Delighted with your response as it proves my earlier points. Since, by your own claim, you will not be ready this, I respond in the spirit of irony.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Mayer" <bradley.mayer at ebay.sun.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:02 AM Subject: Re: Anti-Zionism Is Racism
> Ah, lectures on logic! Well, lets see...
> At 11:03 AM 8/2/01 -0400, you wrote:
> > > 1) There is no "independent Jewish state of Israel". "Israel" - as I will
> > > never tire of repeating - is an annex of the United States, pure and
> > > simple, nothing more. "
> >
> >Reductionism barely begins to scratch the surface of this statement. But
> >to make
> >its clear, let's remember why some of us used to groan every time we heard:
>
> Is reduction always "bad", logically or otherwise? Depends on the subject
> matter and situation. The subject is something the US could bring a halt
> to - exclusively - if it wanted to. In fact, no reductive logic is
> required to expose a fact the whole world outside the USA already
> knows. The situation? Cramped postings from a workplace to an email
> list. A limited venue. Time and space only for putting out core concepts
> relevant to the (ever changing) moment. We're not writing The Book
> here... The prejudice against reduction is itself a form of philosophical
> absolutism, which I reject.
Reductionism to the point of absurdity is always bad in a discussion. It is great for posters and slogans, which are a form of crisp poetics.
>
> >" There is no independent socialist state of Cuba. Cuba, as I will
> >never tire of repeating - is an annex of the Soviet Union, pure and
> >simple, nothing more. "
>
> Well, Henry the K. was basically - shall we say, "reductively" - right
> about Cuba at the time. I'd never call Kissinger stupid, just because he
> is a war criminal - how's for reduction. Is Henry "just" or "in essence" a
> war criminal?
>
> Today, Cuba is actually - nominally - much more "independent" politically,
> and much more dependent economically on the capitalist world system. But
> it was never "socialist", except in political intent. And it is not at all
> analogous to "Israel" - an Anglo-American-style settler state still in
> process of eradicating the "natives". So "Israel" is not reducible to
> South Africa as well as Cuba.
The Cuba text was...
wait for it...
AN ANALOGY
An analogy to reductionist statements that deny any complexity or history. Cuba was always more than an annex to the Soviet Union, just as Israel will always be more than an annex to the US. Is Israel implicated in the grand scheme of US imperialism? Sure. But it will always be more than that.
I was in Cuba at the invitation of the government in 1974, and everyone there from government officials to street vendors of potent thimble-sized mud coffee were under the impression that they were in a socialist society. Proud of it, in fact. I am so glad you have cleared that up for me.
> >Henry K, oops, I mean Brad M. surely cannot actually mean that Israel is
> >"nothing more" than a puppet that automatically does whatever the US tells
> >it to
> >do, because that, of course, is easy to disprove with a library card. This
> >claim
> >of "dual-loyalist" puppetry is what antisemitic right-wing conspiracy
> >theorists
> >claim. Or am I responding to the wrong list again? This isn't the Liberty
> >Lobby
> >list is it? Oh, that's right, they have briefly folded. I guess their
> >arguments
> >had to go somewhere.
>
> You're putting words in my mouth. I said "annex". That is not a
> "puppet". Puppets need to be told what to do - annexes don't, because they
> are (by definition) integral to the system. "Israel" no more needs to be
> "told what to do" than the Cincinnati or New York police departments, as
> they go about their daily business oppressing African - Americans and
> others. Except when they are "too aggressive", as Colin Powell just put
> it. Then they get a tongue - clucking. But they are no told what to do.
So why complain? If they are not manipulated puppets but actual appendages you only are being more reductionist.
> Chip, I'll take a chance - you really think and sound like an
> American. Are you?
Yes. How clever.
> Because, alas, the rest of the post degenerates into a pile of crude
> insults, slurs and potential slanders. Suffice to say:
You flatter me.
>
> - I never said "Ideological movement leaders "deliberately" seek
> to destroy their "imagined communities." I was not generalizing about
> "all 'ideological movement leaders". More words in the mouth. Perhaps you >
think me a "puppet"? Two very specific phenomena - Hitler's Germany and
> Hirohito's Japan - were referred to, for reasons that should be self
> evident, politically.
Sorry, the references were not self-evident.
> - Berlet informs us that Reality is Complex. No kidding! Too complex to
> be exhaustively analyzed on an email list. Anyone who pretends to use it
> for that purpose can't possibility be serious. However, all attempts are
> welcome!
Apparently not.
> - The remainder is basically to call me a unconscious, far right
> antisemitic clone of Henry Kissinger. Not a shred of comparative evidence
> is presented to demonstrate this spurious claim - except for the Kissinger
> part :-D.
Well, actually for the past 20 years I have been employed in the task of reading right-wing literature at a progressive think tank, so when I say that your arguments mimic arguments in right-wing literature I speak from some expertise. You can check for yourself by getting microfilm of The Spotlight newspaper from Liberty Lobby. The Christic Institute's analysis of Iran-Contra came from Liberty Lobby and the LaRouchites, so it would not be the first time that leftists developed congruent arguments with right-wing anti-elitists
See Right Woos Left.
http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz6.html
Actually, you missed the analogy with Kissinger in the first place (reductionism in service to ideology), but I don't think you are a clone of right-wing antisemitism, my argument is more complex (imagine!). Here it is ---> If a left argument sounds identical to a right argument, it is often worthwhile to re-examine the rhetoric or analysis, since otherwise we may be building oppressive or repressive movements that will later harm our work in the long run. Strategic thinking. Sometimes short-term advantage veils long term disadvantage. Since there is a large right-wing antisemitic anti-internationalist movement in the US (arguably larger than the left at times) it makes sense to keep our distance. Parallel organizing is inevitable in the real world. Collaboration (even when unintentional) is odious.
>Actually my (hardly original) point derives and parallels, in
> part, recent positions of Edward Said and (shudder, reductionism!) Noam
> Chomsky. See "Prospects for Peace in the Middle East", The University of
> Toledo, March 4, 2001.
<<Chomsky Snipped (gasp!) >>
Your citing of Chomsky was wonderful. Nowhere in the text you posted is the type of reductionism you display. Chomsky uses phrases such as "I regard the United States as the primary guilty party " and "US role is significant throughout these cases and very often decisive" and "Israel itself is - not surprisingly - becoming very much like the United States."
Primary Significant Often Decisive Very Much Like
These small words make a lot of difference in an analysis.
<< Chomsky is right about Israel, even if he is wrong on the tactic of
> divestment. It is not South Africa, because of the exclusive and intimate
> US involvement in the Middle East, of which "Israel" is only one particular
> manifestation. But go read it yourself. Don't waste your time - and my
> time - on me, go refute Chomsky or Said.
A side note. Chomsky should not be used as a trump card in arguments. He is very smart and deserving of tremendous respect, but guru-worship is disempowering. Also, Chomsky is not saying what you are saying. His comments are complex and nuanced--your comments are not.
>
> Nor is any analytical demonstration of the "logical fallacies" involved
> presented, except for the assertion that Reality is Complex:
Sorry, perhaps you can visit one of these sites to learn more about the logical fallacies you employ:
http://www.publiceye.org/research/logic.html
I co-teach a course on Strategic Research and Investigative Reporting at the Z Media Insititute every summer with partners such as Holly Sklar and Abby Scher. We talk about the importance of logic and the avoidance of emotional propaganda in helping the left develop effective strategies.
>
> >"Can we be more specific and careful about the differences among
> Zionism, >Jews,
> >Israel the state, the various political movements and parties in Israel,
> race,
> >nationality, ethnicity, religion, nationalism, imperialism, capitalism,
> fascism,
> >oppression, repression, institutional forms of racism, consensual forms of
> >racism, policies, practices, etc.?"
>
> The answer is, sadly, no. There isn't time - not just on this list or at
> work, but possibility with regards to the Palestinians of the West Bank and
> Gaza. A bona fide fascist, Ariel Sharon - and let it be made clear, with
> emphasis, that Sharon is the closest approximation to a genuine Fascist in
> the world today, in the literal sense of the word - has been elected Prime
> Minister in a landslide Hitler could only dream of. There is the very real
> and present danger of a catastrophe now. But apparently you just don't see
> it, Chip - it's all just "hysteria".
No we shouldn't strive for a complex analysis? We will have to disagree here.
You seem to confuse Fascism with Authoritarianism.
See What is Fascism.
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
> I don't think you understand what is going on, Chip, here on this list and
> elsewhere in the USA and the world. An analysis of the complex political -
> economic ties binding the 51st State to the USA, and to the rest of the
> world, would be very useful right now, but aside from that, I and some
> others are not primarily engaged in pedantic exercises here, but in
> political action, in both theoretical and practical areas - usually
> compressed together - as time permits. We are primarily engaged, not in an
> academic exercise (although, speaking for myself, such exercises are
> certainly welcome as refreshing counterpoint, if nothing else) , but in a
> intense _political struggle_, in case you haven't noticed. And I provoked
> this cluster of threads, and at least brought an end to the fucking
> silence, angry over a piece of terrorist vandalism and arson here in SF
> against a politically innocuous "Israeli-Palestinian" peace mural, acts
> that forced the owner of the building to close down the mural. Now what
> thugs did that. I say some of their political soulmates are right here on
> this list, as elsewhere in US society. You know, "They did it to us, so we
> can do it to them". Now, there's a brilliant piece of "logic". No wonder
> our opponents on this issue have the habit of calling us "stupid".
Thanks for articulating the position of Action Over Thought as it was a slogan of Italian Fascism.
> So that is what's happening, Chip. You've succeeded somewhat in
> distracting from the issue at hand and wasting people's time, which of
> course is your practical political purpose - not "impartial academic
> discourse". In the process it is unclear just where you stand, Chip,
> except for some unspecified "criticisms of Israel" - my. how bold.
I sometimes write scholarly articles but I am a college dropout, not an academic. I have been a truck driver, printer and graphic artist. My practical political purpose for thirty years has been to be part of the movement for social and economic justice. I have been arrested for civil disobedience against the war in Vietnam; helped resisters down the underground railroad out of the US; worked with labor unions on strikes and court cases; worked on scores of demonstrations doing logistics, security, and publicity; spent three years as a paralegal investigator in lawsuits against the CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence and local Red Squads; spent ten year helping organize a White working class neighborhood to evict the Klan/Nazi organizers and deal with the reality of integration, and collected an above-average number of death threats for an organizer.
Don't patronize me.
> But your deep _political_ hostility comes through loud and clear. I'm sure
> we would find deep practical political differences on a host of
> issues. Where do you stand, Chip? Me, I'm communist. I'm for the
> abolition of capitalism. This will require "abolishing" the United States,
> as a state, and therefore I hardly recognize its - let alone its annex,
> Israel's - "right to exist". And that is hardly "reducible" to the _need_
> for a homeland for Americans, Jews or anybody else.
And in the process you ignore history at not only your own risk.
Assuming that we will not abolish nations in the next year or two, what is the best strategy for dealing with nationalism as it exists. You appear to claim that this is an issue that does not require your attention since you are a communist who rejects the idea of the State. Bravisimo. What do we do in the meantime?
I have worked in many coalitions with communists who showed an impressive ability to construct complex and nuanced political analyses that moved the work forward. Your hysterical bombast is no substitute for their level strategic thinking.
The rest is silence...
-cb