Anti-semitism amongst the left and anarchists

235 posts / 0 new
Last post
radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 4 2009 21:33
Bisc wrote:
So you don't consider yourself a leftist? Forgive me for my ignorance, but I lean more towards anarchism than communism, as far as study goes. Although that's a little off topic so maybe you shouldn't answer that. neutral

here lots of people use leftist to refer to politics that look communist but aren't, like Trotskyism

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Jan 4 2009 23:36

My comment on this on ABC:

Asher wrote:
I'm also in agreement with the basic points that syndicalist and Mick brought up.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't feel comfortable distributing the statement as it currently stands at the demos here - both because I'm Jewish and because I'm an anarchist-communist.

nestor wrote:
that's after Ilan commented that "members of Anarchist Against the Wall" endorse the statement.

I wouldn't rely on AATW's politics as a yardstick for anything. That's not to say some of their work isn't worthwhile and worth supporting (it certainly is) but the general politics within the group (in my experience) are fairly crap "anarchyist" ones.

Besides which, I've met a number of Jews who (sadly) believe in some sort of Jewish conspiracy theory, which this statement (no doubt unintentionally) endorses.

I'm definitely of the opinion that it was more a lack of thinking than genuine antisemitism that saw the line put in there. Nonetheless, its disturbing, as is the relative lack of willingness to discuss the issues with it. Part of that no doubt stems from the general antagonism between (to reduce it as much as possible) "libcommers" and "platformists" (of course there are people who fit into neither, and both) but that should never be an excuse for such piss-poor politics.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 4 2009 23:42

Trotskyism: still preferable to pretentious pseudo-situationist quasi-primitivist "anti-political" wank

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jan 4 2009 23:44
Asher wrote:
Part of that no doubt stems from the general antagonism between (to reduce it as much as possible) "libcommers" and "platformists" (of course there are people who fit into neither, and both) but that should never be an excuse for such piss-poor politics.

I think this is the main thing tbh. I think its quite upsetting to be honest and I also think its strange that we're getting accused of 'sectarianism' for criticising (and trying to discuss) something they wrote while they're basically refusing to engage us because of what 'group' (or sect) we're from.. I understand they feel like they got burned on here a while back but really, it feels a bit too much.. sad

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 4 2009 23:49

Asher, where is the ABC discussion? I can't find it.

Notably, the FdCA statement has been removed from Anarkismo.

I was going to post this reply to Steven and Django there, but I'll have to post it here instead. I think people are wilfully seeing antisemitism where there is only incompetence:

Why are people intent on interpreting this as a deliberate anti-semitic statement rather than a clumsy misuse of words/ideas?

Steven, "controlling" and "exerting strong influence on" are NOT synonyms. The former is much stonger than the latter. Do you really think governments only follow lobbies' wishes "when they coincide with their own ... agendas", i.e. when they were going to do that anyway? It's a really odd position to take to think that lobbyists have no actual power (obviously some lobbies, such as the PC one, are imaginary, but that's a different issue).

Django, your statements that "It's indistinguishable from something you'd see in neo-nazi propaganda about the 'zionist occupation government'." is a little hysterical. Take a deep breath. There are huge differences between a "lobby" with "strong influence" and an occupation government with total control. Nor is there any evidence that the signatories have "abandoned class analysis for anti-semitic conspiracy theories." The rest of the statement does not abandon class analysis. Belief in the existence of lobbies with influence does not usually qualify as a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense.

I am sure this is a badly worded sentence repeating a commonly held fallacy (and only one line in a statement, not the crux of it), not deliberate anti-semitism, and as usual everything on the internet loves to throw around big accusations when it's a fairly minor issue.

Actually I have no idea what the "Jewish economic lobby" is, as opposed to the "pro-Israel lobby" or however you want to phrase it. If they are intended to have substantially different meanings, maybe I'm wrong.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jan 4 2009 23:49

Well I dunno, I identified myself as an AF member rather than a Libcom user and still got accused of being a "sectarian" out to damage the anarchist movement. I think that was just the basic response to criticism from outside of neo-Platformist groups from some of the posters there. I'm more worried about some of the comments which either suggested using "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jewish economic lobby" (!), or defended the statement as it existed, basically saying that Jews do exercise control through their economic and political power.

Bisc's picture
Bisc
Offline
Joined: 16-12-08
Jan 4 2009 23:51
Quote:
Trotskyism: still preferable to pretentious pseudo-situationist quasi-primitivist "anti-political" wank

neutral

I've pretty much decided I really don't like you. And that's only after reading two of your comments. Well done. That's all I will say, for now.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 4 2009 23:53

Of course people are going to accuse you of being sectarian if you accuse them of being anti-semites rather than using a more measured tone.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 4 2009 23:55
Bisc wrote:
Quote:
Trotskyism: still preferable to pretentious pseudo-situationist quasi-primitivist "anti-political" wank

neutral

I've pretty much decided I really don't like you. And that's only after reading two of your comments. Well done. That's all I will say, for now.

That's because you don't know what i am talking about.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jan 5 2009 00:04
888 wrote:
Django, your statements that "It's indistinguishable from something you'd see in neo-nazi propaganda about the 'zionist occupation government'." is a little hysterical. Take a deep breath. There are huge differences between a "lobby" with "strong influence" and an occupation government with total control. Nor is there any evidence that the signatories have "abandoned class analysis for anti-semitic conspiracy theories." The rest of the statement does not abandon class analysis. Belief in the existence of lobbies with influence does not usually qualify as a conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense.

No, to be fair the BNP are far more sophisticated these days, they'd never publicly claim that the "Jewish economic lobby" exerts "strong influence" over US policy, because they understand most people would be utterly repulsed by a statement like it.

That comment clearly abandons class analysis, and it is that comment that I was discussing. The rest of the document has been sunk by the stupidity of it. If the AF wrote the best analysis of the economic crisis so far but inserted a sentance about say, most financiers being Jews with their own ethnic interests, I'd both resign and expect the document to be repudiated by communists everywhere.

The view that Jews have interests identical with Israel, and that they are steering US policy away from its own national interest is such a staple of far right politics that I can't believe I have to argue it to comrades. Class analysis is utterly incompatible with the idea that the ruling class can be duped out of actinf in their interests by a shadowy cabal of rich Jews. I don't want to have to repeat the masses of evidence showing that on a factual level, let alone a theoretical level, the "zionist lobby" argument is rubbish, let alone this claim about an explicitly jewish lobby!

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 5 2009 00:05
888 wrote:
Trotskyism: still preferable to pretentious pseudo-situationist quasi-primitivist "anti-political" wank

What isn't?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jan 5 2009 00:12
Ed wrote:
Asher wrote:
Part of that no doubt stems from the general antagonism between (to reduce it as much as possible) "libcommers" and "platformists" (of course there are people who fit into neither, and both) but that should never be an excuse for such piss-poor politics.

I think this is the main thing tbh. I think its quite upsetting to be honest and I also think its strange that we're getting accused of 'sectarianism' for criticising (and trying to discuss) something they wrote while they're basically refusing to engage us because of what 'group' (or sect) we're from.. I understand they feel like they got burned on here a while back but really, it feels a bit too much.. :(

Usually when people say sectarian they mean you disagree with their politics, AND SAY SO!! angry

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 5 2009 00:16
Jack wrote:
The thread is hidden now so I can't check, but I'm 90% certain that everyone said the statement was anti-semitic, rather than the authors being anti-semites themselves. Which are obviously completely different things.

Not obviously... people tend to take things personally. Who would write an anti-semitic statement?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 5 2009 00:16
Quote:
Does anyone speak Italian? They translated "la forte lobby economica degli ebrei d'oltre Oceano" to "the powerful US Jewish economic lobby". Ebrei means Jewish, not sure what the ocean's got to do with it.

I think.d'oltro Oceano means overseas.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 5 2009 00:28

I'd speculate that it would be the Italian equivalent of "the other side of the pond"...

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jan 5 2009 00:36
888 wrote:
Actually I have no idea what the "Jewish economic lobby" is, as opposed to the "pro-Israel lobby" or however you want to phrase it. If they are intended to have substantially different meanings, maybe I'm wrong.

I'm worried that anyone could see these as being the same things.

I don't think that anarchist communists putting out a statement with lines which claim a Jewish conspiracy is a small thing at all, especially as its been suggested as something to circulate by comrades I work with (who hadn't noticed the offending statement and changed their minds when they saw it).

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 5 2009 00:45
888 wrote:
Jack wrote:
The thread is hidden now so I can't check, but I'm 90% certain that everyone said the statement was anti-semitic, rather than the authors being anti-semites themselves. Which are obviously completely different things.

Not obviously... people tend to take things personally. Who would write an anti-semitic statement?

people do take things personally. but i think the tone of the criticisms was very measured and clearly aimed at the politics of the document, certainly measured compared to the volley of abuse that immediately, almost reflexively followed the criticism ('sectarian', 'idiot', 'nutter' etc).

to be honest i think people who espouse the revolutionary overthrow of capital and state need to be a little more thick skinned about the fact people disagree with our ideas. if you get that offended by other anarchists and communists pretty politely (though strongly) disagreeing with you what do you do if a workmate mocks the possibility of communism? denounce them as a sectarian idiot nutter, or argue your case rationally?

i do find it unfortunate that there seems to be this knee-jerk hostility amongst some in the platformist current from anything vaguely associated with libcom (if one reads back over the arguments before most of NEFAC and the WSM left for example, it's certainly not the case that they were innocent of abusive language and evasive discussion tactics, although of course revol and 'libcom' were blamed).

when i recently went on ABC to discuss something that was posted here but the poster refused to discuss because of the alleged atmosphere on libcom, i was subjected to 2 or 3 pages of abuse ('sectarian', 'spart-like', 'ivory tower ultra-leftist'...) simply because i mentioned libcom (and this much was admitted by a moderator) before it was conceded my basic point was correct, but they didn't like 'the way i said it'. this does leave me with the impression that accusations of sectarianism are simply a way to shut down critical discussion (as per infoshop). i think this is a shame, as open debate is the means by which reactionary ideas are exposed as such and consistent anarchist/communist ones best defended.

fwiw i don't think it necessarily follows that only anti-semites write an anti-semitic statement as you're implying. these ideas are unfortunately quite widespread and are apparenty repeated without rational, critical assesment of their veracity or implications (Django's listed Chomsky links debunking the 'zionist lobby' argument for example).

Bisc's picture
Bisc
Offline
Joined: 16-12-08
Jan 5 2009 01:08
Quote:
i do find it unfortunate that there seems to be this knee-jerk hostility amongst some in the platformist current from anything vaguely associated with libcom.

More like anything that isn't platformist. It's not just Libcom they like tearing up. Believe me, I've seen ABC platformists try to engage in polite discourse with anarchists that challenged platformism. It's not pretty (they find the words "terrorist" and "suicidal" to be very acceptable when describing those that disagree with them). Their minds are surrounded by iron walls, barbed wire, and minefields of dogma. That probably doesn't apply to ALL platformists, but ABC plats are just plain dogmatic.

So listen up 888, be polite to anarchists/communists that don't share your views, mmkay? Don't verbally bludgeon anti-political anarchists. Not that I'm saying you're a platformist, but try to tone down the abuse.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 5 2009 01:28
Joseph K. wrote:
fwiw i don't think it necessarily follows that only anti-semites write an anti-semitic statement as you're implying. these ideas are unfortunately quite widespread and are apparenty repeated without rational, critical assesment of their veracity or implications (Django's listed Chomsky links debunking the 'zionist lobby' argument for example).

I agree with pretty much everything Joseph said in his post, and Django before him.

On this note, I think this sort of statement is indicative of this platform this tendency abandoning class politics for a crude mishmash of ideas, including some class and some ethno-nationalist analysis.

So this debate is related to are the ones we have had with this tendency, covering their support for nationalism/self-determination, nationalisation, trade unionism, etc.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 5 2009 02:49
Quote:
when i recently went on ABC to discuss something that was posted here but the poster refused to discuss because of the alleged atmosphere on libcom, i was subjected to 2 or 3 pages of abuse ('sectarian', 'spart-like', 'ivory tower ultra-leftist'...) simply because i mentioned libcom (and this much was admitted by a moderator)

I presume I am the mod being referred to here. If that is the case then what you have written is an untruth. I don't think you were subject to abuse and therefore cannot have an opinion on the reason for your 'abuse'.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 5 2009 03:44

no, i'm referring to AndrewF. i don't really want to start a board war or a personal dispute or anything like that, so i'll try and find the quote to substantiate my comments. he basically said he was laying into me for being from libcom because he didn't know anything else about me. i didn't actually know you were a mod george.

edit:

Andrew F wrote:
I reacted to this as part of a pattern of behaviour that I've seen over a period of years and that I'm not that interested in discussing under so I've concentrated on challenging the pattern

link - when challenged about this alleged 'pattern of behaviour' he said

AndrewF wrote:
As far as I'm aware we've neither argued before in real life or online.

link - therefore his reaction was against 'libcom' and not the actual arguments i made, hence my comment "simply because i mentioned libcom (and this much was admitted by a moderator)."

and as for flames/abuse, for example i reported this one to the mods, ticked 'notify when dealt with' and heard nothing back, so apparently this kind of thing is acceptable, despite being exactly the kind of thing revol was demonised for on here:

Dundee United wrote:
Jesus, it's a fucking leaflet for a demo. Get a grip mate (...) Honestly, this kind of bizarre obsessive behaviour just demonstrates I oughtn't to have posted it to libcom.

link

there was also heapings of intellectual dishonesty and evasion (comparing me to post-leftists for criticising leftism - despite my defence of class politics, anaethema to the post-left, and comparing me to sparts for hypothetically writing mental propaganda, despite me posting up links to actual propaganda i'd written early on in the debate).

Now i'm really not that bothered how you administer your own boards, but i can't re-read that thead without seeing exactly the same dynamic as happened in the debates on here - polite criticism, followed by toys out of pram, followed by several pages of misrepresentation, a few insults and disingenuous characterisations, finally followed by a claim 'we don't really disagree after all, it's all semantics.' anyone's welcome to read the trainwreck of a thread if they don't want to take my word for it.

the same dynamic cropped up on the FdCA statement thread before it was hidden; i don't want to tar everybody with the same brush, but it does look like a pattern where certain posters go straight into knee-jerk 'defend our platformist comrades from sectarian attacks' mode - even though in this case the article that was being defended has been hidden for a possible breach of editorial guidelines.

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Jan 5 2009 04:21

888 - It's in a private forum, just noticed, so it wouldn't be right of me to post any quotes here (other than my own post as I already did), sorry.

FWIW - My understanding (from ABC) is that the Anarkismo thread was hidden while the FdCA rewrites the section in question. Assuming that's correct, it is good that they've recognised that and are fixing it, although that doesn't make it any less worrying that it was in there in the first place of course!

On a related note, I sent a text message to a Jewish anarchist friend earlier today asking if he was planning on attending the Gaza solidarity demo over here tomorrow. He replied:

Quote:
Shit. I don't know if I even want to set foot there. Like I hate the bombing in gaza but the rally has the potential to be full of fucktards.

The "fucktards" (great word) he refers to are the borderline antisemites (and the not so borderline ones). I feel exactly the same way, and consistently do every time there's any Palestine solidarity related stuff going on over here. That's surely a fairly strong (and sad) indictment on the politics of Palestine solidarity work.

During the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, I was asked to contribute an article to a magazine called Intifada, produced by the Students for Justice in Palestine group. I wrote one called "My Enemy's Enemy Sure As Hell Isn't My Comrade" which was essentially a critique of leftist support for Hezbollah. Suffice to say it probably wasn't what the editors expected when they asked me for something (they wanted a "not all Jews support Israel, some oppose it" type of article) but to their credit they did print it. Some of the responses I got were ridiculous...and not just from Socialist Worker types, but from anarchists too. Most common was the "Yes, I agree, but you shouldn't be publically criticising Hezbollah at a time like this!" line, but there were also other comments totally disagreeing and saying we should be actively supporting Hezbollah.

joselito
Offline
Joined: 25-11-08
Jan 5 2009 04:47
Django wrote:
The problem is that though there may be a Zionist Lobby, the view that it has any power or control over US policy is false - it only appears powerful because its interests align with those of US imperialism, and the people claiming it controls the US obviously have nothing in the way of a proper analysis of capitalism. Whenever the interests of the US and Israel diverge, the "lobby" is powerless to stop Israel being reigned in - in fact, they don't bother trying, showing that they're are basically a US lobby rather than an Israel one.

Might you articulate how the interests behind the recent invasion of Gaza, the invasions of Lebanon in 78, 82, and 2006, or the annihilation of the Palestinians in general 'align with those of US imperialism'. It often appears that the policies of Israel are much more of a liability to US Imperialism than an asset.

Bisc's picture
Bisc
Offline
Joined: 16-12-08
Jan 5 2009 05:18
Quote:
Might you articulate how the interests behind the recent invasion of Gaza, the invasions of Lebanon in 78, 82, and 2006, or the annihilation of the Palestinians in general 'align with those of US imperialism'. It often appears that the policies of Israel are much more of a liability to US Imperialism than an asset.

To put it very simply:

Israel is Americas bitch. Not the other way around. Washington has Israel by the balls, any policy or action that Israel takes, that doesn't fit within Washington's agenda or that doesn't have their (the American government) approval, is rejected, boycotted, or outright stopped. I would suggest you read up on Chomskys articles that highlight and explain the relationship between America and Israel, particularly his articles written on the subject of Israeli lobbyists and their (very weak) influence on Washingtons foreign policy. So yes, I'm sure the actions that are being carried out by Israel right now are completely aligned with what the American government wants. Otherwise, they wouldn't be happening.

joselito
Offline
Joined: 25-11-08
Jan 5 2009 05:29

It often appears that the policies of Israel are much more of a liability to US Imperialism than an asset. I suppose you could argue that the 'blowback' against US imperialism caused by Israeli policies is perhaps only evidence of a misguided policy on the part of the US. Namely, there is an alignment between the two States' policies, it simply happens that the implementation of these policies causes more damage to US imperialism than the it would if it weren't pursued. If that is the case, it seems useful to try to theorize why that might be.

Chomsky's 'strategic asset' theory seems to be true in relatively few cases, in fact I can't really think of one ( I've forgotten what Chomsky says). When US interests are directly threatened, the US sends its own troops. Israel is often percieved as an asset, alleviateing threats to its own and American interest, yet these are threats that it originally provoked through its situation of conflict with the the Palestinians and other Arab nations. This is not to mentionOf course its role as a proxy in Central America is important,

To create an either/or scenario, either you accept a class analysis or you accept the power of the lobby argument, seems simplistic. While I partake of the former, it seems reasonable that there are conflicts within the US State that lend themselves to the power of certain blocks that may or may not serve the most expedient interests of the US. Of course this has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 5 2009 09:22
Asher wrote:
FWIW - My understanding (from ABC) is that the Anarkismo thread was hidden while the FdCA rewrites the section in question. Assuming that's correct, it is good that they've recognised that and are fixing it, although that doesn't make it any less worrying that it was in there in the first place of course!

i am pleased they realised there was a problem after the initial knee-jerk bunker mentality and cries of sectarianism. two things worry me - yes, that it was written in the first place, but also how rapidly it was reduced to a phrasing or semantic issue, as if changing 'jewish' to 'zionist' makes it all ok. for starters, the two are clearly not synonyms, but more importantly this use of zionist as a safe word to stand in for jew is a hallmark of far-right and islamist anti-semitism.* the problem with the argument is structural - the baseless, irrational conspiratorial element - whatever term is used to signify the alleged 'influential lobby.' which brings us to...

joselito wrote:
It often appears that the policies of Israel are much more of a liability to US Imperialism than an asset.

this is an assertion that can be backed up with evidence as well as logical argument. chomsky fairly soundly trounces the 'zionist lobby' argument in the links provided earlier. yes, israel is a nation-state with interests of its own, yet it is heavily dependent on US aid and has frequently been reigned in when its pursuit of its self-interest clashes with US interests in the region. when it comes to mutual enemies (Hamas, Hezbollah), it is allowed pretty much free reign, with all the brutality a modern army bombarding impoverished refugee camps implies. i mean the south Lebanon offensive turned out not to be in Israeli interests and in fact benefited Hezbollah. however this doesn't lead leftists to cry 'cui bono' and imagine a 'muslim economic lobby' 'strongly influencing' Israeli state policy against its own interests.

* to be crystal clear, i don't think the signatories are all raving anti-semites, and as Steven. says i think the problematic bits of the statement reflect the dilution of class analysis with an ethno-nationalist one amongst many in the platformist current, rather than any secret hatred of jews.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jan 5 2009 10:09

And to be precise the Lebannon invasion was reigned in by the US when it looked likely to become a liability and strengthen Hezbollah (which it did). It was initially supported because it looked to further the US' local imperial interests against its rivals (Syria, Iran), but backfired significantly. Its no surprise that US imperialism doesn't have magical powers and can be subject to defeats, setbacks and embarrassment.

But theres still the question of why this argument has so much traction amongst otherwise right thinking people - I mean, its not like anyone was arguing that an "Indonesian lobby" was the reason the US was supporting such embarrassing and damaging policies as the mass slaughter of the East Timorese. Chomsky has compared the power of the "Israel lobby" to that of the "Armenian lobby". So the lack of reflection on this issue usually puzzles me.

Theres links to good articles (albeit by academics) on the question here:

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4837
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4837

Here's a good example from the Chomsky article above:

Chomsky wrote:
...Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 5 2009 10:24
Django wrote:
But theres still the question of why this argument has so much traction amongst otherwise right thinking people

i think it's to do with the legacy of the figure of 'the jew' in the european cultural imagination (which includes european offshoots like north america). this figure is the shadowy, conspiratorial puppetmaster behind world events, the personification of the invisible forces of capital which shape our lives. this leads to a truncated critique of financial capital rather than capital per se (as in the recent 'blame the bankers' type propaganda around the economic crisis). while explicit anti-jewish racism is now far less acceptable than it once was, it is not identical to or necessary for these historical anti-semitic narratives to find contemporary resonance. it is in this context i think the term 'structural anti-semitism' makes sense, to describe rehashed classical anti-semitic arguments without the anti-jewish racism, arguments that are structurally identical to anti-semitic ones only the term 'jew' is subsitiuted with 'zionist', 'greedy bankers', 'lizards' or whatever. as Steven says, i think the prevelance of these ideas among the left reflects a lack of materialist class analysis, which in turn reflects the weakness of the class.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jan 5 2009 10:44

Yeah, thats quite convincing. It would certainly explain why the posters on Anarkismo, who I certainly don't think are anti-semites, went through the process of substituting "Jewish economic lobby" for "Zionist" or "pro-Israel" and treated them as synonyms. I don't think they are actual anti-semites either, but ended up working through a thought process which is pretty indistinguishable on face value alone from classical anti-semitism.

FWIW the only time I've ever seen proper neo-nazi propaganda, which was when I got some leaflet by Simon Sheppard* through the door when I lived in Yorkshire, it was focused exclusively on a truncated critique of capitalism centring on the self-interest of "global financial families"- he didn't even have to talk about "Zionists". No mention of immigrants or anything like that.

Now clearly the motivations and politics of anarchists and fascists are totally different, but you can end up with leftists and fascists repeating the same limited critique of capitalism - on the one side through poor analysis of what capitalism is and how it works, and on the other because of racist politics and fascist populism. So the "structural anti-semitism" argument would have been a good one if it hadn't been ruined by the antics of the anti-germans.

But clearly a degree of intelligence, responsibility and sensitivity should be expected. Like I said on the Anarkismo thread, I don't think FdCA are anti-semites, though that comment is clearly anti-semitic and deeply inappropriate. I think it came as a result of a statement being thrown together under the pressure to have something out, likely by people with some difference of analysis, and class analysis in that instance lost out to conspiratorialism, and ended up being worded in the most offensive way possible. But I'm going to react differently to a sincere comrade who believes the "Israel lobby" argument because they haven't looked into the area in much depth, or been exposed to the wrong stuff, or are working out their ideas, and an international statement of Anarchist Communist organisations which talks about the "Jewish economic lobby" shaping US foreign policy.

*Real neo-nazi scumbag, now in jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheppard_(far-right_activist)

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 5 2009 10:49

edit: double post