Anti German 'Left'

[Xiao Banfa]

Letter from Berlin: The anti-anti-Zionists
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifBy Benjamin Weinthal 7 August 2007http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

The square in the former East Berlin named for Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish Jewish social revolutionary who was murdered by right-wing extremists in 1919, served as my introduction to the pro-Israel left in Germany. After moving to Berlin in 2002, I attended a May 1 demonstration at Rosa Luxemburg Square. There among maybe a thousand union members and other left-wing activists, I found myself pleasantly ambushed by a group of a dozen or more young people waving massive Israeli flags and buzzing around the demonstrators. This bizarre scene was a cause of cognitive dissonance: Was it possible for there to be left-wing, non-Jewish Germans who were also militant supporters of Israel?

The answer, apparently, is yes, as an astonishing thing has happened in the leftist political and intellectual culture of Germany. Though the left here, as in the rest of Western Europe, continues to be overwhelmingly anti-Israel, one can now point to a slice of the German left that identifies itself as pro-Israel and is creating a flourishing anti-anti-Zionist leftist culture.

Both the U.K. and France have larger and more established Jewish communities than Germany, which has some 105,000 Jews registered with its Central Council of Jews (the majority of them emigrants from the Former Soviet Union, and for the most part politically conservative), but neither of those countries has a vibrant pro-Israel left. The pro-Zionist Left in Germany is not made up of pro-Israel Evangelical Christians, but rather is a loose coalition of card-carrying leftists who fight to bring their camp back into the labor movement and advance the rights of gays and other sexual minorities.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifThe most militant pro-Zionist leftist group - and perhaps the most controversial - is what is known as the "Anti-German" faction, whose members still agree with the words of Dov Shilansky, a Holocaust survivor, who, as Knesset Speaker in 1990, said that the day of German reunification was an occasion for mourning. The Anti-Germans see the existence in their country today of a similar set of dynamics between state, economy and society that led, three-quarters of a century ago, to the rise of National Socialism and the Holocaust. For them, the national-collective (Volksgemeinschaft) still retains its fascist features not only in Germany and Austria, but also manifests itself in political Islam.

That helps to explain why Justus Wertmueller, a leading Anti-German figure, said in the context of a lecture this past January about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "It is about Israel." It follows, then, that Anti-Germans support an aggressive posture toward Iran, including calls for an economic boycott, to end the business dealings many German and Austrian firms have with a nation that advocates "an eliminationist anti-Semitism."

There is no cookie-cutter approach to characterize the complex spectrum of groups and publications that promote active solidarity with Israel. In addition to the hardcore Anti-Germans, this colorful leftist mini-movement includes anti-nationalists (who argue that every national state should be abolished, but that Israel should be the last to go), pro-Zionists, moderate quasi-anarchists and anti-fascists. A sharp break with the majority leftist German culture, which is contaminated by an intense aversion to Israel - and a common left-wing anti-Semitism - unifies these diverse groups in their staunch support of Israel.

An ephemeral entity?

Members of the pro-Israel left have churned out an impressive number of books and journals addressing traditionally taboo topics on the left, with critiques of subjects ranging from political Islam to "respectable," liberal anti-Semitism. This curious development is not an expression of philo-Semitism; rather, it grounds its critique of social structures in the critical theory writings of the philosophers Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, as well as a flexible Marxist philosophy and Freudian psychoanalysis.

Is the pro-Israel German left simply an ephemeral entity, or does it constitute a sustainable new left capable of breathing fire and light into central Europe?

Andrei Markovits, a University of Michigan political scientist and professor of German studies, observes that there are "considerably more pockets of pro-Israel groups in Germany in comparison to the 1980s." The Romanian-born Markovits, who is Jewish, has the stature of a public intellectual in Germany and Austria. We spoke by phone when he toured Germany in late June publicizing his book "Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America," which examines the interplay between anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in Europe.

The publisher of "Uncouth Nation" in Germany, Konkret Literatur Verlag, also recently published a German edition of "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars," by the Israeli scholar Yaacov Lozowick, director of archives at Yad Vashem. That's a title sure to produce anxiety in Germany where, according to an opinion poll carried out by the influential weekly magazine Der Spiegel, a majority of Germans during the first week of the Second Lebanon War last year did not believe Israel had the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rockets.

Konkret is best known for its monthly magazine of the same name, which is perhaps Germany's most ubiquitous - and oldest - publication dealing with culture and politics within the pro-Israel German left. Its motto claims to give readers an opportunity to "read what others don't want to know."

Hermann L. Gremliza, who has served as the publisher of Konkret since 1974, is a fierce opponent of all manifestations of German nationalism and patriotism. The joint singing of the German national anthem that followed the Berlin Wall's demolition on November 9, 1989, by members of all of West Germany's political parties, led Gremliza to resign from the Social Democratic Party (SPD). For him, the unified show of political patriotism was uncomfortably reminiscent of a similar scene from 1933, when the Social Democrats, following a declaration by Hitler of his foreign policy intentions, joined with the National Socialists in singing the national anthem. Noting that November 9, 66 years earlier, had also been the date of Kristallnacht, an orgy of state and political violence directed against Germany's Jews, Gremliza wrote: "Every great day for Germany has been a dark day for humanity and vice versa."

The anti-nationalist and Anti-German left emerged not only as a reaction to the euphoria of a reunified Germany, but also as a response to a surge of xenophobia and the government's "expansionist" foreign policy. The rapid-fire recognition of Croatia in 1992, a fascist ally of Germany during World War II, in defiance of the U.S. and some fellow EU nations, created a rising level of nervousness among this section of the German left. That very same year a vicious racist attack on a hostel lodging Vietnamese and Roma asylum-seekers took place in Rostock, a small city in the former East Germany. The refugees succeeded in fleeing the residence without a loss of life, but the police were accused of doing little to help them, and local residents stood on cheering as the hostel burned, a revival of a spectacularly brutal form of minority persecution. Consequently, the Anti-Germans fail to see a clean break between the sociology of Nazism and modern German democratic culture, and in fact, "Germany never again" became a key slogan of the Anti-German movement.

Call of the jungle

The magazine Bahamas is the leading publication of the hardcore pro-Israel, Anti-German communist movement, whose members advocate unconditional solidarity with Israel. Its founders chose the name Bahamas in 1992 as a sort of an ironic rejoinder to the Communist Alliance in Hamburg, whose majority faction urged the Anti-Germans to immigrate to the Atlantic island nation.

Karl Nele, a co-founder of the publication, said the development of Israel solidarity was a response to the German left's "strong support for the [second] intifida" and "an anti-Zionist consensus formed from the political left to the political right" that is deeply anchored in German society. The Holocaust also informs Bahamas' militant defense of Israel as "a place of refuge for Jews."

Bahamas carved out new territory on the German left in explicitly supporting the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In a 2003 conference, the magazine's co-founder Justus Wertmueller said that the removal of a "fascistic regime with strong National Socialistic features" represents "liberation for the population." The national security of Israel was also an overriding rationale for Bahamas' support of the Iraq war.

Wertmueller, whose remarks were reprinted in the magazine, went on to suggest that "the problem is still that German and Islamic resentments are identical: anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Semitic. German-Islamic friendship stems from the fact that the Germans recognize themselves in political Islam, because it is fascist and at the same time gives the impression of being an indigenous culture."

In contrast to the unqualified pro-war position of Bahamas, over at Konkret, Gremliza editorialized a month before the start of the allied invasion that "I would have no objections if it could be guaranteed that Saddam Hussein's regime could be removed and replaced by a humane one, without the collateral deaths of fifty or a hundred thousand or more Iraqis and without unleashing other monsters elsewhere." While the overwhelming majority of the German left remained painfully silent about the repressive Ba'ath regime, the anti-Germans highlighted Saddam?s crimes.

Stephan Grigat, an Anti-German communist political theorist who teaches at the University of Vienna, argues that the movement should be understood as a critique of an ideology that first arose in Germany but which, he warned, could still emerge in other nations. The "German" aspect in being Anti-German is not, he says, "a matter of a hereditary national character, but a political-economic constellation that favors extermination ... This is not about a special mentality, but a specific form of capitalist socialization" that, he argues, 70 years ago "led to the Shoah [the Holocaust]. And this relationship still exists."

This helps to explain why the anti-Germans prioritize Israel as the nation - and Diaspora Jews as the people - most vulnerable, even today, to extermination, and therefore organize demonstrations to support Israel's right to self-defense.

Peppered with 'self-irony'

Grigat, who has written for Bahamas, also contributes essays to the weekly Jungle World, a publication read widely among pro-Israel leftists. The paper, a model of unorthodox left-wing journalism, first appeared in 1997, when staffers at the leftist daily junge Welt, ("Young World"), an East German holdover, went on strike in response to that paper's strict neo-Stalinist and "anti-imperialist" line. They chose a name for their new paper that was intended to mock the name of their former place of work, which even today remains an incorrigibly reactionary newspaper on the left whose coverage is filled with left-wing anti-Semitic diatribes against Israel and American Jews.

Ivo Bozic, a founder and co-editor of Jungle World, says the publication is "explicitly anti-anti-Zionist, anti-anti-Semitic, and anti-anti-American." He also notes that the paper's writing is peppered with "self-irony." The Jungle World editorial staff traveled to Israel in 2004 to devote an entire issue to the politics and culture of Israeli society. They visited a training camp for Israeli tank drivers, conducted interviews with writer Etgar Keret and filmmaker Benny Barbash and got a taste of the club scene in Tel Aviv. They also had meetings with Palestinians, but did not come away with great sympathy for their struggle.

During a vacation in Israel last spring, Bozic, who is not Jewish, visited Sderot, a trip that inspired a lengthy feature entitled, "Fear of Everyday Life." The firing of Qassam rockets on southern Israel remains a non-subject for the mainstream German press while the standard leftist media tends to characterize Israel as embodying "state terrorism" or as an "aggressor state."

Jungle World is not bound by what it sees as a kind of rigid socially and politically correct style of journalism among the German left media, where a hyperactive sense of inhibition prevents criticism of political Islam, or coverage of the lack of women?s rights, sexual minority freedoms, labor rights and parliamentary democracy in the Arab world.

The German Jewish journalist Henryk M. Broder divorced himself from the mainstream German left in 1981, when he published an open letter in the weekly Die Zeit ("The Times") critiquing the anti-Semitism of the left. He also writes occasionally for Jungle World. His first best-seller, "Hurray, We're Capitulating" (2006), is a fiercely combative indictment of Europe's soggy response to a growing and radicalized political Islam.

The book most identified with Broder, however, is his 1986 "The Eternal Anti-Semite," a critique of liberal and leftist anti-Semitism. He summed up his scathing indictment of the German left with the stinging line: "You're still your parents' children. Your Jew today is the State of Israel." Broder, and the Holocaust survivor Jean Amery, who wrote exhaustively about the interplay between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism on the European left, both serve as kind of sine qua non of the criticism launched by the pro-Israel left against the majority liberal-left here.

The theme of "secondary anti-Semitism" is outlined in many of Broder's writings, which have invoked a passage from the play "Garbage: The City and Death," written in 1976 by the German film director and writer Rainer Werner Fassbinder, to capture this phenomenon in German society: "And it's the Jew's fault, because he makes us feel guilty because he exists. If he'd stayed where he came from, or if they?d gassed him, I would sleep better." Adorno and Horkheimer diagnosed this syndrome as "guilt-defensiveness anti-Semitism" (Schuldabwehrantisemitsmus) and, for the pro-Israel left, this mechanism contains the explanatory power necessary to criticize the mainstream liberal-leftist intellectual sphere.

The magazine Phase 2, which appeared on the pro-Israel left scene in July 2001, goes to great lengths to confront what it views as a growing victim culture among Germans. Phase 2, whose editorial staff is split between Leipzig and Berlin, has also identified anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes entrenched in the theory and praxis of the anti-globalization movement. And the largest left-wing daily in Germany, die taz, frequently runs commentaries from Daniel Bax, an editor at the paper, blasting the "lethal charge of anti-Semitism," which he claims has "become inflationary" in its usage.

Reconciling realities

It is, without question, a bizarre time in Germany. Whatever Daniel Bax may believe, anti-Jewish sentiment is indeed on the rise. The Verfassungschutz, the country?s domestic intelligence agency, claimed in its most recent annual report that there has been a dramatic increase over the past two years in criminal offenses and anti-Semitic slurs. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a German think tank with close ties to the Social Democratic Party, released findings of a 2006 study that revealed alarming levels of extreme right-wing attitudes, including among leftist and Green Party voters. A BBC poll conducted earlier this year determined that 77 percent of Germans have a pejorative view of Israel, the highest percentage in Europe, yet the opinion editor of die taz seems to feel the need to debunk the charge of anti-Semitism.

How does one reconcile the fact that the mainstream left is developing a cottage industry dedicated to avoiding dealing with anti-Semitism and with the purported aim of the political left to abolish racism, which necessarily includes anti-Semitism?

Dr. Lars Rensmann, a political theorist who teaches at the University of Michigan and who has written extensively on the subject, says anti-Jewish bias is not confronted because of the faulty conception "that one is exonerated from the charge of anti-Semitism because one is left."

Rensmann, whose landmark book "Democracy and the Image of Jews" (2004) contributed to a vibrant public and academic debate about the role of secondary anti-Semitism on the German left, said in a phone interview, that "it should not be a provocation in Germany to be a pro-Israel left intellectual." At the same time, he distinguishes between "secondary" and Nazi racist anti-Semitism, as the former is really a "latent anti-Jewish prejudice that relates to the desire not to be confronted with Nazi crimes."

Andrei Markovits views the phenomenon of pro-Israeli German leftist publications as "a counterweight to the overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian tone of the German media." To this, Dr. Dieter Graumann, vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said: "It is nice that they stand up for Israel, but unfortunately these groups are not a true political power."

Graumann points to a dangerous heavyweight on the political scene in Germany: the newly formed Left Party, which is already the third strongest political party in the country. In the fall of 2006, the party invited a Hamas minister to meet with its representatives in parliament, the only political party in Germany to commence high level diplomatic contact with the Palestinian party. And a faction within the party (Linksruck, which means, roughly, a "shift to the left") justifies terror as a method of resistance against the "oppressor state" of Israel.

To Graumann's thinking, the Left Party is little better than an extension of the Socialist Unity Party of the now-defunct East German government, which "supported the Black September group and issued money and munitions for the destruction of Israel." Graumann also cites the potency of the newspaper Neues Deutschland, the former party organ paper of the SED, which today attracts many of its readers from the Left Party, and published an anti-Israel cartoon that could have appeared in the anti-Semitic Nazi paper Der Stuermer.

The Left Party just secured its first election victory in a western German federal state, Bremen. Oskar Lafontaine, the party's co-chairman and a popular political writer, argues that Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons because Israel possesses nuclear capability. The pro-Israel left intelligentsia views Lafontaine as the embodiment of a fiery left-wing German nationalism that tends to spill over into raw nativism. This new political party is, according to Graumann, riddled with anti-Israelism. The pro-Zionist left argues Lafontaine is a phony leftist and cites his praise for the "interface between Islam and the German left" as proof for his reactionary outlook. The foreign policy spokesman of the party, Norman Paech, frequently employs Nazi terminology to describe Israel, and equates the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in 2006 with a "war of annihilation," a term otherwise reserved for the Nazi destruction of European Jewry.

Belinda Cooper, who worked in Berlin as a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s, and who continues to study the country from the World Policy Institute in New York, suggests that "in Germany and Europe, a voice within the left that criticizes its simplistic anti-'Zionism' and points out why it's often anti-Semitic, is really needed, because the left is quite influential there, unlike in the U.S., where it's a marginal phenomenon."

My first encounter with the pro-Zionist left on Rosa Luxemburg Square was not an anomaly. Last summer, during the Second Lebanon War, a diverse spectrum of pro-Israel leftist publications and groups - including Bahamas and Cafe Critique (a Vienna-based group of pro-Zionist leftists, who are planning, together with that city's Jewish community, a September 30 demonstration against a $22-billion deal between Iran and the Austrian oil and gas company OMV) - mobilized a demonstration supporting Israel's right to self-defense. Some 2,000 Israel supporters turned out to flex their muscles for Israel at Wittenbergplatz, in the west side of Berlin. It was a courageous show of solidarity in a land where 65 percent of the population, according to a European Union commissioned survey, believe Israel is the greatest danger to world peace. The organizers invoked a quote by Paul Spiegel, the late president of Central Council of Jews: "The murderers hide behind the call for peace."

Is it possible to cite other left-wing newspapers in Europe that meet the criteria of vehemently opposing anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism? The leftist journal "Dissent" is perhaps the only comparable reference point, but that is an American publication. And can one point to other clusters of non-Jewish, pro-Israel leftists on the continental European left? This radical minority of pro-Israel leftists in Germany and Austria might very well have jumped into the avant-garde leftist future. The pressing question is, is anyone paying attention?

[Wanted Man]

Islam is fascist? Interesting, the only politician in the Netherlands who wants to say this is the extreme right-winger Geert Wilders. But then, I believe the Anti-Germans have previously praised the Dutch extreme right in their effort to stop immigration, ban the Koran and deport "criminal foreigners". Oh, and of course, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were great martyrs, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is admirable too. :rolleyes:

The mind boggles.

[Edelweiss]

As much as I despise the anti-Germans, I prefer them over any pro-Islamist "leftist" who praises Hamas and co. in the name of "anti-imperialism". I totally share their view of political Islam being a fascist tendency.

And don't make a mistake, supporting the right of Israel to exist is quiet common within the German radical Left, just like the total denial of the German nation.

Where many German leftists disagree, including myself, is their unconditional call for "Israel solidaity", their equation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism, their at times racist anti-Arab sentiments, their general support of US imperialism and it's wars, or their paranoia about anti-semitism.

But once again I prefer anti-semitism paranoia over actual leftist anti-semitism which indeed seems to be much more common outside Germany, as I have encountered over the years here at revleft. This is something which the anti-Germans would never acknowledge since they see the traditional German Left as some vanguard of leftist anti-semitism. So in a way, the anti-germans have a healthy effect on the German Left, but really only on this aspect. generally, the anti-Germans have splitted and in some areas deeply paralyzed the radical left, especially among Antifa circles.

Something else that the anti-German would never admit, is that their ideology is so unique within the wordwide Left, that they are of course much more "German" than any other German left-wing faction.


But then, I believe the Anti-Germans have previously praised the Dutch extreme right in their effort to stop immigration, ban the Koran and deport "criminal foreigners".

This is simply not true. When trying to argue about the anti-Germans, at least try to do it properly by addressing their ideological faults, but just by making things up.

And as the article is pointing out, the anti-German movement is quiet heterogeneous, there just aren't "the anti-Germans".

But you obliviously have no idea what you speak about I&A, your knowledge of the anti-Germans is totally superficial, so you better keep out of this debate completely...

[Wanted Man]

Really, Malte? In Memoriam Theo van Gogh (http://redaktion-bahamas.org/aktuell/van-Gogh.htm)

[Xiao Banfa]

Islam is fascist? Interesting, the only politician in the Netherlands who wants to say this is the extreme right-winger Geert Wilders. But then, I believe the Anti-Germans have previously praised the Dutch extreme right in their effort to stop immigration, ban the Koran and deport "criminal foreigners". Oh, and of course, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were great martyrs, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is admirable too. :rolleyes:

The mind boggles.

Exactly, Islam is just a newer major religion and had less time to reform.

Calling them fascist barbarians is cultural chauvinism and isn't going to encourage mainstream Islam to liberalise.

However, the anti-germans are, I think, an extreme reaction to a lot of leftists' lack of concern whatsoever for the fate of israelis.

The left always seems to emphasise israeli atrocities and spends very little time examining the reactionary nature of mainstream muslim orthodoxy and right wing resistance groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Also, I don't see too much condemnation of the indiscriminate civilian butchering which takes place, even for the sake of its strategic defectiveness.

Don't get me wrong- I oppose Israel and believe in has no (historically) justifiable basis for existence, I also lend my support to the more progressive groups in the national liberatation struggles in the region (which I believe are the PFLP, Hezbollah and elements of the Mahdi army).

But we need to make it clear to middle eastern peoples as western leftists that we oppose theocracy, sexism, anti-semitism and barbary.
I don't think we make it clear enough.

[Edelweiss]

Really, Malte? In Memoriam Theo van Gogh (http://redaktion-bahamas.org/aktuell/van-Gogh.htm)
I didn't deny that at least the hardcore anti-Germans did endorse Theo van Gogh. However, it's not common anti-German view to oppose immigration or the "deporation of criminal foreigners". Not at all.

It also should be noted that it's a big fucking difference to equate political Islam with fascism, and Islam in general. However, I don't deny that there some anti-German idiots doing exactly that.

[Tatarin]

Maybe this will sound hypocritical of me, but could these anti-Germans be a form of organization created by bureaus like the CIA? From what it sounds, they are supporting US imperialism (they support the Iraq invasion?) and Israeli colonization of Palestine. How can they be leftists in that case?

[Edelweiss]

Maybe this will sound hypocritical of me, but could these anti-Germans be a form of organization created by bureaus like the CIA? From what it sounds, they are supporting US imperialism (they support the Iraq invasion?) and Israeli colonization of Palestine. How can they be leftists in that case?
Don't be ridiculous.

First of, as I did say before, the anti-Germans are not a commin organisation, it's an ideological movement consisting of different currents.

I'll ask the next anti-German that I know though when i meet him/her if their Antifa group is controlled by the CIA. :D Obviuosly the CIA is controlling all pro-zionist organisations of the world. It's all one big conspiracy! :rolleyes:

[RNK]

Wow, first sentence out of the bag and Malte can't help but lower himself to "well, maybe zionists are bad, but they're not as bad as islamists!!!"


But once again I prefer anti-semitism paranoia over actual leftist anti-semitism

Pretty much says it all; first, the open declaration of prefering "anti-semitism paranoia" (a veiled description of the extreme nationalism behind the Israeli state and its racist oppression of non-Jews). Second, the often-repeated and rarely-accurate accusation that anyone who professes any degree of anti-Israeli sentiments is, naturally, an anti-semitic Nazi. These are the same tools used by Israel itself -- the excusal of its actions (and existence) in the name of "defense", and the claim that anyone who sees otherwise is naturally following an anti-semitic agenda. Undoubtedly, people like myself wish to see the entire Jewish race destroyed, and my donning of the "revolutionary communist persona" is merely a facade to that end.

Despite the disgust you bring up in me, I can smile sometimes when I realize that if you didn't maintain an iron-fisted rule on this site, your ass would be in OI right now complaining about "Commie Nazis".

[Tatarin]

I'll ask the next anti-German that I know though when i meet him/her if their Antifa group is controlled by the CIA. :D Obviuosly the CIA is controlling all pro-zionist organisations of the world. It's all one big conspiracy! :rolleyes:

:)

I was just suspicious about why a supposedly leftist organization supports imperialism in any form.

And I don't discount the idea that the CIA can create such organizations. A big conspiracy theory can be 9/11 or the moon landing (none of which I believe), but wouldn't it be in their interest to create an organization that is "friendly" towards the US and Israel?

[Edelweiss]

"well, maybe zionists are bad, but they're not as bad as islamists!!!"

I never said that. You are using strawman arguments and blatant polemics. What I did say though is that I prefer anti-German zionist communists over any fascist proposing political Islam. Horrors!


Pretty much says it all; first, the open declaration of prefering "anti-semitism paranoia" (a veiled description of the extreme nationalism behind the Israeli state and its racist oppression of non-Jews). Second, the often-repeated and rarely-accurate accusation that anyone who professes any degree of anti-Israeli sentiments is, naturally, an anti-semitic Nazi. These are the same tools used by Israel itself -- the excusal of its actions (and existence) in the name of "defense", and the claim that anyone who sees otherwise is naturally following an anti-semitic agenda. Undoubtedly, people like myself wish to see the entire Jewish race destroyed, and my donning of the "revolutionary communist persona" is merely a facade to that end.

What an ignorant bullshit response. once again, you are using strawman arguments. I did explicitly say in my reply that I disgree with the notion to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. certainly Israel must be criticized and it's not anti-semitic at all to do so.

You know RNK, "anti-zionists" like you are in no way better than the zionists who shout "anti-semitism" every time Israel is criticised, you are just the same, you shout "zionist criminal" every time someone dares to criticize the Palestinian resistance or dares to not see this as a Star Wars good vs. evil issue.

What I'm referring to is anti-semitism as an "anti-capitalism of fools" as Engels once put it, a concept which is wide spread among some leftists and within the Arab world nowadays. But of course acknowledging this is making me a zionist which wants to see Palestinians purged....:rolleyes:

You are pathetic, RNK. It doesn't surprise me at all that one of the first anti-German groups did consist of former Maoists ("Antideutsche Kommunisten Berlin"), just like prominent German neo-Nazis. It seems that being a Maoist does requiere a certain degree of brain damage...

[RaiseYourVoice]

I mostly agree with Malte, the Anti-Germans are not the only ones who agree that Israelis have a right of existance, neither do german leftist favor the german culture/nation (actually ALOT less then in most other european countries).

I think the german left needs Anti-Germans as much as we need the Anti-Speziestic Action, because the degree of anti-semitism in the german left is fairly small. There are some problematic stances on islamic organisations, but in my experience they result from some romantic view of people with self-made guns resisting tanks and bombs, not because those people hate jews.

From my experience there are two generel catigories of Anti-Germans. The first one shows Anti-Arabic racism, support of clearly imperialist states (not just their populations) and help only to split the left. That group cannot be considered leftist in any way and is not even a worthy ally in anything but anti-fashist action. Then there is the other group, the holds certain moral values against fascism, walks around with an israel flag while saying they dont really support imperialist states, but only the isrealis right for existance and generally fit the description of just being paranoid, wanting to provoke, but not actually holding pro-zionist / pro-american views.
That group can actually be worked with.

As for the article, that seems to be just alot of crap, comparing the SED and the "Left party" just like our lovely social democratic government does, calling the junge welt "neo stalinist", not to mention falsifying the result of those studies (for example that anti-semitism is nearly twice as strong in the traditionally pro-america pro-israel orientated western german parts, then in the area of the former supposed anti-semitic GDR. OR seeing that other forms of racism are actually stronger).

[Dimentio]

To take position for our against any particular nation is just to be wagged. To be ambigious and pragmatic is the most successful way. If necessary for the transition in Europe it is to cooperate with Israel, then by all means - cooperate with Israel. But it counts the other way round as well.

[BobKKKindle$]

The idea that opposing Zionism is equivalent to holding racist views is one of the most common myths used to justify Israel's continued existence and to undermine the legitimacy of the struggle against occupation. I simply cannot understand how any Socialist can accept this argument, and support a country that was founded in order to secure the interests of one ethnic group, the continued existence of which infringes on the rights of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants and is, in my view, a major cause of continued anti-Semitism in the Arab World, such that Israel actually undermines the safety of Jewish people. This is in direct conflict with everything "real" Socialists stand for. I can understand why German Leftists might be more susceptible to pro-Zionist arguments, given the historic injustices committed by Germans (as well as the inhabitants of other European states, albeit not to the same extent as Germans) against Jewish people, but this position is still completely reactionary. I would go so far as to say that arguing for Israel's continued existence, even if Israel were to withdraw it's forces and settlements from the occupied territories, is also somewhat reactionary. We should argue for an end to Israel's existence.


As much as I despise the anti-Germans, I prefer them over any pro-Islamist "leftist" who praises Hamas and co. in the name of "anti-imperialism". I totally share their view of political Islam being a fascist tendency.

We may not agree with the politics of these groups, but they still command popular support and are an important part of the struggle against Israeli occupation. We can't afford to only offer support to groups that share our ideas - if we adopted this position, there would never be a resistance "pure" enough to warrant our support, because resistance movements against Imperialism, are always, by their very nature, comprised of many different political "strands". Instead, we should offer unconditional (but critical) support and try to win workers over to the progressive sections of the movement by showing how Islamism does not reflect their material interests.

However, being a Left-Communist, I don't expect you to be able to understand this position.

[Edelweiss]

I simply cannot understand how any Socialist can accept this argument, and support a country that was founded in order to secure the interests of one ethnic group, the continued existence of which infringes on the rights of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants and is, in my view, a major cause of continued anti-Semitism in the Arab World, such that Israel actually undermines the safety of Jewish people.

Yeah, so I guess it's the Jews fault that anti-semitism exists in the first place. That is borderline anti-semitism itself, although I will grant you that you haven't thought that statement properly.

Maybe it was also the Jews fault that the holocaust happened in the end?

[BobKKKindle$]

Yeah, so I guess it's the Jews fault that anti-semitism exists in the first place. That is borderline anti-semitism itself, although I will grant you that you haven't thought that statement properly.

I've never argued that Jewish people are responsible for anti-semitism. You've constructed a strawman in order to try and portray your own centrist position as progressive. Israel is widely seen in the Arab world as a projection of American power in the Middle East, and Arab citizens are aware of the suffering of Palestinians in the occupied territories, and Israel's historical intrusions on the territory of neighbouring states. The absence of a strong socialist movement in the Arab world, which would be able to explain how Jewish and Arab workers have common interests and so should try and work together, means that opposition to Zionism often takes the form of anti-semitism. As such, Israel is the cause of Anti-semitism in these states. Arabs are clearly not inherently anti-semitic, as Arabs and Jewish people in the Levant were able to live together in harmony, prior to the rise of the Zionist movement and the growth of western support for the Zionist project.

[Devrim]

We may not agree with the politics of these groups, but they still command popular support and are an important part of the struggle against Israeli occupation. We can't afford to only offer support to groups that share our ideas - if we adopted this position, there would never be a resistance "pure" enough to warrant our support, because resistance movements against Imperialism, are always, by their very nature, comprised of many different political "strands". Instead, we should offer unconditional (but critical) support and try to win workers over to the progressive sections of the movement by showing how Islamism does not reflect their material interests.

However, being a Left-Communist, I don't expect you to be able to understand this position.

Actually, he isn't but I am. I don't think your position is that difficult to 'understand'.
I think that you completely misunderstand what we are saying about national liberation. Our problem with these sort of groups isn't that they are Islamic, or not 'pure' enough. It is because they are mobilising workers against their own interests in the interests of bourgeois. Even if they weren't Islamic they would still be nationalist.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You are pathetic, RNK. It doesn't surprise me at all that one of the first anti-German groups did consist of former Maoists ("Antideutsche Kommunisten Berlin"), just like prominent German neo-Nazis. It seems that being a Maoist does requiere a certain degree of brain damage...

This doesn't surprise me at all. Basically they are just switching which nationalism they support.

Devrim

[Edelweiss]

As such, Israel is the cause of Anti-semitism in these states. Arabs are clearly not inherently anti-semitic, as Arabs and Jewish people in the Levant were able to live together in harmony, prior to the rise of the Zionist movement and the growth of western support for the Zionist project.

To simply say that Israel is the cause of all anti-semitism in the Arab world is quiet absurd and simplified. It's giving a card blanche and an apology to Arab anti-semitism.

Political Islam, but also many Arab nationalist movements, including the PFLP BTW (may I remember the separation of Jewish and non-Jewish passengers during hijacking actions), are propagating anti-semitic ideology or do tolerate anti-semitism. It's them who are the cause of anti-semitism, not Israel or "the Jews" in general. Of course zionist crimes do often fuel anti-semitism, but anti-semitism ultimately is caused by anti-semites themselves, and no one else.

The Arab world was infected by western anti-semitism in the early 20th century, already before Israel existed.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is because they are mobilising workers against their own interests in the interests of bourgeois. Even if they weren't Islamic they would still be nationalist.

As their ultimate objective, Islamist groups envisage the creation of an Islamic state, based on Sharia Law, and, in the case of some organisations, the expulsion of Jewish people from the Levant. This, clearly, is not in the interests of the working class, because it would allow for the continued existence of the bourgeoisie and would establish a repressive state apparatus, capable of preventing any form of progressive activism. This, I accept, is not something we, as revolutionary Leftists, should support - hence the need to criticise Islamism as a political ideology..

However, that does not mean we should withdraw all support from the struggle for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This distinction - between the ideology (and ultimate political objectives) of islamists, and the struggle in which they are currently engaged - is crucial. This struggle is clearly in the interests of the Palestinian working class, as it would allow them to travel between their villages without being stopped at checkpoints, it would allow them to live without the threat of Israeli intervention, it would allow workers access to basic services such as healthcare, if Palestine were an economically viable entity- in short, it would mean an end to many aspects of the Israeli occupation which make life miserable for Palestinian workers. Surely this is in favour of their class interests, and so we should support groups fighting for an end to occupation?

[Devrim]

if Palestine were an economically viable entity
If wishes were horses beggars would ride. The point is that Palestine is not a viable entity. Is it the job of communists to fight to establish 'economically viable entity'?
Devrim

[Comeback Kid]

the left here, as in the rest of Western Europe, continues to be overwhelmingly anti-Israel, one can now point to a slice of the German left that identifies itself as pro-Israel and is creating a flourishing anti-anti-Zionist leftist culture.

Definitely reminds me of Straight Edge in the Hardcore scene.
Also is it necessary to have the double negative? why not just call themselves Zionists (that is what they are, unless i have misread)


Both the U.K. and France have larger and more established Jewish communities than Germany, which has some 105,000 Jews registered with its Central Council of Jews (the majority of them emigrants from the Former Soviet Union, and for the most part politically conservative), but neither of those countries has a vibrant pro-Israel left. The pro-Zionist Left in Germany is not made up of pro-Israel Evangelical Christians, but rather is a loose coalition of card-carrying leftists who fight to bring their camp back into the labor movement and advance the rights of gays and other sexual minorities.

Why is the left supporting a largely conservative community that would most likely be the last group to back us? Why are we siding with the Evangelical Christian Right? seems like hypocritical ideological suicide.


The most militant pro-Zionist leftist group - and perhaps the most controversial - is what is known as the "Anti-German" faction, whose members still agree with the words of Dov Shilansky, a Holocaust survivor, who, as Knesset Speaker in 1990, said that the day of German reunification was an occasion for mourning. The Anti-Germans see the existence in their country today of a similar set of dynamics between state, economy and society that led, three-quarters of a century ago, to the rise of National Socialism and the Holocaust. For them, the national-collective (Volksgemeinschaft) still retains its fascist features not only in Germany and Austria, but also manifests itself in political Islam.

It seems to me that the Anti-German movement is confusing a nationalistic guilty conscious with the material conditions of collapsing capitalism. My interpretation of this is that they believe that the state of Germany caused fascism to flourish in the 1930s, rather the the prevailing economic depression and critical condition of the capitalist system at the time. This is a flawed view IMHO, the conditions that caused fascism to come into existence was not a specifically German phenomenon, what about Italy?



Is the pro-Israel German left simply an ephemeral entity, or does it constitute a sustainable new left capable of breathing fire and light into central Europe?

I dont want to be part of a sustainable new left if it involves support of imperialism, a short sighted view of the causes of fascism and religious apologetics.



Ivo Bozic, a founder and co-editor of Jungle World, says the publication is "explicitly anti-anti-Zionist, anti-anti-Semitic, and anti-anti-American.

Again with the double negatives. We get it, your a bunch of Zionists, Religious Apologetics and Imperialists.

tl;cbf replyin to the rest.

[Edelweiss]

This doesn't surprise me at all. Basically they are just switching which nationalism they support.


The road from Maoism to western "third positionist" fascism shorter than one would expect, basically the only missing component is anti-semitism. If you add anti-semitism and some European anti-Americanism to the Maoist doctrine of national self-determination and good "nationalism of the oppressed", than also western, European nations are by definition oppressed nations; oppressed by the Jews and "ZOG". This would than justify western European nationalist/fascist movements and their solidarity with other national liberation movements.

And indeed today's neo-Nazis are enthusiastically celebrating national liberation movements around the world, especially the Palestinian resistance, and do rhetorically borrow a lot from Maoist, "anti-imperialist" rhetoric of the last century.

This doesn't mean that every Maoist is a borderline fascist though.

[Edelweiss]

It seems to me that the Anti-German movement is confusing a nationalistic guilty conscious with the material conditions of collapsing capitalism. My interpretation of this is that they believe that the state of Germany caused fascism to flourish in the 1930s, rather the the prevailing economic depression and critical condition of the capitalist system at the time.

But the state of Germany back then, the artificial German nation, "Deutschland", was a manifestation of the material conditions. Anti-Germans argue that due to the lack of any real bourgeois revolution in Germany, the German nation was/is more backward than other European nations, and thus only in Germany Nazism and the holocaust was possible.

[Devrim]

The road from Maoism to western "third positionist" fascism shorter than one would expect,...

The Turkish İşçi Partisi went from Maoism to cooperating with fascists.


Workers' Party (in Turkish: İşçi Partisi) is a socialist political party in TurkeyDoğu Perinçek. İP has its roots in the Revolutionary Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey (TİİKP) and Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey (TİKP). led by İP combines its revolutionary rhetoric with a hardline Turkish nationalism. Concerning Cyprus, Greece or Armenia, it shares its positions with the Nationalist Movement Party*. Diaspora members of the party work with nationalists when the aim is to take out an Armenian genocide memorial and similar actions. It supports the position of Rauf Denktaş in Cyprus. On the international level, it is linked with CPC.



Türkiye İhtilâlci İşçi Köylü Partisi (Revolutionary Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey), a pro-Chinese communist party in Turkey. TİİKP was founded in 1971 by the Proleter Devrimci Aydınlık (Proletarian Revolutionary Enlightenment) group, that had broken away from Dev-Genç (Revolutionary Youth).[1] The chairman of TİİKP was Doğu Perinçek. TİİKP was an illegal party.[2] The central publication of the party were Proleter Devrimci Aydınlık and Şafak (Dawn).[2]
In 1972 İbrahim Kaypakkaya and others broke with TİİKP and formed Türkiye Komünist Partisi (Marksist-Leninist) (Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist)).[3]
In 1974 TİİKP is succeeded by Türkiye İşçi Köylü Partisi (Workers and Peasants Party of Turkey). TİKP later became a legal party.[2] In 1992 İşçi Partisi (Workers Party) was formed as a continuation of TİKP.


Basically, the problem is the whole idea of oppressed nations. All they had to do was to decide that Turkey was an oppressed nation, and there they are in bed with the fascists.

Devrim
*Turkish fascists also know as Grey wolves

[Xiao Banfa]

you add anti-semitism and some European anti-Americanism to the Maoist doctrine of national self-determination and good "nationalism of the oppressed", than also western, European nations are by definition oppressed nations; oppressed by the Jews and "ZOG". This would than justify western European nationalist/fascist movements and their solidarity with other national liberation movements.

There is no way Europe, a major imperialist bloc, can be defined as a group of 'oppressed nations'. It's nuclear armed, home to some major oil companies and a big fan of oppressing other nations (ie Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and in the case of France and the UK their present and former colonies).

Although I'm not to familiar with the oppressed nation theory, I'm assuming it means a country victimised by imperialism.

There is usually a reason a nation is victimised by imperialism, usually because it doesn't bow before imperialist capital.

Anyway, my view is this; the anti-germans have a point- the main body of the anticapitalist left (in Europe as far as I understand) is far to simplistic in its support of whatever group fights Israel or the US.
The radical left generally are not sophisticated enough in understanding the situation generally
They also tend to ignore atrocities comitted by Islamist groups and the limits of anti-imperialist solidarity.

Yes, we should applaud blows against the imperialist US-Israeli military apparatus regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the political outlook of the groups that deliver them.

But, let's make sure we know who the progressive forces are even if those 'progressive forces' are only relatively progressive in a middle eastern context.

And if we don't find those relatively progressive forces progressive enough let's council our more kindred middle eastern comrades on the need to develop an independant communist current- one that recognises when to work alongside the broader national liberation forces and when to break with them.

[Wanted Man]

I didn't deny that at least the hardcore anti-Germans did endorse Theo van Gogh. However, it's not common anti-German view to oppose immigration or the "deporation of criminal foreigners". Not at all.

It also should be noted that it's a big fucking difference to equate political Islam with fascism, and Islam in general. However, I don't deny that there some anti-German idiots doing exactly that.
So, what IS their view on Islamic immigration in Germany (or the Netherlands, for that matter)? Do they agree with the recent CDU guy, who voiced his xenophobic views and was supported by Merkel? Or what? Also, just to be clear: to hail the memory of a man like Theo van Gogh is just despicable. Van Gogh was the Leni Riefenstahl without the visual stimulation. Also, where the hell DO these people stand on Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders?

[Andy Bowden]

Saying only in Germany was the Holocaust, or Nazism possible is a tremendously anti-materialist view. Its espoused by mainstream historians as an alternative to attacking the class basis of fascism.

And its the opposite side of the Nazi coin - Germany is no longer the master country, but now the most evil country in the world with no right to exist.

Why defence of Israels right to exist and not Germany?

[Edelweiss]

Saying only in Germany was the Holocaust, or Nazism possible is a tremendously anti-materialist view.

Really? I think the anti-German view that Germany was more backwards than other European, industrialized nations due to a lack of a really bourgeois revolution, and so only in Germany the holocaust was possible, is a pretty materialist view, no mater if you agree with that, or not.


Why defence of Israels right to exist and not Germany?

Is that a serious question?! I guess it's because I despise the German nation, German nationalism and everything what it stands for, communism is an anti-national struggle, not only in Germany, but everywhere in the world (also for the Israeli working class BTW, as paradox that might sound for you)!

Don't fight for your country - fight for your class!

[RNK]

You know RNK, "anti-zionists" like you are in no way better than the zionists who shout "anti-semitism" every time Israel is criticised, you are just the same, you shout "zionist criminal" every time someone dares to criticize the Palestinian resistance or dares to not see this as a Star Wars good vs. evil issue

Sad, sad response, Malte; you've basically just confirmed everything I said.


Yeah, so I guess it's the Jews fault that anti-semitism exists in the first place. That is borderline anti-semitism itself, although I will grant you that you haven't thought that statement properly.

Only if you believe that being against the state of Israel is anti-semitism. Congratulations, Malte, you've cemented my arguement even further - you obviously are incapable of figuring out the difference between being against the state of Israel and the way in which it was formed (and continues to exist to this day) and being against a group of people based solely on their ethnicity.


The road from Maoism to western "third positionist" fascism shorter than one would expect

Quite obviously you know nothing about Maoism, or nothing about fascism (or nothing about either, which is a very plausible possibility).


If you add anti-semitism and some European anti-Americanism to the Maoist doctrine of national self-determination and good "nationalism of the oppressed",

This might be nearly correct, so long as you completely ignore the internationalist aspect of Maoism, and also the class-based nature of the ideology. Actually, you'd have to ignore quite a bit to come to this conclusion.

The fact of the matter is (and I will say this once, so pay attention), is that the proliferation of Nazism was due in whole to Hitler's ability to convince the German people that Jews were ruining their lives, that Jews were oppressing them and exploiting them and were trying to kill them. Now, if you replace the word "Jew" with "bourgeois", what do you get? The bourgeois are exploiting the people, oppressing them, killing them. That actually sounds about right. Infact, I'm comfortable saying that any form of revolutionary leftism can easily be made to sound like Nazism if you replace "bourgeois" with "Jew" in all leftist written material. However, doing so does not make any sort of connection between the two legitimate; the fact of the matter is that Jews were not responsible for any of the accusations laid upon them by Hitler and his Nazis; the bourgeois, on the other hand, are; this is a fact that I would have wished I didn't have to explain to you, but apparently you are so confused about class struggle that you can't differentiate between leading a national struggle against Jews and leading a national struggle against the bourgeoisie.


And indeed today's neo-Nazis are enthusiastically celebrating national liberation movements around the world

Another quite pathetic attempt to liken instances of national struggle against national bourgeoisie, and nationalist struggles against non-nationals. Malte, being able to reproduce a text, and replace certain key words with others to create an entirely different meaning, is not a very valid arguement. Your entire tactic here seems to be to create an emotional response to cries about Nazism, and link that emotional response to your political agenda. The fact of the matter is, your opinion is deprived of any connection with material reality. You can go on all day about how national struggles against international oppression and national bourgeois are nothing more than fascist, nationalistic endeavours for oppressed to become oppressors. If it suits your agenda, go for it. If you feel that, somehow, the ultra-nationalistic, fascist undertones of the Israeli state are somehow pardoned by the nationalistic undertones of the oppressed Palestinian people, then I guess that's "who you are". Anyone with any real connection with class struggle would be able to recognize that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has imposed upon the people of those two nationalities a sort of "ethnic-class" system, where Israeli Jews naturally occupy the upper strata (not all, but most), Arab Jews the middle, and Palestinian Arabs the absolute lowest strata.

This is basic fact. The majority of Israeli Jews universally support the actions of the Israeli state, and the Israeli state itself, and its military, and its actions, are representative of the majority of the Jewish population of that country. Israeli law favours jewish citizens over arabs; this is basic fact. Non-Israeli Arabs are afforded absolutely no rights, and essentially occupy the same strata that blacks did immediately after the abolition of slavery; essentially a population of people who have not been afforded any rights by the state, who float around in a state of perpetual limbo, their homes and lands and possessions (and lives) able to be forfeited by the state of Israel whenever Israel sees fit. This is the nature of my statement; due to the racism inherent in the Israeli state, class lines have been polarized upon racial lines, similar to how blacks today in the United States are almost invariably limited to the lowest strata of society.

It is therefore natural, to me, that the struggle in Palestine can be viewed as a struggle based on ethnicity from a certain point of view. This, however, is not a choice made by "islamist fundamentalists"; it is a reality that has been forced upon the Palestinian people by Israel's oppression. It is Israel, not Arabs, who created the conditions of the struggle by their persecution of the Palestinians; it is illogical to blame the Palestinian people for accepting the racist oppression they've faced, just as it would be folly to claim that the Jewish resistence fighters in Poland were nationalists fighting a war of nationalist imperialism. The Jews in Poland fought because they specifically were targetted for extermination, and fighting along their ethnic lines was a reality forced upon them by Nazism, not their own choice; just as Palestinians have no choice but to fight the ethnic oppression facing them.

The fact of the matter is, I condemn both Israel and the Islamists in Palestine. I have always done so and will always continue to do so. I have never claimed that I would support a victory of Hamas, the destruction of Israel, and the extermination of Jews in Palestine. I support the rights to self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians -- and at the moment, incase you hadn't noticed, Israelis have far, far, far more self-determination than Palestinians. As such, I support the right of Palestinians to fight for their self-determination against that which oppresses them. Unlike you, I can not stand by and watch the racial oppression and extermination of an entire race of people, simply because those people do not conform to my ideological views. That, my friend, is what Nazism is.

[Edelweiss]

Sad, sad response, Malte; you've basically just confirmed everything I said.

Yes, quiet sad to hear the truth. No suprise you haven't to say any further on this.


Only if you believe that being against the state of Israel is anti-semitism. Congratulations, Malte, you've cemented my arguement even further - you obviously are incapable of figuring out the difference between being against the state of Israel and the way in which it was formed (and continues to exist to this day) and being against a group of people based solely on their ethnicity.

You doesn't seem to be able to understand what I was trying to say, either that, or it's you usual ignorance. I repeat again, anti-zionism, or just criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism for me.

What I meant is that saying anti-semitism is caused by the Jews themselves, and saying that Israel is the cause for all anti-semitism in the Arab world basically implies that, it's an apology for anti-semitism, and thus borderline anti-semitic.

I don't await you to understand that though, I guess calling me a zionist criminal instead feels more comfortable for you.


The fact of the matter is (and I will say this once, so pay attention), is that the proliferation of Nazism was due in whole to Hitler's ability to convince the German people that Jews were ruining their lives, that Jews were oppressing them and exploiting them and were trying to kill them. Now, if you replace the word "Jew" with "bourgeois", what do you get? The bourgeois are exploiting the people, oppressing them, killing them. That actually sounds about right. Infact, I'm comfortable saying that any form of revolutionary leftism can easily be made to sound like Nazism if you replace "bourgeois" with "Jew" in all leftist written material. However, doing so does not make any sort of connection between the two legitimate; the fact of the matter is that Jews were not responsible for any of the accusations laid upon them by Hitler and his Nazis; the bourgeois, on the other hand, are; this is a fact that I would have wished I didn't have to explain to you, but apparently you are so confused about class struggle that you can't differentiate between leading a national struggle against Jews and leading a national struggle against the bourgeoisie.

That is a strange response. It doesn't even collide with what I said. Of course there is an ideological difference between Maoism and Nazism, I did never deny that. What I said that the path between the two is very short though, and basically the only missing formula from Maoism to Nazism is indeed anti-semitism. I did come to this conclusion because there are several prominent German neo-Nazis who are former Maoists. And Devrim's example is quiet telling as well.

Anti-semitic ideology implies that the Jews are the representatives of the worldwide capital, that it's them who are "running capitalism" it's them who the leading forces of the western bourgeoisie.

Just like Nazism, Maoism is endorsing the idea of the "Volk", which implies the idea of "blood and soil", and the bourgeois idea of rights and privileges based on nationality, heritage and ethnicity, once you endorse this idea, it's not a big step from throwing all class analysis into the garbage can entirely, and if you add some anti-semitism to this, you have turned Maoism into Nazism.

Is that conclusion being a bit polemic? Probably. But as most polemics, it has a very truthful core which should make you think.


Another quite pathetic attempt to liken instances of national struggle against national bourgeoisie

This is an oxymoron

The rest of your response is quiet useless, and your usual strawman debating style, I did never say that I support any of the current Israeli politics, I do share a lot of criticism of Israel and I'm really not blind towards zionist crimes at all. I even acknowledge that the situation is comparable to South-African apartheid. I also totally acknowledge that the Palestinians have a right of self-defence against their Israeli oppressors.

It's just that I do not support any of the current organisations that are leading them, nor their reactionary goals which are either rnationalist or Islamist, and that I do acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, for the holocaust has shown that it is a sad necessity in our current, fucked up world order, where nation states do guarantee a certain degree of safety for it's citizens. This is really a question of realpolitik for me than anything else.

[Wanted Man]

From the "related threads" feature, I found this interesting old discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/german-anti-nationalist-t45137/index.html

The author of the piece (the first really good article that I've seen from what is basically an anarcho-primitivist perspective) really refutes that "Germany's unique position" crap. Malte, I know that you've responded to that thread, but why have you not addressed these excellent refutations? Whenever this subject comes up, you just reiterate that the Anti-Germans piss you off as well, but that you agree with them on Israel's "right to exist" and Germany (for sure, German nationalism is thoroughly disgusting, especially considering its historical record - but make no mistake: all western nationalisms can lead to this, so Dutch, French or English nationalism can fuck right off as well!). It also really exposes two interesting facts:

-the position on Israel is basically one of "lesser evil".
-it is a strictly German phenomenon, and even borderline German nationalist, but turned upside down! It elevates the German "Volk" (which it claims to hate) to a level of having the greatest understanding of Jewish and Arab suffering (even greater than the Jews and Arabs themselves!).

And, finally, the fallacy that you, Malte, continue to make, even while you disassociate from most of the anti-German ideology:


In this formulation, we arrive at the central fallacy of the pro-Zionist position: the idea that nations protect their citizens. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way state power works. Each government argues to its citizens that it exists to protect them from other governments; but when nations fight, it is not governors that die, but their citizens. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Israelis have died since the formation of Israel in 1948. Former terrorists such as Shamir and Sharon have risen to power upon waves of fear, assuring their constituents that if anyone is to suffer, it will be Arabs—but their policies have continued to result in the loss of Israeli lives, while they die of old age (5).The artificial imperialist and zionist maintenance of the Israeli state, if anything, is actually detrimental to its citizens, as well as to its neighbours, and even to Judaism as a whole! You're right, anti-semitism is NOT the fault of "the Jews" (nobody has claimed it, so no need to burn that strawman), but of the leaders of the Israeli state, and their imperialist puppet masters. Because they, as national leaders, naturally seek to foment separations based on national and ethnic lines, so as to prevent the real engine of history: class struggle!

By the way, you also take note of Germany's unique position. Well, I think that's a very tendentious way to look at history. Compare to the Netherlands: the Netherlands had a sort of "prototypical bourgeois revolution" in the 80 Years' War of the 16th and 17th century, when the Dutch rose up against the Spanish aristocracy. The struggle was soon hijacked by William of Orange, who was himself part of the nobility, and waged the war on religious grounds. Eventually, a prototypical "Republic of the United Netherlands" was founded. In 1795, the "Patriots" sought to grab power at the behest of Napoleon, who marched his army into the Netherlands. However, this soon led to the "Kingdom of Holland", led by Louis Napoleon. After the Napoleonic Wars, there was a constitutional monarchy, which also ruled Belgium, so that the Netherlands would be a strong buffer state against France. The Belgians soon split off, however. In 1848, the King, faced with the prospect of revolution, relinquished a lot of power to the parliament. In the next years, more reforms turned the Netherlands into a liberal democracy.

Looking at this, we see that history is not a "straight line" (which the anti-Germans don't seem to realize!) of development. It's historically contentious to say that a country "never had a bourgeois revolution", because this is not even necessary. The Netherlands had a watered-down, prototypical bourgeois revolution, then spiralled back into old republicanism, then came French revolutionary thought, soon co-opted by Napoleonic despotism. After that, the Belgians split, and the King started the process himself out of historical necessity. And yet, the Anti-Germans are not waving Dutch flags around, because the Dutch role in WWII wasn't very admirable. Collaboration was rampant, Prince Bernhard (okay, he's a German :D) proposed being a "regent", and artists like Johannes Heesters* became great stars in Germany. The Netherlands was the occupied country where the most Jewish people disappeared into the camps, thanks to the general cooperation of the railways and other civil servants. When the liberation came, a lot of "brave" people suddenly started publicly humiliating "hun's girls" and other people who collaborated more openly. In 1948, the Dutch government tried to cling onto Indonesia, committing terrible crimes.

Now, is this because of the Dutch "unique position" in history? No, of course not. Instead of looking at the German position within a vacuum, look at the world as a whole, and discover why atrocities, up to and including the Holocaust, take place.

*Heesters, now 104, was unwelcome in the Netherlands during the 60s and 70s, so he remained in Germany, where he became popular. Now, he wants to have one last concert in the Netherlands. Communists, holocaust survivors and anti-fascists are doing everything possible to prevent this.

[RNK]

What I meant is that saying anti-semitism is caused by the Jews themselves, and saying that Israel is the cause for all anti-semitism in the Arab world basically implies that, it's an apology for anti-semitism, and thus borderline anti-semitic.

Did you see me say that?


I did come to this conclusion because there are several prominent German neo-Nazis who are former Maoists.

Oh no! Several neo-Nazis used to be Maoists! Well then, that's settled -- Maoism is just like Nazism except for the lack of anti-semitic rhetoric, because some neo-Nazis used to be Maoists. (On a more serious note, I wonder what you think of Anarchists who used to be Maoists, or Maoists who used to be Anarchists, or Trotskyists who used to be Anarchists, or.. well, pretty much anyone who at one point in time felt different than they do at this immediate moment)


Anti-semitic ideology implies that the Jews are the representatives of the worldwide capital, that it's them who are "running capitalism" it's them who the leading forces of the western bourgeoisie.

Thank you for the history lesson. Now tell me how this differs from pretty much any strain of communism that implies that the bourgeoisie, ie the ruling class, are "running capitalism". Like I said, you could distort any revolutionary theory into Nazism by changing select words -- hell, I could change Mein Kampf fundamentally by switching the word "Jew" with "Martians", and then rabble on about how that means people who don't like Mars are Nazis.


Just like Nazism, Maoism is endorsing the idea of the "Volk", which implies the idea of "blood and soil", and the bourgeois idea of rights and privileges based on nationality, heritage and ethnicity, once you endorse this idea, it's not a big step from throwing all class analysis into the garbage can entirely, and if you add some anti-semitism to this, you have turned Maoism into Nazism.

Truely one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard you say. I'm not even sure how to respond. It's like watching a mentally handicapped person try to solve a rubix cube, and then claim they have by smashing the cube into a thousand pieces.

It's quite apparent by that rather confusing block of text that you really have no idea what Maoism (and I still contend, class struggle as a whole) is about. I wouldn't even expect such a proposterous claim from Rosa, and that's saying something.

But anyway, I'll try my best to respond to such nonsense (if it's even possible - I think you've dug yourself a hole so deep as to be completely isolated from reality).

First, I'm assuming by your use of the term "Volk" you are attempting to create another knee-jerk emotional response to the ideology of an advanced race of "superior humans" whose destiny it is to rule over the rest of the world. So, how exactly does this have anything to do with Maoism? I wasn't aware that Mao thought the Chinese should rule over the world as ubermensch and enslave all other races. Infact, to the contrary, Mao was intensely devoted to internationalism, to uniting the revolutionary forces of the world, the super-exploited masses, to rise up in unity against US imperialism and its western capitalist cronies. I fail to see how this is anything like the ideology of the "Volk".

I also have no idea what kind of connection you're attempting to make with "blood and soil", another of Hitler's insanities that deals with ultra-patriotism about one's land, and the view that Germany is some sort of holy country filled with holy men. I'm assuming you're attempting to conclude that Mao somehow saw China as some holy nation charged by god or Marx or whomever. Again, I'm at a loss at to how you even came to such a conclusion. I don't even think Rosa would be so ignorant as to make that sort of retarded analysis.

Anyway, this thread isn't about Maoism, so I won't bother going on some long tyrade about what Maoism is. You're obviously a complete idiot, or you've been fed some really, really crazy shit about what Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is, or your brain has stopped working correctly.

[Edelweiss]

-it is a strictly German phenomenon, and even borderline German nationalist, but turned upside down! It elevates the German "Volk" (which it claims to hate) to a level of having the greatest understanding of Jewish and Arab suffering (even greater than the Jews and Arabs themselves!).

There is of course some truth in that, but still I would rather see as a "we learned our lesson" (from what happened during the Nazi rule) stance, and so the German radical Left, not only the anti-Germans, have a unique view on the German nation and Israel. The German Left is generally much more anti-national than other European leftist movements, for very good reasons IMO. If that is making me the Germna Left "anti-nationalist nationalist", which would be quiet absurd, than I guess I'm an anti-nationalist nationalist...


The artificial imperialist and zionist maintenance of the Israeli state, if anything, is actually detrimental to its citizens, as well as to its neighbours, and even to Judaism as a whole! You're right, anti-semitism is NOT the fault of "the Jews" (nobody has claimed it, so no need to burn that strawman), but of the leaders of the Israeli state, and their imperialist puppet masters. Because they, as national leaders, naturally seek to foment separations based on national and ethnic lines, so as to prevent the real engine of history: class struggle!

Well, I do stand my case, no matter how many Israelis dies by terrorist attacks so far, Israel is a guarantee that another holocaust can never hapen can.

Concerning the rest of your post, the lack of a bourgeois revolution is only one reason why the anti-Germans think that the holocaust and Nazism only was possible in Germany.

I won't speak for the anti-Germans here, so please read for yourselve, also to generally get a better idea about the anti-German ideology: "Anti-German for Beginners (http://web.archive.org/web/20061219100235/http://volkerradke.looplab.org/sonderweg-en.html)", especially "Towards Ausschwitz (http://web.archive.org/web/20061219100235/http://volkerradke.looplab.org/sonderweg-en.html#a)".

[Edelweiss]

First, I'm assuming by your use of the term "Volk" you are attempting to create another knee-jerk emotional response to the ideology of an advanced race of "superior humans" whose destiny it is to rule over the rest of the world. So, how exactly does this have anything to do with Maoism? I wasn't aware that Mao thought the Chinese should rule over the world as ubermensch and enslave all other races. Infact, to the contrary, Mao was intensely devoted to internationalism, to uniting the revolutionary forces of the world, the super-exploited masses, to rise up in unity against US imperialism and its western capitalist cronies. I fail to see how this is anything like the ideology of the "Volk".

I also have no idea what kind of connection you're attempting to make with "blood and soil", another of Hitler's insanities that deals with ultra-patriotism about one's land, and the view that Germany is some sort of holy country filled with holy men. I'm assuming you're attempting to conclude that Mao somehow saw China as some holy nation charged by god or Marx or whomever. Again, I'm at a loss at to how you even came to such a conclusion. I don't even think Rosa would be so ignorant as to make that sort of retarded analysis.


You haven't really understand my point at all.

The term "Volk" doesn't necessarily imply anything about übermensch or Nazism. German Maoists certainly are using the term "Volk" as welll. What it does imply is the idea of a "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft"), a people, in the case the German national community, based on soil and heritage ("blood ans soil"). The Nazis did try to establish and strengthen the national community to weaken and finally negate any class conflicts and class struggle. Now the idea of the "national community" based on soil and heritage, is one of the key defining factor of most national liberation movements around the world, Maoists do explicitly endorse this idea, otherwise they wouldn't call for solidarity for any random "people's war" around the world. I think that the idea of the national community based on soil and heritage, the "Volk", is entirely diametrical to communism and class struggle, and does in the end either lead to fascism or at best to some sort of bourgeois republic.

[Devrim]

Oh no! Several neo-Nazis used to be Maoists! Well then, that's settled -- Maoism is just like Nazism except for the lack of anti-semitic rhetoric, because some neo-Nazis used to be Maoists. (On a more serious note, I wonder what you think of Anarchists who used to be Maoists, or Maoists who used to be Anarchists, or Trotskyists who used to be Anarchists, or.. well, pretty much anyone who at one point in time felt different than they do at this immediate moment)

Of course you can't judge things on the cases of a few individuals. The case I quoted wasn't about individuals though, it was about an entire party (and Turkish Maoist parties tend to be a little bigger that than western cousins). Surely that must at least make people pause for thought.

It didn't surprise us. In our opinion it was the whole ideology of support for national liberation that allowed them to make this switch so easily. Once they had decided that Turkey was an oppressed nation, it is a small step to siding with 'progressive national forces' (i.e. fascists)

Devrim

[CubaSocialista]

As much as I despise the anti-Germans, I prefer them over any pro-Islamist "leftist" who praises Hamas and co. in the name of "anti-imperialism". I totally share their view of political Islam being a fascist tendency.

And don't make a mistake, supporting the right of Israel to exist is quiet common within the German radical Left, just like the total denial of the German nation.

Where many German leftists disagree, including myself, is their unconditional call for "Israel solidaity", their equation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism, their at times racist anti-Arab sentiments, their general support of US imperialism and it's wars, or their paranoia about anti-semitism.

But once again I prefer anti-semitism paranoia over actual leftist anti-semitism which indeed seems to be much more common outside Germany, as I have encountered over the years here at revleft. This is something which the anti-Germans would never acknowledge since they see the traditional German Left as some vanguard of leftist anti-semitism. So in a way, the anti-germans have a healthy effect on the German Left, but really only on this aspect. generally, the anti-Germans have splitted and in some areas deeply paralyzed the radical left, especially among Antifa circles.

Something else that the anti-German would never admit, is that their ideology is so unique within the wordwide Left, that they are of course much more "German" than any other German left-wing faction.



This is simply not true. When trying to argue about the anti-Germans, at least try to do it properly by addressing their ideological faults, but just by making things up.

And as the article is pointing out, the anti-German movement is quiet heterogeneous, there just aren't "the anti-Germans".

But you obliviously have no idea what you speak about I&A, your knowledge of the anti-Germans is totally superficial, so you better keep out of this debate completely...


Malte has voiced my sentiments exactly. Well said, comrade. :)

[Devrim]

Yes, we should applaud blows against the imperialist US-Israeli military apparatus regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the political outlook of the groups that deliver them.
Did you applaud Al-Quada attacks on 9/11?


But, let's make sure we know who the progressive forces are even if those 'progressive forces' are only relatively progressive in a middle eastern context.

I don't think that they are even relatively progressive. They are part of the general tendency towards war, and decomposition in the Middle East.


And if we don't find those relatively progressive forces progressive enough let's council our more kindred middle eastern comrades on the need to develop an independant communist current- one that recognises when to work alongside the broader national liberation forces and when to break with them.

How can it be an independent current if it political subjugates itself to bourgeois nationalism?

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

What it does imply is the idea of a "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft"), a people, in the case the German national community, based on soil and heritage ("blood ans soil").
That's straight-up Zionism: the Israeli "national community" of Jewish heritage, who belong on Israeli soil, and nowhere else.

[Andy Bowden]

Really? I think the anti-German view that Germany was more backwards than other European, industrialized nations due to a lack of a really bourgeois revolution, and so only in Germany the holocaust was possible, is a pretty materialist view, no mater if you agree with that, or not.

But there were plenty of other countries with a lack of Bourgeois revolution at that time, and also backwards - far more backwards than Germany - that did not commit a Holocaust against the Jews.



Is that a serious question?! I guess it's because I despise the German nation, German nationalism and everything what it stands for, communism is an anti-national struggle, not only in Germany, but everywhere in the world (also for the Israeli working class BTW, as paradox that might sound for you)!

Don't fight for your country - fight for your class!

And why don't those points also apply to Israel?

[Edelweiss]

But there were plenty of other countries with a lack of Bourgeois revolution at that time, and also backwards - far more backwards than Germany - that did not commit a Holocaust against the Jews.

No industrialized nations though.

[Xiao Banfa]

and basically the only missing formula from Maoism to Nazism is indeed anti-semitism

Well, maoism historically has been:
-an ideology of national liberation of an oppressed people against an ideology and practice of expansionist millitarism and racial superiority (Japanese Tanaka Plan 'Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' rubbish).
-an ideology of oppressed classes against their brutal exploiters (warlords, corrupt Guomindang, brutal landlords and factory owners).

Yes the CPC proclaimed a united front with 'patriotic' elements of the national bourgeoisie in order to defeat japanese imperialist millitarism.

Why wouldn't you? Why not combine as many forces as possible in order to defeat the greater enemy? (And the racist japanese imperialists were the greater enemy).

This doesn't make them 'nationalists' in the regressive sense you are talking about. It makes them pragmatic.

The CPC then cleverly nationalised their property and eliminated them as a class after the war.

Now let us examine nazism to see how it compares.

-a doctrine of racial superiority, millitary expansion and conquest.
-an alliance of big business, dictatorial government, bigoted middle class and reactionary elements of the working class who would act as captains and spies for the regime amongst their class.

The aim of the nazis was not simply to break germany out of it's domination by the other western powers and cancel it's ruinous versailles debt. They wanted to use this injustice to built a movement that was to enslave the nations of europe and, in cahoots with their ideological cousins, conquer and enslave the whole world in order to serve their 'superior' race!

The maoists based themselves on the most exploited elements (which could be of any consequence -ie the peasantry- since organising in the cities was near impossible, they'd tried it and were massacred) against the undeniably regressive elements.

Sure, they weren't perfect. Mao became an increasingly authoritarian ruler once the war was over- but that was more a result of their post war democratic deficiencies.

[Xiao Banfa]

Did you applaud Al-Quada attacks on 9/11?

Oh yeah, I'm all for anti-woman, anti-democratic bigots killing thousands of workers. Isn't that what anti-imperialism means?

Rich Saudi nutcases are our bosom-buddies man! Kill those shi'as, deny those girls education!

What a cartoony idea you have of anti-imperialism!

Al Qaeda is not a national liberation movement- it is a fascist, theocratic civillian butchering bunch of amoral psychopaths.

Groups like the PFLP, Hezbollah and the Mahdi army cannot be compared with Al-Qaeda.

Yes they have killed civillians, but this is not generally not their modus operandi. They mainly attack millitary targets and, would you believe, have an objective of secular democracy.

This is how change happens in these situations.
If you want to be effective:

1) Take a look at the forces on either side of the conflict.

2) Which are more progressive?

3) Ally yourself with the most progressive forces.

4) Once they are no longer progressive in a different situation, you fight them.

The fact that left communists completely reject this practical approach really shows why they have had almost zero success in th real world.

[Devrim]

Did you applaud Al-Quada attacks on 9/11?Oh yeah, I'm all for anti-woman, anti-democratic bigots killing thousands of workers. Isn't that what anti-imperialism means?

Rich Saudi nutcases are our bosom-buddies man! Kill those shi'as, deny those girls education!

What a cartoony idea you have of anti-imperialism!

Al Qaeda is not a national liberation movement- it is a fascist, theocratic civillian butchering bunch of amoral psychopaths.

Groups like the PFLP, Hezbollah and the Mahdi army cannot be compared with Al-Qaeda.


I would suggest you reread what you previously wrote paying special attention to your emphasis:


Yes, we should applaud blows against the imperialist US-Israeli military apparatus regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the political outlook of the groups that deliver them.


What a cartoony idea you have of anti-imperialism!

I would say I have more of an idea of it that you. I live in a country where the ideology of national liberation is used to cooperate with fascists, and shot down workers. And that is just by organisations referring to themselves as socialist.


This is how change happens in these situations.
If you want to be effective:

1) Take a look at the forces on either side of the conflict.

2) Which are more progressive?

3) Ally yourself with the most progressive forces.

There are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie anymore.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I would say I have more of an idea of it that you. I live in a country where the ideology of national liberation is used to cooperate with fascists, and shot down workers. And that is just by organisations referring to themselves as socialist.

This is a strategy that derives from the concept of the popular front. In contrast, Trotskyists argue for a united front, comprised of groups and parties which represent the interests of the working class, even if some, such as social democrats, only push for change within the framework of capitalism. Through this strategy, not only is it possible to overcome an immediate problem (such as the danger of fascism, or the struggle against the occupation of an imperial power) we can also engage with the members of the reformist parties and try to win them over to a more radical position.

In Palestine, revolutionary socialism is insufficiently strong, and so we are forced instead to turn to parties which draw their support from and comprised of the petty-bourgeoisie - the Islamists.

[Devrim]

This is a strategy that derives from the concept of the popular front. In contrast, Trotskyists argue for a united front, comprised of groups and parties which represent the interests of the working class, even if some, such as social democrats, only push for change within the framework of capitalism.

They were two separate instances, sorry if it didn't read like that. The alliances with fascists by the İP were. The PKK policy of shooting teachers weren't.

The communist left has historically argued against frontism. The SWP argues for 'united fronts', and then ends up in RESPECT, a popular front if ever there was one.

Now, it is possible to argue that we are wrong, but at least it isn't as dishonest as the SWP. Either you argue against popular fronts, or you get involved in them. The SWP does both. It wants to have its cake, and eat it.


In Palestine, revolutionary socialism is insufficiently strong, and so we are forced instead to turn to parties which draw their support from and comprised of the petty-bourgeoisie - the Islamists.

Here there is at least some agreement. The working class in Palestine is terribly week. For us though your solution is part of the reason for that weakness. You seem to be saying that the working class is weak, so communists should give up any hope of independent class action, and support Islamic nationalists. Don't you see the problem here?

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

I would suggest you reread what you previously wrote paying special attention to your emphasis:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
Yes, we should applaud blows against the imperialist US-Israeli military apparatus regardless of whether we agree or disagree




You misunderstand, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

First of all, the S11 attacks were not an attack on a millitary apparatus.

The point I was trying to make is that we should applaud defeats by the US-Israeli war machine in the middle east even if we don't agree with potical outlook of those groups causing the defeats.

I was saying this just to clear up the fact that when it comes to the more reactionary groups, it is good that someone is fighting just not that they are the ones doing it. (BTW, Al Qaeda are too obsessed with murdering babies to concentrate too much on millitary targets).

I then went on to say that we should be supporting the more progressive, multi class movements and that communists should form a united front with them (I mean united front in the maoist sense).

I don't think this strategy can be termed popular frontism, isn't popular frontism an electoral alliance- like with that Leon Blum **** and the Stalinists?


For us though your solution is part of the reason for that weakness. You seem to be saying that the working class is weak, so communists should give up any hope of independent class action, and support Islamic nationalists. Don't you see the problem here?

Communists should have independent organisations and recruit workers into their ranks. If they want to get any traction and defeat the greater enemy they need to unite with those who share a minimum of goals- ie secular democracy and getting rid of the bullying superpower.

This requires no subordination to the nationalists whatsoever only a temporary alliance to defeat the greater enemy.

It's amazing that you don't see the practical necessity of this strategy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
This is how change happens in these situations.
If you want to be effective:

1) Take a look at the forces on either side of the conflict.

2) Which are more progressive?

3) Ally yourself with the most progressive forces.

There are no progressive factions of the bourgeoisie anymore.


So Hezbollah calling for end to the confessional voting system, US-Israeli imperialism and for secular democracy isn't progressive in the middle east?

Also I like the way you cut out number 4!


I would say I have more of an idea of it that you. I live in a country where the ideology of national liberation is used to cooperate with fascists, and shot down workers. And that is just by organisations referring to themselves as socialist.

And how can you compare the sublimely misguided IP (who are supporting an imperialist foriegn policy in which Turkey ,with the connivance of the US, have been acting against imperialist agents against a left-wing kurdish national liberation movement for decades) with real national liberation movements operating in countries with real imperialist oppression?

Just because this one lunatic 'socialist' party is completly of it's rocker should we abandon support for the real victims of imperialism, who are fighting back?

[Devrim]

Yes, we should applaud blows against the imperialist US-Israeli military apparatus regardless of whether we agree or disagree
You misunderstand, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough.

First of all, the S11 attacks were not an attack on a millitary apparatus.


The Pentagon is not part of the US military apparatus. You could have fooled me.


The point I was trying to make is that we should applaud defeats by the US-Israeli war machine in the middle east even if we don't agree with potical outlook of those groups causing the defeats.

The point I am making is that it is not about how particularly repulsive a political nationalist group is. We disagree with the content. Your programme is effectively to abandon working class interests, and tie the working class to national defence. This is what left communists are against, not the fact that Hezbollah are religious. Our criticisms would be the same if it were still Amal playing this role.


I was saying this just to clear up the fact that when it comes to the more reactionary groups, it is good that someone is fighting just not that they are the ones doing it.

This is where we completely disagree. It is not good that the working class throught the Middle East is being dragged into fratricidal wars.


I then went on to say that we should be supporting the more progressive, multi class movements and that communists should form a united front with them (I mean united front in the maoist sense).

I don't think this strategy can be termed popular frontism, isn't popular frontism an electoral alliance- like with that Leon Blum **** and the Stalinists?

I think that the differences between a popular front, and a united front are minimal anyway, but on a historical point you are wrong. The French popular front of 1936 is merely one example, it doesn't have to be electoral. Though Hezbollah's front is.


Communists should have independent organisations and recruit workers into their ranks. If they want to get any traction and defeat the greater enemy they need to unite with those who share a minimum of goals- ie secular democracy and getting rid of the bullying superpower.

This requires no subordination to the nationalists whatsoever only a temporary alliance to defeat the greater enemy.

It's amazing that you don't see the practical necessity of this strategy.

But what you end up doing is becoming a pawn in the struggles between rival powers, Kick out the Americans/Israelis, and bring back Syria. The point is that all countries are involved in the imperialist system today, and it is impossible to be independent of it.


So Hezbollah calling for end to the confessional voting system, US-Israeli imperialism and for secular democracy isn't progressive in the middle east?

No.


Also I like the way you cut out number 4!

It wasn't my point, but it isn't relevant because it never happens. What happens is that nationalists murder workers first like in 1927.


And how can you compare the sublimely misguided IP (who are supporting an imperialist foriegn policy in which Turkey ,with the connivance of the US, have been acting against imperialist agents against a left-wing kurdish national liberation movement for decades) with real national liberation movements operating in countries with real imperialist oppression?

İP sees itself as anti-American. As for your statement that they have been acting 'imperialist agents against a left-wing kurdish national liberation movement for decades' I think that you should check your history. It is not that many years ago that they were in alliance with the PKK.

On the point of 'left-wing kurdish national liberation movement' i.e. the PKK, what do you think of their policy of shooting school teachers? Is it something that you think that socialists should critical support?


Just because this one lunatic 'socialist' party is completly of it's rocker should we abandon support for the real victims of imperialism, who are fighting back?

Actually, I don't see their position as any more lunatic than yours. They have just chosen a different nationalist faction to support. The real victims of imperialism are the workers, on both sides of these conflicts, who die in the armies of their states, or pseudo-states, the real victims of imperialism are those innocent workers, and peasants who are caught in the crossfire.

Those Western leftists who back different national factions are adding, in their own minuscule way, to the descent of the Middle east deeper, and deeper into ethnic/sectarian war.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

Devrim this is a frustrating exercise, it's almost as if your from a different planet- but I will perservere.



The Pentagon is not part of the US military apparatus. You could have fooled me.


Touche, there's an exception to my statement about the S11 attacks.
But that day was not about attacking millitary installations, it was about atrocious massacres of civillians.


The point I am making is that it is not about how particularly repulsive a political nationalist group is. We disagree with the content.

The pragmatic approach of anti-imperialist unity (within reason) is not about lesser evilism or "these guys aren't such bastards let's hitch our destiny to their bandwagon". It's about the fact that Hezbollah are, for the moment, moving in the same direction.

They want the US/Israel out and secular democracy.


Your programme is effectively to abandon working class interests, and tie the working class to national defence.

I think it's in the working class' interests to get rid of the US/Israeli imperial order, don't you?

You speak as if defending lebanon against imperialist agression is somehow diverting the working class into a war which has nothing to do with their interests.

When US/israeli aggression and subterfuge acts meddles in lebanons internal affairs in the interests of international capital the workers do not benefit from staying out of the fight.


This is what left communists are against, not the fact that Hezbollah are religious. Our criticisms would be the same if it were still Amal playing this role.


Well that's good that you're not against Hezbollah for being religious

Also as far as I know Amal are a completely different story alltogether.


İP sees itself as anti-American. As for your statement that they have been acting 'imperialist agents against a left-wing kurdish national liberation movement for decades' I think that you should check your history. It is not that many years ago that they were in alliance with the PKK.

Well, as far as I know, the IP are pretty jingoistic when it comes to turkish millitary action. At the moment.

I was referring to the fact that Turkey (not the IP) have been imperialist agents of the US and therefore are imperialists.

They've used their status as cold war allies to behave like chauvinists towards the kurds.

That doesn't sound like an 'oppressed nation' it sounds like an oppressor nation.

The IP are a complete anomaly, isn't this obvious?


On the point of 'left-wing kurdish national liberation movement' i.e. the PKK, what do you think of their policy of shooting school teachers? Is it something that you think that socialists should critical support?

Oh yes, not only do I support it, I encourage it! School teachers are the enemies of the proletariat!:D

Come on, no one has completely clean hands. The IRA in the first Liberation War did all sorts of dirty deeds, does that obscure their enourmously progressive role?


But what you end up doing is becoming a pawn in the struggles between rival powers Kick out the Americans/Israelis, and bring back Syria. The point is that all countries are involved in the imperialist system today, and it is impossible to be independent of it.


Syria is the lesser enemy. Syria is a regional power- at worst a regional bully.

You cannot compare the imperialists with Syria. The US machine of war and economic penetration is a government/giant corporation alliance.

Syria is a country with a minority of private enterprise so the ingredients for imperialism in the marxist sense are not there.

The syrians want to increase their influence because they are afraid that if they don't the US and Israel will fill the vacuum and syrian national sovereignty will be imperilled. Completely different.


Actually, I don't see their position as any more lunatic than yours. They have just chosen a different nationalist faction to support.

They have allied with fascists. I would be very interested to see if you can demonstrate that Hezbollah is fascist.


Those Western leftists who back different national factions are adding, in their own minuscule way, to the descent of the Middle east deeper, and deeper into ethnic/sectarian war.

Yes, by supporting those forces that oppose sectarianism.

We live in a time when steps such as rejection of sectarianism and accpetance of secular democracy (especially in an anti-imperialist context) by muslims should be embraced for the sake of lasting peace and dignity.

If your happy to be left on the political fringes till the left communist cavalry comes riding in, then go ahead mate.

[Devrim]

Devrim this is a frustrating exercise, it's almost as if your from a different planet- but I will perservere.

Yes, we do. I live in the Middle East. We feel the direct consequences of imperialism every day. I have had members of my immediate family killed by imperialist military forces. I can remember by neighbour crying because she has lost both of her sons fighting (on different sides) in the war in the South East in the same week.

...And you live in New Zealand.

But the crux of the matter is that there is a complete disagreement here:


I think it's in the working class' interests to get rid of the US/Israeli imperial order, don't you?

I don't think it is in the interests of the working class 'to get rid of the US/Israeli imperial order', and replace it with an Iranian/Syrian imperial order. Of course, one could also say that it is impossible to get rid of imperialism within capitalism.


You speak as if defending lebanon against imperialist agression is somehow diverting the working class into a war which has nothing to do with their interests.

Yes, that is what I believe. I believe that the working class in Lebanon has no interests in dying on the battlefield for Syrian interests.


When US/israeli aggression and subterfuge acts meddles in lebanons internal affairs in the interests of international capital the workers do not benefit from staying out of the fight.

You talk as if they benefit from Syria meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs in the interests of international capital. As if they benefit by dying to give Syria, or Iran a little more power.


The pragmatic approach of anti-imperialist unity (within reason) is not about lesser evilism or "these guys aren't such bastards let's hitch our destiny to their bandwagon". It's about the fact that Hezbollah are, for the moment, moving in the same direction.

They want the US/Israel out and secular democracy.

For us they are not moving in the same direction at all. At the moment Israel is as 'out' of Lebanon as it will ever be. Hezbollah's calls for 'secular democracy' are merely an attempt to get more power for themselves within the parliamentary circus.


Well, as far as I know, the IP are pretty jingoistic when it comes to turkish millitary action. At the moment. ...
The IP are a complete anomaly, isn't this obvious?

But don't you realise how easy it is for any organisation supporting 'national liberation' to move between being an ally/puppet of different powers. I think that even the briefest look at the history of the Kurdish nationalist movement would convince you of that. At the moment the PKK are gravitating towards the US. In fact PEJAK is being armed by the US. Is PEJAK a part of what you referred to as a 'Left wing national liberation movement'? If so why is it working together with the US?



On the point of 'left-wing kurdish national liberation movement' i.e. the PKK, what do you think of their policy of shooting school teachers? Is it something that you think that socialists should critical support? Oh yes, not only do I support it, I encourage it! School teachers are the enemies of the proletariat!:D

Come on, no one has completely clean hands. The IRA in the first Liberation War did all sorts of dirty deeds, does that obscure their enourmously progressive role?

It is not about clean hands. It is about the fact that this is a completely anti-working class party, which is quite happy to murder workers.


Syria is the lesser enemy. Syria is a regional power- at worst a regional bully.

You cannot compare the imperialists with Syria. The US machine of war and economic penetration is a government/giant corporation alliance.

Syria is a country with a minority of private enterprise so the ingredients for imperialism in the marxist sense are not there.

Imperialism is a world system, and Syria is a part of it as much as the US. All that backing Syria can do is to make minor adjustments in the balance of power.

Does the working class feel any better when it is only being exploited by 'a regional bully'?


They have allied with fascists. I would be very interested to see if you can demonstrate that Hezbollah is fascist.

I never claimed that they were. They have at times been allied with them though.



Those Western leftists who back different national factions are adding, in their own minuscule way, to the descent of the Middle east deeper, and deeper into ethnic/sectarian war. Yes, by supporting those forces that oppose sectarianism.

Such as whom?


We live in a time when steps such as rejection of sectarianism and accpetance of secular democracy (especially in an anti-imperialist context) by muslims should be embraced for the sake of lasting peace and dignity.

This is just liberal nonsense.

Devrim

[Sky]

Is it possible to cite other left-wing newspapers in Europe that meet the criteria of vehemently opposing anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism?
Zionism is the most reactionary variety of Jewish bourgeois nationalism. It is a fascist ideology, represented by a ramified system of organizations and a policy expressing the interests of the Jewish big bourgeoisie, which is closely linked with the monopolistic bourgeoisie of the imperialist states. Modern Zionism is militantly chauvinist, racist, and anticommunist. As a shock detachment of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism, international Zionism opposes the national liberation movement of the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Zionism's ideological concepts and political plans are implemented by a far-flung, highly centralized system of Zionist and pro-Zionist organizations, directed by centers in the USA.

Communists struggle against any form of oppression, such as is practiced under colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, zionism, apartheid, thereby constituting an enormous revolutionary potential for economic and social change in the world today. Those that render support to the Israel occupation forces in Palestine openly render support to the forces of monopoly capitalism, committing treason against working people. They must be disciplined for their ideological immaturity and banished from the democratic workers' movement should they refuse to rectify their incorrect views.

Communists have always repudiated the theory and practice of Zionism. V.I Lenin revealed the reactionary nature of Zionism, emphasizing that its dogmas are reactionary, false, and contrary to the interests of the Jewish proletariat. He criticized the Zionists' theses concerning the unique nature of the Jewish people, the alleged absence of class differences among the Jews, and the imaginary communality of their interests, explaining that such assertions aimed to distract the Jewish toiling masses from the proletariat's common class struggle. Communists stand in solidarity with all the resistance groups in Palestine struggling to liberate their homeland from foreign occupation and colonialism.

[Devrim]

Sky, do you have anything to say that is at all relevant to this discussion?
Devrim

[Sky]

Sky, do you have anything to say that is at all relevant to this discussion?
I thought the topic of this thread was about the support of Zionism by nominally leftist groups.

[Xiao Banfa]

I don't think it is in the interests of the working class 'to get rid of the US/Israeli imperial order', and replace it with an Iranian/Syrian imperial order. Of course, one could also say that it is impossible to get rid of imperialism within capitalism.


US imperialism (and EU imperialism) engage in subordinating lesser nations to their millitary and economic might.

They subvert democratic elections and support reactionaries against democratically elected leaders and movements.
In the wake of the imperialist victory, the economies of the offending nations become regencies forced to 'develop' in the manner the organs of imperialist power dictate.

It is in the nature of the the imperialist countries to continually patrol the globe to make sure they have subjugated as many countries as possible to their might.

Any kind of economic deviation from their model for dominated nations is not permissible.
-Whether this is too much state regulation to guide the economy in such a way which is takes into account interests other than those of international finance capital.
-Nationalisation of key industries.
-Majority state ownership.

You say it is impossible to get rid of imperialism within capitalism, but surely you'll admit that; a) the syrian economy, with majority state ownership doesn't operate in the same way as real imperialism and are therefore lesser enemies. b) resisting US/Israel and upholding national sovereignty hurts the world system of imperialism seeing as the US is the leader of world imperialism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
You speak as if defending lebanon against imperialist agression is somehow diverting the working class into a war which has nothing to do with their interests.

Yes, that is what I believe. I believe that the working class in Lebanon has no interests in dying on the battlefield for Syrian interests.


Syrian interests (which may are remind you are based on national security rather than raiding the entire globe for resources) coincide with the interest of national liberation forces. This has alot to do with working class interests seeing that in the absense of a counterbalance to US power the workers of the middle east would have no choice but accept the neo liberal economic order imposed upon them.


You talk as if they benefit from Syria meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs in the interests of international capital

Please show me how Syria is an agent of international capital.


At the moment the PKK are gravitating towards the US. In fact PEJAK is being armed by the US. Is PEJAK a part of what you referred to as a 'Left wing national liberation movement'? If so why is it working together with the US?

Isn't PEJAK a breakaway from the PKK?

And wasn't the really striking fact of the recent turkish aggression in the kurdish areas the fact that the US allowed it to happen?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devrim
Those Western leftists who back different national factions are adding, in their own minuscule way, to the descent of the Middle east deeper, and deeper into ethnic/sectarian war.

Yes, by supporting those forces that oppose sectarianism.

Such as whom


Well the Mahdi army and Hezbollah both favour unity across sectarian lines and condemn sectarian violence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
We live in a time when steps such as rejection of sectarianism and accpetance of secular democracy (especially in an anti-imperialist context) by muslims should be embraced for the sake of lasting peace and dignity.

This is just liberal nonsense.


No this is sense. Muslims, who could otherwise be led by sectarian reactionary theocrats, have the chance of involving themselves in a movement which accepts these key progressive goals.

They are moving closer to our position, not taking advantage of that is purist bloody mindedness.

[Refugee from Earth]

On the original article, i think i's deliberately criticising people on false grounds. If it can mix a little bit of truth in here or there, so much the better.

One good example is this:
"Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars," by the Israeli scholar Yaacov Lozowick, director of archives at Yad Vashem. That's a title sure to produce anxiety in Germany where, according to an opinion poll carried out by the influential weekly magazine Der Spiegel, a majority of Germans during the first week of the Second Lebanon War last year did not believe Israel had the right to defend itself against Hezbollah's rockets.

This section suggests not only that the intensively one sided bombing of Lebanon was just Israel's self-defence, but the wording implies that anyone (or at least Germans) who disagreed with what they did are against Israel having a right to exist (otherwise why would the book title produce anxiety?)


Bahamas carved out new territory on the German left in explicitly supporting the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well that's not the magazine for me. I'd be interested to hear how it is actually "left" at all.


[Jungle World] visited a training camp for Israeli tank drivers, conducted interviews with writer Etgar Keret and filmmaker Benny Barbash and got a taste of the club scene in Tel Aviv. They also had meetings with Palestinians, but did not come away with great sympathy for their struggle.

Nice.


There were many other bits I had a problem with in this article. For one, I didn't even pick up the bits where they slagged off the Left Party unfairly. Where did the article come from? Who wrote it? I basically don't think it's true that most of the European left, in Germany or anywhere else, is anti-semitic.

Equally I don't agree with Islam, or any religion. I don't think any theocracy is progressive. I just think this article is wrong.

[Devrim]

US imperialism (and EU imperialism) engage in subordinating lesser nations to their millitary and economic might.

You sound exactly like the İP. Remember who they are working with.


Syrian interests (which may are remind you are based on national security rather than raiding the entire globe for resources) coincide with the interest of national liberation forces. This has alot to do with working class interests seeing that in the absense of a counterbalance to US power the workers of the middle east would have no choice but accept the neo liberal economic order imposed upon them.

The 'neo liberal economic order' that is being imposed on them by the Syrian state. Syrian interest may coincide with the interests of certain Palestinian groups .i.e. the ones that are Syrian fronts. They have nothing in common with the interests of the working class though. The interests of the working class are not served by backing factions of the bourgeois.


Isn't PEJAK a breakaway from the PKK?

No, it is part of the same organisation. All this question suggests is that you have very little idea what you are talking about.


And wasn't the really striking fact of the recent turkish aggression in the kurdish areas the fact that the US allowed it to happen?

No, the US argued strongly to deter it, and basically warned the Turkish state off. Again you seem to have very little idea what is going on.


Well the Mahdi army and Hezbollah both favour unity across sectarian lines and condemn sectarian violence.

Only somebody who had never seen either of these organisations in practice would argue they are non-sectarian. Their basis is Shia factionalism.


They are moving closer to our position, not taking advantage of that is purist bloody mindedness.

No, actually you are tailing them.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

The 'neo liberal economic order' that is being imposed on them by the Syrian state.

Excuse me? Syria is a country in which the power of international capital is highly limited- how can the syrians be imposing neo liberalism on the people of lebanon?
Give me examples.


You sound exactly like the İP. Remember who they are working with.
You really like bashing me over the head with this wierd party. They are a complete anomaly in leftist politics. Why don't you stop obsessing over them?



No, the US argued strongly to deter it, and basically warned the Turkish state off. Again you seem to have very little idea what is going on.


But the operation still happened. The US "arguing strongly" is pointless they have the leverage to be much more effective than that.



Only somebody who had never seen either of these organisations in practice would argue they are non-sectarian. Their basis is Shia factionalism.


I'd be suprised if you have seen them in practice either.

The Mahdi army had been infiltrated by the Badr brigade, who are Shia factionalists, but the Mahdi army has a non sectarian and democratic platform.

As for Hezbollah they command support across a wide section of lebanese society, not characteristic of narrow Shia factionalism.

And also instead of just name calling, can you explain to me how they are sectarian?

[Devrim]

But the operation still happened. The US "arguing strongly" is pointless they have the leverage to be much more effective than that.

The US made them stop. The operation was limited because of US pressure, and at the moment the army is accusing the government of being US puppets. The operation continued despite the US, and both sides realised that the levels of tension between them were rising.


I'd be suprised if you have seen them in practice either.

I lived in South Beirut for nearly a decade. I noticed them occasionally. I haven't seen the Mahdi Army in action as I haven't been to Iraq for over twenty years.


The Mahdi army had been infiltrated by the Badr brigade, who are Shia factionalists, but the Mahdi army has a non sectarian and democratic platform.

It is not about their 'platform', it is about their practice, and as you say that are full of people that even you admit are Shia factionalists.


As for Hezbollah they command support across a wide section of lebanese society, not characteristic of narrow Shia factionalism.

And also instead of just name calling, can you explain to me how they are sectarian?

Well you could start with its 1985 manifesto, which made a call, admittedly temporarily dropped, for the implementation of an Islamic state in Lebanon, a country where between 35-40% of the population is Christian. The Lebanese political system is absolutely based on sectarianism. Its nature effects all parties that operate within it. The modus operandi of these parties is to 'represent' their particular community. It is a system, which is based of swiftly changing alliance, and most parties have been allied to most others at some point in history. Hezbollah operates within this. I would advise you to take a look at how it works in practice before talking about it.

Their current protests against the system are nothing more than an attempt to obtain more votes for the Shia community, which has grown greatly since the last census in 1932. I think obtaining more votes for the community that you represent is much in line with their sectarian way of operating.


You really like bashing me over the head with this wierd party. They are a complete anomaly in leftist politics. Why don't you stop obsessing over them?

I am not obsessing about them. I think that their politics are the natural result of leftist support for national liberation.

Imagine if the conflict between the US, and Turkey had escalated into war. Although unlikely it could have happened. Turkish troops were moving into US controlled zones, the Turkish government was directly accusing the US of arming the PKK. Certainly popular opinion in Turkey is very anti-American. The nationalists were organising huge demonstrations condemning America including a huge one against Rice's visit in Ankara. The biggest film ever in Turkey is about Turkish agents confronting America in Northern Iraq, and a recent best selling novel ended up with a Turkish agent nuking Washington DC., killing millions.

If there had been war between Turkey, and the US, I am almost 99% certain that you would have been supporting Turkey, and lining up alongside the same nationalist groups.


Excuse me? Syria is a country in which the power of international capital is highly limited- how can the syrians be imposing neo liberalism on the people of lebanon?
Give me examples.

Kindly explain what the 2004 general strike was about.

Devrim

[Hiero]

I would say I have more of an idea of it that you. I live in a country where the ideology of national liberation is used to cooperate with fascists, and shot down workers. And that is just by organisations referring to themselves as socialist.


National Liberation isn't a set ideology. It is a natural movement of oppressed people, and different political trends have their own ideology about national liberation.

[black magick hustla]

National Liberation isn't a set ideology. It is a natural movement of oppressed people, and different political trends have their own ideology about national liberation.

it has its ideological basis on the 19th century idea brought by the bourgeois revolutions of "national-self determination". in 20th century, "maoist" terms it subjects the question of class-struggle under the concept of the nation. its nothing more than an idea used to justify peasants and workers dying for the hides of their masters or new emerging masters.

[Xiao Banfa]

Well you could start with its 1985 manifesto, which made a call, admittedly temporarily dropped, for the implementation of an Islamic state in Lebanon, a country where between 35-40% of the population is Christian.

That was over 20 years ago, organisations can change. They now stand for secular, non confessional democracy.




I would advise you to take a look at how it works in practice before talking about it.


What, a confessional electoral system? I'm not defending it, I'm supporting Hezbollah's goal to abolish it.



If there had been war between Turkey, and the US, I am almost 99% certain that you would have been supporting Turkey, and lining up alongside the same nationalist groups.


Now I wouldn't support Turkey, it wouldn't be a war socialists should take part in on either side.

And that's extremely unlikely that US old cold war ally, Turkey, would go to war over some technicality of how much invading of northern Iraq Turkey is allowed.



It is not about their 'platform', it is about their practice, and as you say that are full of people that even you admit are Shia factionalists.


The Mahdi army have begun a process of purging themselves of the Badr death squad elements.


I think that their politics are the natural result of leftist support for national liberation.

But no, the are the only group I have ever heard of which have chosen such a path. Out of all the left anti-imperialists they are an anomaly.

I could make a similar leap of 'logic' and compare you to the pro-zionist 'left communists and anarchists' of the anti-german left (who are seriously against national liberation) but that would completely wrong because their positions have nothing to do with the vast majority of left communists and anarchists.



Kindly explain what the 2004 general strike was about.


Well the austerity policies of the lebanese government, but you can't blame that on Syria.

[Zurdito]

lol, militant pro-zionist "left" in Germany. I wonder why that arose in Germany and nowhere else eh?

Pure guilt politics. They figure they can wash their hands clean with the blood of Palestinians, and that way they are redeemed. Ironic that in trying to distance themselves from their country's shameful history, they exemplify it better than anyone else.

And no, I do not have any particular problem with germany any more than any other imperialist state. My opposition is to the state not the people.

[Devrim]

I think that their politics are the natural result of leftist support for national liberation.But no, the are the only group I have ever heard of which have chosen such a path. Out of all the left anti-imperialists they are an anomaly.
Really, well if we look at the activity of the TKP (Turkish Communist Party) in the same crisis, who I am sure you will agree are hardly an exotic fringe group, we see that there main slogan was 'we won't let the Americans divide our country'. Now to me this is clearly a slogan of social chauvinism. The country is approaching war, and instead of condemning Turkey's actions, their first impulse is to defend the state. How far do you think that the crisis would have had to deepen before they were openly working with the fascists. On a historical level, the KPD ended up working alongside Nazis. Why because they defined Germany as an oppressed nation.


Now I wouldn't support Turkey, it wouldn't be a war socialists should take part in on either side.

And that's extremely unlikely that US old cold war ally, Turkey, would go to war over some technicality of how much invading of northern Iraq Turkey is allowed.

I said that it is extremely unlikely. There are major tensions though, and in Turkey anti-American feeling is running higher than ever.

I think that it it came to war though. There would be very few on the left who would take your position.


I could make a similar leap of 'logic' and compare you to the pro-zionist 'left communists and anarchists' of the anti-german left (who are seriously against national liberation) but that would completely wrong because their positions have nothing to do with the vast majority of left communists and anarchists.

Apart from the fact that they are not 'left communists and anarchists', nor do they come from those historical roots. They do not have a position against national liberation either. They have a different position in favour of national liberation.They are just supporting a different nation. Why because they believe that they were historical oppressed. It is not that different from your analysis.

On to your 'non sectarian' organisations:


That was over 20 years ago, organisations can change. They now stand for secular, non confessional democracy.

It is a temporary policy change. They are very clear about that themselves.


What, a confessional electoral system? I'm not defending it, I'm supporting Hezbollah's goal to abolish it.

Look at their role in it. Look how they operate. Why do you think that Hezbullah claim to want to abolish the system? It is because, of course, they would get more votes under a 'more democratic' system.


The Mahdi army have begun a process of purging themselves of the Badr death squad elements.

I think that that sums up how non sectarian they are.


Well the austerity policies of the lebanese government, but you can't blame that on Syria.

Er...why? Syria was running the show then. If you compare them they are very similar to the developments in the Syrian economy at the time, funny coincidence that.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

Er...why? Syria was running the show then. If you compare them they are very similar to the developments in the Syrian economy at the time, funny coincidence that


Well, all the former anti-imperialists are turning to market economics on different levels. Some are completely capitulating, some are using it as a means to an end.

The point is this doesn't make Syria an imperialist country, and in this age of massive US supremacy we need their support.

Guns and money!

[Xiao Banfa]

Apart from the fact that they are not 'left communists and anarchists', nor do they come from those historical roots.

There are members of the anti-german left that are autonomous marxists and anarchists.



They do not have a position against national liberation either. They have a different position in favour of national liberation.They are just supporting a different nation. Why because they believe that they were historical oppressed. It is not that different from your analysis.


It's very different. I'm not sure about this 'oppressed nation' concept, but I know where I stand when I see a powerful imperialist country behaving as colonial oppressors and/or violating the sovereignty of a smaller nation (and I don't mean former client states gone of the leash)
but Ireland, Kurdistan, the Basque country, New Caledonia, Aceh, West Papua etc..).

They are self-described anarchists and anti-state communists who believe Israel should be the last state to be disestablished.

The anti german fruitcakes support imperialism, they are opposed to national liberation in real terms.

The same goes for any party prepared to incorporate turkish nationalism

If any of those groups knew what leftist support for national liberation really means they would break ranks with the imperialists and national chauvinists they are tied to.

Real National Liberation movements are on the progressive side of the history.

Why do you think that these large capitalist powers are and have been so determined to fight against national liberation?

If it's all the same for the international finance capital, why do the imperialists fight such life and death struggles against these movements.

[Devrim]

There are members of the anti-german left that are autonomous marxists and anarchists.

What does 'autonomous marxist' mean? Which anarchists are part of anti-deutsche?

Please produce evidence of left communists being members of the anti-deutsche current. Other wise I will take it that this is just a blatant lie.

In fact the origins of anti-deutsche are somewhat different:


The first stirrings of the emergence of the anti-Germans can be traced back to the dissolution process of the Kommunistischer Bund (KB) ("Communist Federation"), a Marxist-Leninist political organization primarily active in Hamburg and Northern Germany

It comes from Marxist-Leninism (i.e. Maoism). A tendency, which is fully in support of national liberation struggles. They have just switched, which side they are supporting.


Why do you think that these large capitalist powers are and have been so determined to fight against national liberation?

If it's all the same for the international finance capital, why do the imperialists fight such life and death struggles against these movements.


It's very different. I'm not sure about this 'oppressed nation' concept, but I know where I stand when I see a powerful imperialist country behaving as colonial oppressors and/or violating the sovereignty of a smaller nation (and I don't mean former client states gone of the leash)
but Ireland, Kurdistan, the Basque country, New Caledonia, Aceh, West Papua etc..).

I don't think that it is different in anyway.

Before, I develop this argument, let's go through a series of questions:

1) Do you support the Iraq resistance?
2) Was Iraq a 'former client states gone of[f] the leash'?
3) If there were war between Turkey, and the USA, and Turkey was occupied would you support a 'Turkish resistance'?
4) If the answers to question 1, and question 3 are different, why are they different.
5) In the case of the events described in question 3, do you think that Turkish fascists would play a significant role in this resistance?

To me it is a small step between deciding to support one state, or another. Internationalism is based upon completely different principles.

Back to your point, I will speak about the Kurdish question as it is one of the ones I am most familiar with.

The Kurdish nationalist organisations have always been pawns in the struggle between the regional (and sometimes international) powers.Kurdish nationalist organisations have been used by/ or allied themselves with at times Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, USA, USSR, Israel. The idea that this complete prostitution to this interests of various different states is in some way connected to national independence is an absolute absurdity. National independence is something that is not realisable in today's world. No nation can be independent.

All of the major Kurdish parties have been directly involved in attacks on workers. Regardless of whatever red flag they wrap themselves in. These are the sort of nationalists who shoot dead striking workers.

Al of them have showed animosity towards other minority groups in their area. I remember a PKK man in London once saying to me 'as soon a s we have Kurdistan, we will butcher the Alevi'. Though PKK policy on the Alevi today has changed, the general tendency of all of these groups is still chauvinistic.


Why do you think that these large capitalist powers are and have been so determined to fight against national liberation?

One power fights it, and another one backs it. National liberation is merely a tool of different states.

Devrim

[jmc]

I love Germans.

[Xiao Banfa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
The first stirrings of the emergence of the anti-Germans can be traced back to the dissolution process of the Kommunistischer Bund (KB) ("Communist Federation"), a Marxist-Leninist political organization primarily active in Hamburg and Northern Germany

It comes from Marxist-Leninism (i.e. Maoism). A tendency, which is fully in support of national liberation struggles. They have just switched, which side they are supporting.


Just because the trend originated in a split in that communist group, it doesn't mean that all of those members were marxist-leninists.

CLR James was once a trotskyist, but became a left communist.

The article suggests that the KB setting up the journal Bahamas led to pluralistic discussions during which anti-german ideologies were developed.

The KB simply opened a discussion where some participants took anti-german positions.


Gradually, this diversity of perspectives gave way to a tendency oriented towards a Freiburger (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freiburger&action=edit) organization known as the "Socialist Forum Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Forum_Initiative&action=edit)" (Initiative Sozialistisches Forum), a radical left formation mixing elements of council communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism) and elements of Critical Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Theory), particular Theodor W. Adorno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno) and the Frankfurt School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School).


What does 'autonomous marxist' mean? Which anarchists are part of anti-deutsche?

Please produce evidence of left communists being members of the anti-deutsche current. Other wise I will take it that this is just a blatant lie.

They seem to be pretty enamoured with Lenin here:


The Nazis, who are considered fundamentally right-wing, were the most consistent executioners of Lenin’s anti-Imperialism, the most consistent executioners of the left’s romantic anti-Capitalism, consisting of nothing else than hating the rich and speculators, i.e. the Jews.

(source- http://www.realization.info/pol/deutsch/40.html)


Unlike the Bolshevik occurrences of marxism, anti-German communists are not into worshiping classic authors.

(source- http://cafecritique.priv.at/interviewIN.html) That's from a major anti-german website.

A woman describing herself as an "anti-german anarchist'' visited New Zealand a few years ago as well, I can't provide you with any indisputable evidence so take it or leave it.

Anti-German Manfredd Dahlmann: (It was Babelfished so, the grammar is a bit rough. Source- http://www.isf-freiburg.org/isf/beitraege/dahlmann-antideutsch.html)

These (anti-germans) refused itself coming up the Nach-68er movements into the party of the Greens, after they had left theoretically the work value teachings and politically Stalinismus, Leninism and Trotzkismus behind itself; persisted in the necessity for the abolishment of state and money and politics and nation;

One could argue that the anti-germans are a consequence of left-communist and anarchist equations of national liberation with fascism.

If you don't support those battling against imperialism and it's plans of 3rd world asset theft, then you aren't opposing the biggest forces of capitalism in any real way, so you may as well support the 'tolerant, enlightened' imperialists.


Al of them have showed animosity towards other minority groups in their area. I remember a PKK man in London once saying to me 'as soon a s we have Kurdistan, we will butcher the Alevi'. Though PKK policy on the Alevi today has changed, the general tendency of all of these groups is still chauvinistic.

Well, in the anti-apartheid camp there was all sorts of animosity between Xhosa and Zulu, but, for all it's faults is the government of SA a Xhosa or a Zulu state?


1) Do you support the Iraq resistance?

Yes, I support legitimate armed resitance by non-salafi, non-sectarian groups such as the Islamic Army in Iraq.

I also support workers militias organised by the WCPI and workers actions organised by that group.


2) Was Iraq a 'former client states gone of[f] the leash'?

Yes.


3) If there were war between Turkey, and the USA, and Turkey was occupied would you support a 'Turkish resistance'?

Yes. And I'd hope you would too. Or would you like to wish them away?


5) In the case of the events described in question 3, do you think that Turkish fascists would play a significant role in this resistance?

Yes, but I would advocate no cooperation with them.

You are right that progressives and workers in Turkey would be in a very difficult situation. But this is not common.


One power fights it, and another one backs it. National liberation is merely a tool of different states.

Please tell me which state the IRA was fighting for in the independence war of 1919-22?

Different states merely seek to use the movements for their own coinciding interests. "National Liberation" groups that are complete tools of foreign states are usually very unsuccessful. As-Saiqa and the Arab Liberation Front are a case in point of this.

[Xiao Banfa]

Answering your question about autonomous marxism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism

[Zurdito]

The Nazis, who are considered fundamentally right-wing, were the most consistent executioners of Lenin’s anti-Imperialism, the most consistent executioners of the left’s romantic anti-Capitalism, consisting of nothing else than hating the rich and speculators, i.e. the Jews.


Lenin defined Germany as an imperialist country and condemned the parts of the left within Germany which collaborated with the WW1 effort. He called for revolutionary defeatism within Germany. So how can you say that a movement which tried to build a German empire was Leninist anti-imperialist?

[Devrim]

So there are no sources for left communists or anarchists (which is a pretty shocking use of amalgamation technique in itself) supporting the anti-Germans except for one woman you met who claimed to be an anarchist. Well, that is pretty convincing. The mayor of London also claimed to be an anarchist. As you seem to think that CLR James was a left communist, I think we should leave this point as you have no idea what left communism is.


One could argue that the anti-germans are a consequence of left-communist and anarchist equations of national liberation with fascism.

Well yes one could. One could also argue that the moon is made of cheese. Generally evidence is helpful in the argument though. Please show where left communists have equated national liberation with fascism. Please note that I didn't do it on this thread. I merely said that groups supporting national liberation are generally not adverse to making alliances with fascists, as Hezbullah have done in the past.


If you don't support those battling against imperialism and it's plans of 3rd world asset theft, then you aren't opposing the biggest forces of capitalism in any real way, so you may as well support the 'tolerant, enlightened' imperialists.

I don't think that you understand what imperialism is. It is a world system. All that supporting other powers against the major imperialist states can do is redress the balance of power. It offers nothing to the working class.


Yes, I support legitimate armed resitance by non-salafi, non-sectarian groups such as the Islamic Army in Iraq.

I also support workers militias organised by the WCPI and workers actions organised by that group.

Interestingly, the worker communists have a position much closer to mine on this question. They oppose the resistance, and see it as an anti-working class force.

What we have learnt from you answers to the above questions though is that you think it is right for socialists to fight on behalf of a weaker power against the stronger one. You view of socialism seems to be something that has the task of trying to level the playing field between different bourgeois states.You seem to have moral scruples about actually working together with fascists, but as we have seen earlier in the thread you have no qualms about supporting others who do.


Please tell me which state the IRA was fighting for in the independence war of 1919-22?

I think that this is a general tendency, which is intensifying with time, and isn't always true. The Irish republicans were backed by German Imperialism only three years before the dates that you give though.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

from the link Xiao Banfa posted by one of these "anti-Germans":



In 1999, during the Kosovo War, I wrote an article opposing America’s bombing of Belgrade. I didn’t criticise the American interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo in principle, but I criticised the Clinton Administration for intervening on the wrong sides.


WTF!?

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.realization.info/pol/deutsch/40.html

[Xiao Banfa]

As you seem to think that CLR James was a left communist, I think we should leave this point as you have no idea what left communism is.

He was a council communist.


So there are no sources for left communists or anarchists (which is a pretty shocking use of amalgamation technique in itself) supporting the anti-Germans except for one woman you met who claimed to be an anarchist.

Did you not read those quotes? Anti-state, anti-leninism?

In this day and age it seems impossible that a group like that wouldn't be riddled with anti-state communists.


I don't think that you understand what imperialism is. It is a world system.

Where have I misunderstood the theory of imperialism?

I'm fully aware of what kind of world system is and that all nations have to compromise with it to different extents.

But it's defenders and prosecutors are not the arab socialists of Syria, but the major capitalist states. These are the Enemy of The Proletariat no.1.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa
One could argue that the anti-germans are a consequence of left-communist and anarchist equations of national liberation with fascism.

Well yes one could. One could also argue that the moon is made of cheese. Generally evidence is helpful in the argument though.



Complete neglect of national liberation as a component of the world revolution is based on fear of nationalism.

Nationalism is seen as a cousin or parent of fascism.

You and Malte have made it clear that marxism-leninist positions are not far from fascism or sit comfortably with them.


All that supporting other powers against the major imperialist states can do is redress the balance of power. It offers nothing to the working class.

It's almost as if you are comparing allying with the Kaiser!


you think it is right for socialists to fight on behalf of a weaker power against the stronger one

No, I do not use this blanket formula as I have already enunciated.


You view of socialism seems to be something that has the task of trying to level the playing field between different bourgeois states.

No, my view of socialism is destroying capitalist power using an effective strategy then having the means of production in the hands of the international working class.

[Devrim]

He [CLR James]was a council communist.
No, he wasn't. He was a member of the Johnson-Forest tendency.


Did you not read those quotes? Anti-state, anti-leninism?

In this day and age it seems impossible that a group like that wouldn't be riddled with anti-state communists.

Basically you whole attempt to back up you smears is like this. You have no evidence whatsoever of the anti-Germans having anything to do with left communism, and you try to amalgamate it with whatever tendencies you can grasp at, first you talked of autonomous Marxism, now it is anti-state communists. Also notice that there is no evidence whatsoever here merely speculation. Your whole method is fundamentally dishonest.


You and Malte have made it clear that marxism-leninist positions are not far from fascism or sit comfortably with them.

Again this states with amalgamation. What do my positions have to do with those of Malte. What I have argued here is that Maoist groups support of nationalism is anti-working class.


Complete neglect of national liberation as a component of the world revolution is based on fear of nationalism.

Nationalism is seen as a cousin or parent of fascism.

In our opinion national liberation is not a component of the world revolution. It is strange that you seem to see no connection between nationalism, and fascism.


It's almost as if you are comparing allying with the Kaiser!

Yes, in our view support for national liberation movements today is as bad as allying with the Kaiser was in 1914. It is the complete abandonment of class politics. The leftists today act as little more than cheerleaders and recruiting sergeants for various anti-working class nationalist movements.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1069234#post1069234)
He [CLR James]was a council communist.

No, he wasn't. He was a member of the Johnson-Forest tendency.


It appears I was mistaken, but this is irrelevant to my point.


You have no evidence whatsoever of the anti-Germans having anything to do with left communism, and you try to amalgamate it with whatever tendencies you can grasp at, first you talked of autonomous Marxism, now it is anti-state communists. Also notice that there is no evidence whatsoever here merely speculation. Your whole method is fundamentally dishonest.

Left-communism comprises a whole lot of perspectives, and don't tell me autonomism is not related.

It's inconcevable, with their opposition to bolshevism, that left communist ideas aren't rife amongst the anti-germans.

They sound like them. They go on about how 'anti imperialism' as it exists in the anti-capitalist left strengthens nationalism. This sounds like your pitch.

And I'm not trying to deceive you, why would I want to do that? Why would I want to damage my credibilty like that? What kind of debate is it when someone just starts making shit up?


Again this states with amalgamation. What do my positions have to do with those of Malte. What I have argued here is that Maoist groups support of nationalism is anti-working class.

Yes I know you've argued this and so has your fellow left communist, Malte.


In our opinion national liberation is not a component of the world revolution. It is strange that you seem to see no connection between nationalism, and fascism.

I see the connection very well, I'd have to be pretty stupid not to see that.
I just don't think fascism necessarily results from nationalism.

It's strange you cannot differentiate between nationalism of the oppressed and nationalism of the oppressor.


Yes, in our view support for national liberation movements today is as bad as allying with the Kaiser was in 1914. It is the complete abandonment of class politics. The leftists today act as little more than cheerleaders and recruiting sergeants for various anti-working class nationalist movements.

Yes a mass movement of the oppressed fighting imperialism is the same as a giant colonial power doing battle with another giant colonial power for supremacy.

Of course, so similar.

Defeating the biggest bourgeois class-warriors is an abandonment of class politics?

I'd call it recognising your enemy, your class enemy.

[Devrim]

Left-communism comprises a whole lot of perspectives, and don't tell me autonomism is not related.
No, it doesn't.

Yes I know you've argued this and so has your fellow left communist, Malte.
Malte is not a left communist. Nor does he claim to be. I can see where your confusion comes from with these revleft group labels. We are currently sorting that out. However, the positions that he argues are very distinct.

It's inconcevable, with their opposition to bolshevism, that left communist ideas aren't rife amongst the anti-germans.
I don't think that you have any idea what you are talking about. In 1917, the communist left were the strongest supporters of Bolshevism.

And I'm not trying to deceive you, why would I want to do that? Why would I want to damage my credibilty like that? What kind of debate is it when someone just starts making shit up?
If you are not making things up, I would suggest that you stop advertising your ignorance about different political tendencies. It always helps to know what you are talking about.


I see the connection very well, I'd have to be pretty stupid not to see that.
I just don't think fascism necessarily results from nationalism.

Neither do we, fascism seems to be your obsession though. You keep going on about it.


It's strange you cannot differentiate between nationalism of the oppressed and nationalism of the oppressor.

Of course I can. It is just that we draw fundamentally different conclusions.


Yes a mass movement of the oppressed fighting imperialism is the same as a giant colonial power doing battle with another giant colonial power for supremacy.

Of course, so similar.

Defeating the biggest bourgeois class-warriors is an abandonment of class politics?

Support for a group like Hezbollah is an abandonment of class politics. It is support for a group that is an integral part of a state that only the other Sunday was shooting down protesters in South Beirut.

You can not have it both ways. Either there is national unity, or there is class conflict. All those who preach the ideology of national defence are objectively against the working class.

Devrim

[Xiao Banfa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1069920#post1069920)
Left-communism comprises a whole lot of perspectives, and don't tell me autonomism is not related.

No, it doesn't.


Well, the official (for want of a better word) Bordiga-Gorter-Pannekoek left communism is one definition of the word.

But it can also mean ultra leftism.


I don't think that you have any idea what you are talking about. In 1917, the communist left were the strongest supporters of Bolshevism.

Don't I? There not supporting bolshevism now and haven't been for a long time.
That pretty much defines them.


Neither do we, fascism seems to be your obsession though. You keep going on about it.

The discussion of fascism is a core issue in this thread. You've been talking about it as much as I have.


You can not have it both ways. Either there is national unity, or there is class conflict. All those who preach the ideology of national defence are objectively against the working class.

That is rubbish for a number of reasons. But first, why is it that communist parties have always been the most consistent and thoroughgoing supporters of national independence?

And slipping in the word 'national defence' was a nice slight of hand.

Throwing major capitalist powers out of third world nations damages the system of imperialism, this is irrefutable.

When this is followed by the elimination of capitalist property relations, you have yourself a working class revolution.

[Devrim]

Well, the official (for want of a better word) Bordiga-Gorter-Pannekoek left communism is one definition of the word.

But it can also mean ultra leftism.

Left communism is a particular tendency. The term ultra-left is an insult that is often used against the left communists, but has also been used against Trotskyists, Maoists, and any number of tendencies.


Don't I? There not supporting bolshevism now and haven't been for a long time.
That pretty much defines them.

This could be due to the fact that Bolshevism doesn't exist today.


The discussion of fascism is a core issue in this thread. You've been talking about it as much as I have.

For us it is not a core issue.


That is rubbish for a number of reasons. But first, why is it that communist parties have always been the most consistent and thoroughgoing supporters of national independence?

Because effectively they became a tool for Soviet imperialism. In fact they weren't consistent. They consistently supported national liberation when it was in the interests of the Russian state.


And slipping in the word 'national defence' was a nice slight of hand.

You support 'national defence', or a least support people who do, such as Hezbullah. There is no slight of hand there.


Throwing major capitalist powers out of third world nations damages the system of imperialism, this is irrefutable.

Why is it irrefutable? Because you say it is. In today's world kicking out one power means brining another in. It doesn't damage the system of imperialism at all. It merely changes the balance of power within it.

It can damage the power of particular states, but at what cost? The price is tying the working class to national capital, and having them die on its behalf.

Devrim

[progressive_lefty]

I find the views of 'Malte' pretty concerning, and the sensitivety expressed towards any criticism of the anti-german movement, Israel or anti-semitism. The anti-german antifa are an absolute disgrace to working class politics, considering their support for US imperialism and Israel in its current form. As discussed, the argument that anti-zionism is anti-semitic is incorrect, and is the same as claiming Native Americans are anti-European or anti-Christian for defending their land.