones? Of course all of this is coming from a rather uninformed point of view and could be complete nonsense :grin:.


Perhaps a group like the ETA in Spain's Basque region might be applicable here....

But when I think 'left nationalist' I think 'libertarian', which then simply means that they're critical of the goings-on of government, on a day-by-day basis -- basically the economic complement of a liberal. In this way they peak as whistleblowers, and dig out the particular particles of dirt on any given administration, but then that's about it -- they're not anti-capitalist, they're 'small government' types.

What you're describing *can't* be genuinely revolutionary, because revolutionary politics knows no national boundaries -- if something like a general strike started in a relatively circumscribed area, like one country, its politics would *have* to call for a *generalization* of the strike, and mass support on an *international* basis.

[John Nada]

Isn't the situation with the Kurds different as they follow socialist ideals? Also I don't assume the US sees anything positive about the YPG besides the fact that they're fighting the Daesh. Afaik, the PKK is seen as a terror organization by most western states. I might be wrong though as I don't know much about the subject.The world is a grey place morally, full of contradictions. Part of some people's opposition to the PKK and the YPG/YPJ is the YPG/YPJ is co-belligerents in an unjust war, even though Rojava's war against a Salafi-Jihadist fascist expansionist state, Daesh, is a just war. As is the PKK, MLKP, TKP/ML, MKP and DHKP/C just war against Daesh's benefactor, the Turkish state. The PKK and YPG/YPJ have likely been planning the Rojava Revolution for years, possibly even decades. This is why they're some of the most capable fighters, possibly on par with the Syrian state.

Because the YPG/YPJ are probably the most competent force besides the Syrian Arab Army, in a truly bizarre turn of events, imperialists like the US are backing the winning horse against Daesh. Imperialist like the US, NATO countries and Gulf states once backed Daesh against the pro-Russia and pro-China Syrian state in a power grab. This is an unjust war, to advance imperialism and keep semi-feudalism alive. But Daesh went rogue and became a threat to Western imperialists' interests. Daesh's war is unjust too, because it's reactionary, upholds feudalistic elements and some argue is even fascist. Now both the US and Rojava are fighting a common enemy.

So the war against Daesh has a dual character. On one hand, imperialist like the US would have no problem with another group like Daesh if it played ball. Many other the US-backed rebels are nearly just as bad, just weaker. And imperialist like the US and its allies have been shown to be just as fucked up if not worse than Daesh(ie Vietnam War, Afghan War, Iraqi War). The US and its allies interests are not seeking to liberate the workers and peasants, but damage control to maintain power. So from that angle, its an unjust war.

But the workers and peasantry of Rojava and other parts of Kurdistan, even some allied Arab, Syriac and Turkmen workers and peasants, are fighting a just revolutionary war against the reactionary expansionist Daesh. You can't expect them to just give up and die because an unjust war is launched against Syria and Iraq. The Rojava Revolution is democratic, socialist, anti-fascist and anti-feudalist in character. So unlike the imperialists' war, it's just and revolutionary.

This is very complicated. Some fear the unjust imperialist side will overtake the just revolutionary side. This alliance of convinence is feared to have strings attatched, which must be dealt with.

There's something in the introduction of On War by Carl von Clausewitz that's relevant:
It is, perhaps, not impossible to write a systematic theory of War full of spirit and substance, but ours. hitherto, have been very much the reverse. To say nothing of their unscientific spirit, in their striving after coherence and completeness of system, they overflow with commonplaces, truisms, and twaddle of every kind. If we want a striking picture of them we have only to read Lichtenberg's extract from a code of regulations in case of fire.

If a house takes fire, we must seek, above all things, to protect the right side of the house standing on the left, and, on the other hand, the left side of the house on the right; for if we, for example, should protect the left side of the house on the left, then the right side of the house lies to the right of the left, and consequently as the fire lies to the right of this side, and of the right side (for we have assumed that the house is situated to the left of the fire), therefore the right side is situated nearer to the fire than the left, and the right side of the house might catch fire if it was not protected before it came to the left, which is protected. Consequently, something might be burnt that is not protected, and that sooner than something else would be burnt, even if it was not protected; consequently we must let alone the latter and protect the former. In order to impress the thing on one's mind, we have only to note if the house is situated to the right of the fire, then it is the left side, and if the house is to the left it is the right side. http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/Intro.htm
Thanks for the very informative graphic. I'm a very convinced antifascist/antinationalist and oppose every form of racism and xenophobia right wing nationalism. However, wouldn't a left nationalist movement be beneficial in a case where there is a strong revolutionary movement in a certain region that is part of another nation? Wouldn't the high chance of reaching the revolutionary goals in a small area be better than a pretty much non-existent chance of reaching them in a bigger area? I don't know if there currently is a situation like this but it would seem like it is better than not achieving anything. Couldn't the revolutionary zone then be a stronghold for the revolutionaries and serve as an example for how much better a society can work than the current capitalist ones? Of course all of this is coming from a rather uninformed point of view and could be complete nonsense :grin:.Hey, someboby liked Ckaihatsu graphs!:lol:

While the nationalism of the oppressed isn't as bad as the nationalism of the oppressor, I don't think nationalism should be encouraged, even though it's an understandable reaction from oppressed peoples. Like Indigenous American activists opposing tar sands and uranium mining on their land isn't the same as petit-bourgeoisie White-Americans opposing integration, methadone clinics, or any variety of "Not in My Backyard"ism(NIMBY)

Communist should support oppressed peoples' struggles. Fighting all forms of oppression is in the interest of the proletariat. But I wouldn't call that "left nationalism". It has connotations of racism, chauvinism and bigotry, which much be opposed.

What you describe isn't complete nonsense, even if the wording could be better. Protracted people's war has a similar theory. Their called revolutionary base areas. http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/PSGW38.html#c6 Hey, plenty of guns and mountains in Switzerland(?) for bases:lol:, even if there's no peasants or oppressed nations(though if I'm not mistaken, there are immigrants who may face bigotry as national minorities who should be supported).

This scares bourgeois militaries more than focoism or insurrections. People's war is what they're afraid of insurrections turning into. IMO it's universally applicable everywhere, even in developed First-World countries. Many disagree, and claim it needs to be a poor country with a lot of peasants for some reason. Keep in mind Mao was writing in the context of 1930s China, a semi-feudal, semi-colonial country with a peasant supermajority being invaded by fascist Japan. It would take on a different form in places like Mexico, Italy, South Africa, Japan, Spain or Brazil, because of differing material conditions. But the content can remain IMO.

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, someboby liked Ckaihatsu graphs!:lol:


Yeah, usually I have to pay *cash money* for that kind of respect -- !


x D





"[L]eft nationalism" [...] has connotations of racism, chauvinism and bigotry, which much be opposed.


I'm not so sure about this, and I'd welcome any input on it.... I *termed* it 'left nationalism' in the graphic with libertarians in mind, because from my experience I don't see them as being chauvinist or elitist at all, just blinkered when it comes to matters of material productivity.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I've come to the conclusion that I support the concept of a nation for Jewish people where they are safe from discrimination and can live in self-determination.
Zionism has a history of believing in self-determination for Jews but not for anyone else. Like the people already living in Palestine when Israel was brutally dropped on their heads.