Charlie Hebdo and other attacks in Paris

I've been pretty put off by the general response I've seen to this from (American) leftists, which has been to attack Charlie Hebdo as racist, Islamhobic, white supremacist, etc. with the implication that there's some mitigating factors to the awfulness of massacring a bunch of journalists.

One thing that has gone unnoticed is that Der Stürmer were not just mocking the Jews, although they were pretty provocative, they also targeted catholicism and stalinism! Isn't that great? Got to defend the West and our funny traditions.

The 'making fun of all religions' thing seems like the trite 'it is illegal for both the rich man and poor man to sleep under bridges' thing, am I wrong? Obviously, Catholics are not a dispossessed, marginalized, de facto segregated and demonized minority subject to crazy disproportionate incarceration rates.

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about this paper,the French tradition of satire, the condition of Muslims in France or the rising anti-immigrant sentiment there, but it's sort of bullshit that the choice presented here seems to be between politicized religious extremism that engages in indiscriminate attacks and Hitchens-esque neoconservative 'New Atheism' that upholds a stratified and discriminatory society. Or between an oppressive monotheistic force and an abstract 'freedom of speech'.

From what I've understood, Charlie Hebdo was a publication which was atheistic and politically moderate to left liberal. From what I understand, they'd ran a cover against islamophobia and were about to organize an anti-racism conference. The murder of these cartoonists is obviously horrible, the fact that the staff didn't bow down to constant threats is admirable on a basic human level and these cartoonists were after all working there.

I live in the Middle East and everyone I've talked to about it were shocked and sad. I think that's quite a healthy proletarian reaction to something like this. Not that there aren't people who want to highlight the alleged racism of the paper where I live but they tend to be Islamist supporters of the government.

What I'm concerned about is the people singing the Marseilles on the squares. That's never a good sign. Nor is the talk that this is a "declaration of war", people attacking mosques or blowing up kebab shops.

On I side note, I've observed that the journalists here are rather unable to discuss this situation in the telly. Whenever they try to do so, they seem to get stuck in talking about the massacres of sectarian minorities, brutal murders of missionaries and the assasinations of journalists.

Yeah, this ^^^

I find it worrying that so few people have picked up on this and think racist cartoons are satire.. as if the only thing that matters is the content regardless of context, who's satirising, who's being satirised etc..

Charlie Hebdo was blatantly racist as fuck
http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105

This is one of their fine satirical cartoons.

"The sex slaves of Boko Haram are angry. Don't touch our benefits."

Good satire aims up the social hierarchy. Aiming down is at best snobbery and often racist.

Several thoughts:

1. Obviously, this is murder. We (meaning Marxists, communists whatever) don't condone it; don't support it; don't defend it; "it" being this act, committed in this manner, by these individuals.

2. Politically, Hebdo's "satire" is no more "left-wing," than ISIS or the Taliban or Al Qaeda is "left wing."

3. There's no point to us (see above we) responding as if this "is an attack on us all." No, it is not an attack on us all. No we don't express our "unity" our "solidarity" with Hebdo, or the "French people." Prior to this, after 9/11, we were NOT all "world trade centerers;" we opposed the national-ism, the "national mourning" that was designed to and for greasing the war machine.

Our "job," our class job remains what it is and was-- opposition to the bourgeoisie and its state in their local and global iterations.

4. Maybe it's just me, living in NYC, 1 mile from the WTC, and luckily, believe it or not, having forgotten to attend a meeting that day in the South Tower on the 94th floor, but I think the story about this attack stinks. I mean it just doesn't smell right. The attackers go to the wrong building, using force of weapons to enter that building; force two people to the floor and demand directions to the right building; get into the right building but are misdirected to the wrong floor, get to the right floor, and then several minutes later and several blocks away, (according to France24 news) encounter a single police car with a lone officer where they engage in a gunfight? And in all that time-- the area isn't sealed off? Other police units don't show up?

Can we see a timeline please?

Now I have no great regard for the competence of the police, or the military, or North American Air Defense Command or special forces, but come on..... given that the French police were supposed to be on heightened alert anyway... WTF? Blowback? No doubt. But something more? Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? I don't know. It just doesn't smell right to me.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm leaving the post below coz I spent time writing it but essentially bastarx did it better when he wrote

Feel free to read my post as well but it basically says the same but with lots more words..

Firstly, I think it's wrong to characterise this as being just about the level of Muslim poverty, it's also about persecution which often involves having the piss taken out of you based on common stereotypes.. the danger of mocking a persecuted group, then, is how easy it is to slip into those common tropes.. the image you put up is arguably a better attempt (though just having a Muslim and Jew, when you're a Christian country who's seen a recent spike in Quennelle-ing little shits is a little dodgy imo).. but others are fucking terrible..

I don't really get what's so different from the above picture and the Class War bonfire.. it's based on lazy stereotypes readily available in right-wing/mainstream press.. or this poem (just an extract) from the CH editor:

The jist being what? Muslims are fascists who will kill you if you try to talk about their religion? I don't get how that's anywhere near approaching satire as opposed to outright racism. So you can talk about the need to challenge structural problems rather than tip-toe around reactionary beliefs but is that what Charlie Hebdo did? No, it just perpetuated the same shit as the rest of the media..

I do think there is a way to satirise Islam that would've been more successful as satire rather than just racism.. but CH failed on that front imo..

Exactly. Here, government journalists and ideologues are trying to condemn the attack with a but implying they have brought it on themselves.

Hope you're alright man

That makes about as much sense as saying social democrats are no more left wing than the Nazis. I don't tend to see left wing as a compliment, and I think Hebdo's politics are as bourgeois as any bourgeois paper, however I think this sort of comparisons aren't really positive.

This being said;

I completely agree with all of this.

Communists tend not to express solidarity with a company when its employees are murdered anyway.

Why just religion why not joking about "minority" races and gender also? After all most racist ideology (or ideology of race) these days is founded on "cultural" rather then biological foundations. Your assumption here is that Islam has an essence that one out of pc concern can tiptoe around or choose to confront. Its especially pertinent to Muslims because "western" discourse demands that all societies where Islam plays any notable role must be framed chiefly around this "religion." From domestic violence right up to some governments policy. During the 2003 Iraq invasion US/UK forces organized the new security apparatus- well in fact the entire apparatus- of the colonial state on sectarian rather then national lines. Clearly in the minds of these commissioners this is the chief organizing principle needed for these societies. One always hears from NATO establishment commentators criticism of Sykes/Pikot, not out of anti-imperialism but because ME states are seen as illegitimate and so free to be molded for correction(and as nation is illegitimate and 'arab" is (usually) too general and evocative of pro-Soviet bloc movements, this molding centers on "religion").

Julius Streicher was not responsible for concentration camps and was not implicated in any other instances of mass murder.

In 2006 Charlie Hebdo published the manifesto "Together facing the new totalitarianism" written by the usual types as well as its then editor, stating: "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all." They viewed their task in this war as that of propaganda (in the positive sense of this term) on the home front while, as the signatories past and future public statements show, the armies of their states would fight the war of arms.

Clearly they viewed themselves as partisans in a war. This is their significance as a target by Islamists as well as why their deaths shouldn't be mourned any more than journalists on the other side of the war like Anwar al-Awlaki were.

------

There's non stop coverage on US news networks about this now and the the nonsense is framed around freedom of speech as well as warmongering about how the Enemy fights immorally and lacks ethics while the homefront and its martyrs are righteous. There is no "freedom of speech" either in France- with its hate crime laws and lack of job protection re speech- or elsewhere. For example a few years ago when two UK Nazi's sought asylum in the US over a string of charges that essentially boiled down to them drawing an anti-Semetic cartoon called Tales of the HoloHoax it was denied and they were each jailed for 5 and 2 years. Similarly "freedom of speech" becomes "material support for terrorism" when the Enemy does it. There's countless people jailed in the US for voicing vocal support for Al-Shabbab, an Islamist militia that never attacked the US and which is fighting a foreign invasion by its neighbors, for good measure (and the US has nothing against backing Islamists militias abroad either way). And this isn't because they're Islamists, i.e. their particular politics. Israel killing Ghassan Kanafani and other intelligentsia of Palestinian nationalism didn't and doesn't conjure up denunciation.

Neither is the Iconoclasm of ISIS/AQ or the bashing of muslims by Charlie Hebdo central here (to note on the latter the Telegraph noted that Michel Houellebecq's (mentioned in the thread) latest variation on 'when-the-n----rs-take-over' story was effectively praised by Socialist President Hollande, who said he would read it but said the white genocide is not going to happen so "French [should] not to give into "fear" of "submersion, invasion, submission"" So Charlie Hebdo is by no means unique or out of step with its views on "Muslims"). Same day the massacre in Paris happened 40 cops working for the West in Yemen were blown up. They didn't get round the clock coverage and sermons. I turned on the BBC today for a second and they were actually playing a eulogy for Charlie Hebdo, with somber music and pictures of their work, as if some prince had just passed away. And_thats_why these editors were targeted and killed. They were dogs of the ruling elite in France (praised and honored by both the Sarkozy administration and the Socialists throughout the past decade). And not only were they dogs but they were, unlike the Yemeni cops, Western and by killing them their adversaries showed that they too can bleed. If from a distance one could feel sympathy, being bombarded with this self-righteousness- which characterized Charlie Hebdo's publishers when they were alive also- in the context of global war is too much for me personally.

This warrants a news thread but the Belgium General Strike of last month, fuck all.

Anyone can start a thread. Did you start one about the Belgian General Strike?

From the WSWS

Yet again the perpetrator(s) of one of these atrocities was under police surveillance. Did they double cross the cops? Or did the cops help them carry out their attack?

Looks like a lot of good points here, although I only had time to read through it quickly. I am rather annoyed by the facile politics of just putting up memes of Facebook saying "I am Charlie" with no further thought. If anybody reads other languages, it is worth looking over some responses and discussions like on Anarkismo to see that there are a few problems with articulating responses. It was interesting also to see the different responses in France - I read the FA, CNTF Vignoles and CNT-AIT Toulouse responses. The FA, is basically sympathy with victims, the CNTF Vignoles is afraid this will be used for racism and violence against Muslims and CNT-AIT Toulouse criticizing the fact that there needs to be a struggle against capitalism and the state and people are focusing on religion.

Particularly the emphasis being put on the line "Qu'un sang impur, arrose nos sillons..." in the singing I heard ("let[until] an impure blood waters our furrows"). Can't help having an uneasy feeling about whose blood was being put into the "impure" category, by those who were singing with gusto, being not just narrowly focussed on salafist-jihadist killers.

The horrific nature of the attack doesn't make the backlash any less ugly.

Before my own 2c, I'm posting the following from FB by someone who doesn't post on here very often any more. He indicated that he'd put in on "Public" for sharing purposes, in case you wondered re re-posting.

Surely this says all anyone needs to know? The notion that Islamism is the greatest threat to mankind is the territory of the far right and the war on terror. I'm really not sure why anyone would have any time for them, unless they agree with PEGIDA, EDL, Britain First, Tony Blair, etc.

I think you're conflating two different things a little bit. One can criticise Islam, whether 'moderate' or 'Islamist' because it's a shite reactionary ideology. That's different from demonising Muslims as a minority, like the far right are depressingly but predictably doing after this incident.

Ultimately my opinion on this is that it's kind of irrelevant whether or not Charlie Hebdo was Islamophobic or whatever, it's still a horrific attack.

Well apparently 2 Libcom posters (and counting) believe that Islamism is the greatest threat to mankind. That's fine, there's a hashtag for your white supremacist crocodile tears: #jesuisungrossconnard

Or maybe the admin could get rid of the fucking bullshit down votes.

I think there are misconceptions about Die Sturmer.
It was much, much closer to NSDAP than Charlie Hebdo is to the PS or the French elite.

(Its eventual millionaire owner) Streicher was an NSDAP member from the very start took part in a militarist coup attempt, was covered in blood before the paper even was launched, As a middle-class officer he helped financed the NSDAP when it was in trouble in the 1920s.

When the Nazis took over in 1933, there were repeated accusations of his having sexually tortured political prisoners within his power when he was a high up official in Bavaria a Nazi heartland.

Especially in the critical years the printed articles in Die Sturmer feature outright lies and malicious misrepresentation connected to the Reichstag bombing, the Jewish boycott of Germany, Jewish shops selling poor quality produce to Germans.

The satirical smutty anti-Jewish cartoons did not induce the triumph of Nazism. Anti-semitism was barely mentioned in essay competitions amongst university students about 'why I became a Nazi' in the 1930s. There's reasons beyond the cartoons to attack Die Sturmer.

Jef will know this better than me but Charlie Hebdo is not like what Die Sturmer was. It's an imperfect liberal (but still liberal) paper. It does do smut against plenty of religions. It's target is basically the 'cons' of France - people who vote for De Gaulle for security, people who didn't care about French trade with militarist Chile, people who idolise the Pope and catholic schools, people who say French corruption isn't that bad because we're not a third world country, people who thought the Jyllands Posten caricatures from 2005 shouldn't be republished, people who vote FN, people who are opposed to immigrants solely on the grounds they will populate France just for (that's the target of that ugly cover above about the allocation de famille dispute), people who saw the demonstrations in the Arab world as an inconvenience to their holidays in the Magreb

- a liberal view of the world, but not a racist or fascist one.

On international affairs it's particularly weak because it is so France-focused, it has nothing much to offer on say Egypt apart from Islamists who demonstrate against the military will die just the same when they get shot. It doesn't have a clue about any step forward - so it's satire is sort of stating the obvious with puns - Egyptian bearded Islamist or Egyptian paramilitary (barbe or barbeuse ha ha)

But it doesn't channel money to any political party has journalists of different persuasions who write/draw for it - including the psychologist and economist who were shot dead. It doesn't support the PS or UMP and is very anti-FN accusing the main parties of selling out to them.

If you really want to put a tag on it, it's as racist as maybe less

It does a lot of gallows humour always has done. This was the cover of an early issue when five anarchists in Spain were executed.

It's laughing at the dead anarchist aswell as laughing at his executioners.

So it's not my cup of tea but it's not in any meaningful sense like Die Sturmer. It doesn't print purposeful falsehoods about people, it doesn't channel money into fascists.

I think it's a natural reaction for people confronted with the media blaring that CH were not only fearless martyrs to free speech but cultural heroes representing the brightest and best of Western liberal civilization to respond with - "Well, actually...".

A natural reaction, but under the circumstances a political trap. Rightly or wrongly people have a natural aversion to people speaking ill of the dead, particularly when they've just been brutally murdered. And as much as you say "I'm not justifying it, but..." people hear that as "Actually I am kinda justifying it a bit...". Regardless of how legitimate your objection is.

So I think the important bit is to focus on the relevant principle - that creating a de-individualised, amalgamated Muslim "them", and assigning the presumption of collective guilt for salafist-jihadist atrocities to anyone who doesn't "prove" their innocence by loudly denouncing extremism to a level that satisfies the right wing media (an impossible task) - is destructive of the basic social solidarity needed for a shared society.

As for this sorta thing

The Daily Hate Mail wringing its hands about a "War on Freedom" in a non-ironic way, is beyond all parody.

But the theme of defending the liberal value of "Liberty" against Islamist terror, demands a political response. Irritatingly, this morning's "Thought for the Day" brought some Reverend's reflections that were uncomfortably close to my own, albeit from liberal, Christian pov (1:48 on the iplayer). That is, that Liberty is only one of the full Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité triad. Fraternity is a bit of an archaic (and needlessly masculine) form for what is nowadays better termed solidarity. The common ground between the jihadists and the islamophobic Right's response is that they are both engaged in a "War on Solidarity". Both want to see society polarised and their own target constituencies rallied behind their parallel contentions that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live side by side in peace.

So essentially I propose as rebuttal to the "defence of liberty" theme, that defence of liberty needs to be combined with a defence of equality and fraternity/solidarity. And that, amongst other things, does mean that claiming that "anyone offended by this picture I drew of Muhammed as a dog fucking a pig - look I drew your Ma's face on the pig, whaddya think of that? eh? eh? - is an enemy of Western civilisation and probably a terrorist sympathiser" is out of order.

Not being an expert or anything, but the fact that they're hostile to the FN really says very little in the broader context. In the UK, the conventional right wing press (eg The Telegraph) have launched open house on Ukip, since they're a major threat to the Tories, who they're historically alligned with. However, in the grand scheme of things, the Telegraph/Tory axis probably does even more damage to immigrants' material conditions than Farage, precisely cos they're able to exculpate themselves of extremism/racism by negative association.

The discourse moves most significantly when the 'respectable' centrists change, not when new characters enter. This is why I think 99.999% of anti-fascism is totally flawed. Charlie Hebdo - the "left of centre liberals" - even declared 'war' (so to speak) on Islamism. As far as I can see, they represent the institutional racism of French political discourse (if we accept that French republicanism is de facto Islamophobic).

Not a single leftist has claimed this, but some elsewhere have suggested or hinted liberals shot dead are "racists" with an optional add on of "fascists".

OK. So long as we don't fall into the trap of assuming that liberalism and racism are mutually exclusive categories.

I've accepted President Hollande's invitation to join the Unity Rally in Paris this Sunday - celebrating the values behind #CharlieHebdo.— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) January 9, 2015

No doubt we will be told what those values are ad nauseam.

https://www.academia.edu/5049516/Book_Review_of_Secret_Affairs_Britains_...

I thought as communists we were supposed to attack and ridicule religion? I.e., like we've done for the past 200+ years?