Re: [Marxism] The "anti-semitism" of the oppressed, etc.?? (was: How to answer these questions?)

["cleon42@xxxxxxxxx" <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Loupaulsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I agree that if we then
> stand
> with the oppressed, AS WE MUST, and correctly explain, AS WE MUST,
> what is
> going on,

Then why, pray tell, should we NOT discuss what is going on with
Palestinians? Is there something about being oppressed that means
entering into political discussion becomes a "bad" idea of some sort?

> But what are our alternatives?  Lie?  Abdicate our responsibilities? 
> Adapt
> ourselves to the undialectical analysis of our enemies, and pretend,
> for
> example, that the European holocaust, or pogroms under the czar,

Yet what Joaquin is advocating is that we decide that our enemies'
propaganda is *correct*, that Israel represents world Judaism, that the
Palestinians are filled with blood-lust against the Jewish people, and
we should simply unquestioningly accept and promote anti-Semitism (as
hatred of Jews, whatever the cause, is commonly known) within the
movement.

> It is NOT the same thing, and we
> can't
> SAY it is the same thing,

Nobody is saying that it IS the same thing. However, Palestinian
anti-semitism is STILL reactionary. The idea of "push the Jews into the
sea," which Joaquin seems to think is a widespread thought among
Palestinians, is a REACTIONARY idea.

There is no question that Palestinian anti-semitism is a result of
oppression by Israel. None at all. But it is *still our job as
revolutionaries to explain why it is wrong*. Not by "preaching," but in
the context of discussion and struggle.

> regardless of how many cards get played
> against
> us, because we are Marxists and we have to tell the truth and analyze
> society dialectically. 

Unless, of course, we're talking to Palestinians. Then we're not
supposed to tell the truth.

> By way of a relevant example, a Black politician here in Chicago with
> some
> credibility as an organizer in the oppressed community made a speech
> here in
> which he used the term "house n*****s" to refer to Black supporters
> of the
> (Mayor, Democratic and white) Richard M. Daley administration.  Well,
> Daley
> and the media started playing "cards" right and left, and you saw the
> nauseating spectacle of Daley, a thoroughgoing racist and
> big-capitalist
> stooge, friend of Bush, who in his days as state's attorney presided
> over
> massive torture of Blacks by the Chicago police, telling the people
> of
> Chicago what a shame it was that any politician would use such
> hurtful
> language.  Do we have to go along with such crap?  Is "racist
> language" by
> Black politicians the same thing as "racist language" by whites?  No,
> it's a
> DIFFERENT THING.

Actually, I don't think the analogy is apt.

"House n****r" is not really "racist language;" in fact, I would argue
that the term itself is *anti*-racist, because it refers to those that
sold out.

A more appropriate analogy would be a Black leader who talks about
"white devils" or "sending the white people back to Europe."

> However, if
> we go to the oppressed and say, "Please moderate your language or use
> class
> analysis, because you have no idea how many difficulties it makes for
> us to
> garner support for our campaigns in Chicago or wherever",

Well, it's good thing nobody's saying that, then.

> I think it would be difficult to come out of this exchange looking
> good, and
> this is another reason why I believe, as I posted previously, that we
> should
> have some faith in the notion that there will be enough socialists in
> the
> oppressed nations to take the primary responsibility for
> disseminating class
> analysis and anti-imperialist analysis among them, but that if that
> isn't
> enough for us and we want to be influential with other oppressed
> nations in
> the world ourselves, the way we are going to be influential with the
> oppressed is to do our jobs and stand with them while successfully
> organizing our own working class.

You're making the same mistake as Joaquin--you're discussing the
situation as if there's the "solidarity movement," that's mostly white
people, and then there's the Palestinians, that are all in the Occupied
Territories. That's not even CLOSE to being the case.

Palestinians are intimately involved in the *global* solidarity
movement, as well as leading the struggle on the ground. Hell, even the
ISM, which is often identified with white activists going to the OT, is
run by Palestinians out of an office in Ramallah.

So if a Palestinian proposes an anti-semitic tone to an event,
demonstration, flier, whatever, are we supposed to nod, smile, and say,
"yes, what a fabulous idea!" Or are we supposed to tell the truth, and
explain why it's wrong?

> I should say that despite the tenor of the exchange so far I don't
> necessarily think that Adam and Joaquin would necessarily address
> concrete
> situations SO differently in practice. 

The difference is that in my case, there IS some actual practice
involved.

> Adam seems to have in mind
> situations that come up in a multinational solidarity-work setting
> where
> people are sitting around writing leaflets together. 

I have a very difficult time believing that you REALLY think that's the
limit of solidarity work.

> I
> would
> say, though, Adam, that the oppressed community is sometimes on the
> other
> side of the world from the oppressor community even if it only a mile
> away
> geographically. 

And I would say, Lou, that I am very aware of that fact. I would also
say that while that is the case, it does NOT mean that somehow we
should NOT be discussing politics with Palestinians.

> Furthermore, I would gently remind some of my other
> white
> comrades on the list that whether Joaquin knows more or less or not
> at all
> about the practical difficulties of doing Palestine solidarity work,

It's more like knowing very little about the overall Palestinian
situation. He makes a number of assumptions that are more based on
US-Israeli propaganda than actual reality.

> he
> probably at any rate knows more than the rest of us about what it is
> to be
> nationally oppressed, and what it really means when the oppressed
> talk about
> the oppressor nationality, and I would urge some respect for that.

That may well be. However, I would say two things to that:

1. That just as there is a mistake of equivocating between the
anti-semitism of the Nazis and the anti-semitism of certain segments of
the Palestinian population, there is also a mistake of equivocating
between different oppressed communities.
2. Joaquin being from an oppressed nationality does not exempt him from
criticism.


Adam


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism