Ethnic cleansing

[jake williams]

Is ethnic cleansing inherently wrong? If so why? Is it possible to provide a Marxist critique of ethnic cleansing?

BD edit (please read this other post by jammoe from this thread before replying):

I'm sorry I didn't really make my point explicit. I'm frustrated. It wasn't the right way to ask the question, it was deliberately confrontational and evocative and I probably shouldn't have been.

I've picked up a tone - I think partly from a few posters here, but more generally - of something disturbs me. I had a thread in the history forum. Tibet vs. Palestine. The implication by a number of people there, I think, and I may be misinterpreting, is that the atrocity of Israeli actions is their place as an imperialist proxy - and not something inherent in the process. The implication, or at least the logic I think, is that there's "good" ethnic cleansing and "bad" ethnic cleansing. I just don't think it's required to say that Israel is an imperialist proxy, even though it is. The feeling I get is that if one has to say it it's because the record on the ground in Palestine isn't enough to indict.

There's sort of, well, a broader thing and a thing that's even broader than that. First, I recognize that imperialism and colonialism exist within a class context, but I think, to put it one way, it's a sufficient but not a necessary cause. I think you can have something that's analogous to these processes even if it functions somewhat differently. And I think it would still be wrong, because I don't think the morality of this is because of its place within capitalist power relations, I think that capitalist power relations are bad because they result in things like this.

The other thing is I think there's a general notion that morality requires recourse to text, that you have a theory of political economy and scientific amoral morality and that's supposed to explain everything. I don't think that's legitimate, but the general feeling I get is that a lot of people use that.

[Bilan]

Is the intentional wiping out of a particular 'race' - i.e. genocide - wrong?
Gee, I wonder. :rolleyes:

[Pogue]

Yeh, what the fuck is with this question? How could anyone ever say No to the first question?

[Black Dagger]

Jammoe is this a joke? If so, it's not very funny. If not, huh? Do you know what ethnic cleansing is? :blink:

[jake williams]

Well it seems to me that, with Israel big in present discussion, there are a lot of Marxists who want to try to shape the conflict in terms of class context, that it's only relevant if you have a ruling class oppressing and exploiting a working class, and implying that if there's nothing inherently wrong with the history of ethnic cleansing, and that the real concern is the Israeli working class.

[Black Dagger]

I'm finding it it difficult to understand what you're talking about...

Are you talking about posts you read on this site? If so, who implied there's nothing wrong with ethnic cleansing? And certainly communists consider the matter of class as it relates to the israel-palestine conflict - particularly left-communists in relation to the debate around support for national liberation struggles etc.

But none of that explains why you started this thread? You can't seriously think that most communists would support ethnic cleansing? So why start a thread with such a redundant question? I.E. One you already know the answer to.

Very confusing... worrying thread, please clarify yourself.

Do you think ethnic cleansing is inherently wrong?

[jake williams]

I'm sorry I didn't really make my point explicit. I'm frustrated. It wasn't the right way to ask the question, it was deliberately confrontational and evocative and I probably shouldn't have been.

I've picked up a tone - I think partly from a few posters here, but more generally - of something disturbs me. I had a thread in the history forum. Tibet vs. Palestine. The implication by a number of people there, I think, and I may be misinterpreting, is that the atrocity of Israeli actions is their place as an imperialist proxy - and not something inherent in the process. The implication, or at least the logic I think, is that there's "good" ethnic cleansing and "bad" ethnic cleansing. I just don't think it's required to say that Israel is an imperialist proxy, even though it is. The feeling I get is that if one has to say it it's because the record on the ground in Palestine isn't enough to indict.

There's sort of, well, a broader thing and a thing that's even broader than that. First, I recognize that imperialism and colonialism exist within a class context, but I think, to put it one way, it's a sufficient but not a necessary cause. I think you can have something that's analogous to these processes even if it functions somewhat differently. And I think it would still be wrong, because I don't think the morality of this is because of its place within capitalist power relations, I think that capitalist power relations are bad because they result in things like this.

The other thing is I think there's a general notion that morality requires recourse to text, that you have a theory of political economy and scientific amoral morality and that's supposed to explain everything. I don't think that's legitimate, but the general feeling I get is that a lot of people use that.

[SocialRealist]

Yes it is wrong. Why would genocide be correct? The act of killing massive amounts of people with the intent of clearing out a race seems very brutal and evil to me and the rest of humanity I would hope.

[Dimentio]

A very interesting question, if we hypothetically were to encounter alien races I guess. I mean, if we encounter an extra-terrestial intelligent race which is the equivalent to fictionary Orcs or Gremlins, and seems dedicated to erradicate us, I think it could be defended from some perspective.

Otherwise, nah.

Not good.

[Yehuda Stern]

Jammoe, I think you're very right - that's the reasoning of most groups today, that the Israeli working class is the revolutionary subject in Israel and that revolutionaries should focus on recruiting it and not the Palestinian working class. I think these people have a very cynical approach to Third World peoples and do not understand the reality of class relations in Israel, but I hardly think any of them would openly justify ethnic cleansing, reprehensible as their positions are.

[Pogue]

Jammoe, I think you're very right - that's the reasoning of most groups today, that the Israeli working class is the revolutionary subject in Israel and that revolutionaries should focus on recruiting it and not the Palestinian working class. I think these people have a very cynical approach to Third World peoples and do not understand the reality of class relations in Israel, but I hardly think any of them would openly justify ethnic cleansing, reprehensible as their positions are.

Who are these people?

[MarxSchmarx]

I recognize that imperialism and colonialism exist within a class context, but I think, to put it one way, it's a sufficient but not a necessary cause. I think you can have something that's analogous to these processes even if it functions somewhat differently. And I think it would still be wrong, because I don't think the morality of this is because of its place within capitalist power relations, I think that capitalist power relations are bad because they result in things like this.

...

The other thing is I think there's a general notion that morality requires recourse to text, that you have a theory of political economy and scientific amoral morality and that's supposed to explain everything. I don't think that's legitimate, but the general feeling I get is that a lot of people use that. If you're critique is against economic reductionism, then I agree. Certainly, ethnic cleansing has occurred in non-capitalist societies, such as feudal societies.

What I think is fair to doubt, though, is whether a truly class-less society can result in ethnic cleansing. I don't think it can.

Ethnic cleansing is, and has always been, tied to economic inequalities. I have no reason to believe that ethnic cleansing will exist absent economic injustice. The sorry fact of the matter is, there is no single example in the history of mankind where "ethnic cleansing" occurred absent a (in some cases blatently) obvious economic context. If that makes me a vulgar materialist, then so be it.

[jake williams]

If you're critique is against economic reductionism
Essentially, yeah.


What I think is fair to doubt, though, is whether a truly class-less society can result in ethnic cleansing. I don't think it can.

Ethnic cleansing is, and has always been, tied to economic inequalities. I have no reason to believe that ethnic cleansing will exist absent economic injustice. The sorry fact of the matter is, there is no single example in the history of mankind where "ethnic cleansing" occurred absent a (in some cases blatently) obvious economic context.
It's a possibility. I don't know if it's an easy question to investigate. One thing I would say is that there's a problem with defining "class" as something within societies whereas the type of "ethnic cleansing" I'm talking about, I think can be said to happen between societies. I also don't know what the significance of the answer would be precisely.

Like I think if you could show that the things we call ethnic cleansing are always the result of class structure internal to some definition of a society, I still think, like I said, that the "wrongness" of it would come from the specificities of that sort of a process itself, that you're harming people, and this would be evidence that class societies are not good for people. I think this sort of distinction is important. And I think that Karl Marx takes the other position, that moral evaluation derives from class power, but I honestly may be misreading Marx and I would like to know why and how if I am. It's a sincere question, and I don't like that it comes off hostile on the internet.


If that makes me a vulgar materialist, then so be it.
I don't think it does.

[Yehuda Stern]

Who are these people?

Most Orto-Trot groups (including the Sparts, CWI, IMT, USec, etc.) take the position that the Israeli working class is just like any other, regardless of the colonialist history of Israel. Others, like the SWP and the ISO, are just not very interested in building a revolutionary party in opposition to the Islamists in the Middle East, despite their recognition of the centrality of the Arab working class to the revolution.

[communard resolution]

Others, like the SWP and the ISO, are just not very interested in building a revolutionary party in opposition to the Islamists in the Middle East.

What do you think are the reasons for this?

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't know if it's an easy question to investigate. One thing I would say is that there's a problem with defining "class" as something within societies whereas the type of "ethnic cleansing" I'm talking about, I think can be said to happen between societies. I also don't know what the significance of the answer would be precisely.


That's an interesting point - it raises the question, precisely where shold one delimit societies? Did Croats and Serbs, for example, really live in the "same society" as opposed to the same country (SFRY)?


Like I think if you could show that the things we call ethnic cleansing are always the result of class structure internal to some definition of a society, I still think, like I said, that the "wrongness" of it would come from the specificities of that sort of a process itself, that you're harming people, and this would be evidence that class societies are not good for people. I think this sort of distinction is important.

I agree.


And I think that Karl Marx takes the other position, that moral evaluation derives from class power, but I honestly may be misreading Marx and I would like to know why and how if I am. It's a sincere question, and I don't like that it comes off hostile on the internet.



Haha not at all. I think the difficulty arises out of Marx the social scientist versus Marx the humanist. In both cases, Marx denounced bourgeois morality as hypocrisy and inherently self-contradictory, not as morality per se. Hence, he was able to reconcile his humanist side with his social scientific "moral relativism" if you will. However, whether he would have equally denounced inconsistencies in a proletarian morality (which would also condemn ethnic cleansing as "dividing the working class" rather than "for its own sake"), is an open question. I tend to think Marx didn't have to face this dilemma, because he also believed (rightly or wrongly) that a proletarian-run society would also be largely free from internal contradictions, and, hence, moral hypocrisy.

[Dean]

I get the feeling that this is about the Israeli / Palestinian working class. The idea I gather is that, appealing to the Israeli workers is wrong in the conflict because it doesn't condemn them for the ethnic cleansing?

Well, first I would say that is wrong. Israeli workers have a right to decent living conditions, and to live in the region as well. Just not as they have been. I know Y. Stern will disagree with me on this, but I really detest the notion that Israeli or Jewish people could be considered to have less rights than Palestinians to the land, except in those cases where the Israelis are living on land which has to be given back. I know this is somewhat vague, but in conflicts like this one the answer is never easy.

As for ethnic cleansing - it is wrong, regardless of the apparent class context. I really don't see how this is up for debate.

[Yehuda Stern]

What do you think are the reasons for this?

I don't want to derail the thread; elaborations would be better saved for a private chat or a separate thread. To keep it simple, I think these two specific groups pander to reformism and middle-class radicalism, both of which are inherently nationalist and are not interested in creating a world socialist party.


whether he would have equally denounced inconsistencies in a proletarian morality (which would also condemn ethnic cleansing as "dividing the working class" rather than "for its own sake"), is an open question. I tend to think Marx didn't have to face this dilemma, because he also believed (rightly or wrongly) that a proletarian-run society would also be largely free from internal contradictions, and, hence, moral hypocrisy.1. I think Marx would reply that there's no morality "for its own sake." All morality flows from class interests. The reason why a proletarian revolutionist thinks the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is wrong "for its own sake" is because he stands for the proletarian revolution.

2. I don't think it's true that any society, or anything that exists and develops, is free of contradictions. Also, Marxists don't see a proletarian-run society as the final goal. The final goal for us is a communist classless society.


I know Y. Stern will disagree with me on this, but I really detest the notion that Israeli or Jewish people could be considered to have less rights than Palestinians to the land, except in those cases where the Israelis are living on land which has to be given back.I don't know where you got that idea. The ISL fully supports the notion that any Israeli Jew living in this land has the right to stay in it given that he does not tries to overthrow the proletarian dictatorship (which is the Leninist position for any revolutionary state).

Certainly the native people has more right to the land than colonialists; but we should this also apply to those who have broken from their colonialist past?

[redguard2009]

"Breaking" with your colonial past does not change the fact that you still occupy stolen land. The majority of Jewish Israelis may one day "absolve" themselves of zionism, but that won't change the fact that large parts of modern Israel inhabited by Jewish families and workers once belonged to Arabs; while those who originally stole the land are mostly dead and gone, their offspring continues to occupy that land, while the offspring of those who had their land stolen still live in refugee camps throughout Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon.

In any case, I think it's unrealistic to expect that the Jewish working class will ever liberalize away from the strong zionist traditions at their core, particularly when faced with the obvious consequence that doing so will mean many having to give their stolen property back to Arabs.

[jake williams]

"Breaking" with your colonial past does not change the fact that you still occupy stolen land. The majority of Jewish Israelis may one day "absolve" themselves of zionism, but that won't change the fact that large parts of modern Israel inhabited by Jewish families and workers once belonged to Arabs; while those who originally stole the land are mostly dead and gone, their offspring continues to occupy that land, while the offspring of those who had their land stolen still live in refugee camps throughout Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon.

In any case, I think it's unrealistic to expect that the Jewish working class will ever liberalize away from the strong zionist traditions at their core, particularly when faced with the obvious consequence that doing so will mean many having to give their stolen property back to Arabs.
Where do you live?