Nathan has it nailed down tight, here, at least when it comes to the difference between political analysis of power structures versus insensitive stereotyping of ethno-identity groups. But I am adrift in my own puddle of murky thinking on this issue, so let me throw some mud around to see if anything recognizable splashes out.
The problem with Ace is that he has slid into language that stereotypes Jews in a mild way for many years. This is the root of the battle I had with him over criticism of ADL. I want to make very sure that my criticism of ADL on certain matters does not give aid and comfort to antisemites and neonazis who use a criticism of ADL to promote bigotry against Jews. Ace interprets this as me being an apologist for ADL. Well, sometimes I agree with ADL on matters such as the danger of racist skinheads; and sometimes I disagree with them, primarily over issues involving government surveillance and their leadership's habit of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
Daniel Pipes, in his book on Conspiracy Theory, argues that Marxism is a conspiracy theory that scapegoats the wealthy and powerful in a society. This argument is flawed for the very reason Nathan lays out. Accurately identifying a group of people such as capitalists or Power Elites who play a functional role in a society is not the same as concocting a claim that Jews or Freemasons or the New World Order secretly runs the world.
But some leftists do create phantoms to scapegoat--just usually not ethno-identified ones. That is still a problem. When leftists start to use the language of scapegoating and conspiracism, (talking about the world run by a handful of secret elites or the CIA using radio control to fly planes into the twin towers), in their criticism of elite power and corporate globalization, it opens the door to scapegoating of ethnic groups by denizens of the fascist right.
Ace on the Jews is an example of how this process begins. Instead of pointing to institutions and structures of power, there will be those who read his column as proof that THE JEWS are secretly running things. And when they go looking for further proof, there is a plethora of antisemitic conspiracy crap on the Web to lead them down that ugly path. I know that is not the intent of Ace, but insensitive language has consequences.
But I think Ian has a point, too. And it may need more teasing out.
When we raise a criticism of "Capitalists" or "Power Elites," are we truly identifying groups based on their interchangeable function as part of a set of institutions or structures of power and domination? Or are some critics creating a chimeric scapegoat?
And did the Ace column do both? Creating a chimeric scapegoat that both mis-identified the functional power relationships and stereotyped an ethnic group?
Nathan...Ian...bail out my puddle...please.
-Chip Berlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:26 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Ace on The Jews
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at attbi.com>
> >
> > But to speak of capitalists as a group is no different from
> speaking of
> > politicians as a group in the political realm. To say that
> politicians run
> > the Congress s not pejorative, it is definitional (if possibly
> simplistic in
> > a capitalist system where politics is not autonomous from the
> capitalist
> > hierarchy).
> >
> > -- Nathan Newman
> ======================
>
> -So it's an apriori that 'functional description' is not a group?
> -We're back to all the pitfalls of epistemology/ontology of
> -collectivities and their 'identities', 'functions' and 'powers'
> -no? Are capitalists not a group? Pejoratives aside? That we're
> -both asking about the politics of definitions is healthy, imo and
> -I'm happy to be wrong.....
>
>
> Capitalists do not have functions; they are the functions.
> They do not form
> collectivities; they are the collectivity that wields power
> by definition.
>
> Are capitalists a "group"? Not in the sense of having a
> social idenitity
> outside their functions, which is where Jews and blacks and
> gays and other
> identity groups differ. To the extent that you define a
> "capitalist" as
> those wielding economic power over others through control of
> capital in
> society, they are an identifiable group whose characteristics
> are identical
> with their identity. All capitalists control capital; all
> those who control
> capital are capitalists. Thus a group identified.
>
> Jews may have a pervasive presence in Hollywood, but not all those in
> Hollywood are Jews, and not all Jews are in Hollywood.
>
> Very different
>
> Nathan
>
>
>