Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Artesian writes: >I no more deny that apartheid was broken than I would deny that segregation > by race has been dismantled in the South. > > My last word on the subject but as you know I say that often, usually > after I have already given assurances of my last word on the subject. == I found the exchanges helpful. To be continued, I'm sure, whenever discussion of national struggles pops up. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Artesian writes: [...] > No, I don't consider the end of apartheid a joke-- never said any such > thing-- but the sort of Mandela-de Klerk deal does not bring democracy, or > secularism, or socialism. Thanks for clarifying. > Does anyone think the Afrikaners made this deal out of the goodness of > their > hearts; a sudden burst of Christian morality? Not I. :) > The deal was made for > economic reasons-- greater access to the world markets; eliminate the > considerable financial burdens of running an apartheid state; and most > importantly pre-empting the possibility of actual revolution and > expropriation of property by a movement who's real strength was in the > organizations of the miners and workers. It either a) pre-empted the possibility of revolution, as you opine, or b) reflected the military stalemate and the willingness, even enthusiastic support, of the black masses, including the miners and other workers' organizations, for a political settlement which gave them the vote and other democratic rights, ended white rule, legalized their institutions, and gave their party control of the government. Even today, I doubt you'd find very few if any allies among the miners and South African workers who - despite their disappointment with the slow pace of progress and of many with the ANC - share your despairing view of that agreement as, in effect, a counter-revolutionary one rather than an historic advance which provided them with an institutional framework for further progress. Truth to tell, if a similar deal was struck in Palestine - the release of Marwan Barghouti, the dismantling of the Zionist state, the unbanning of all Palestinian parties and popular organizations, the enfranchisement of the Palestinian masses under a new constitution, a general election throughout Israel and the occupied territories, and the formation of a government based on the Arabic-speaking majority - I'm certain the Palestinian masses and the international left would similarly hail these developments as an historic victory, even were it to be accompanied by an amnesty for the Zionist leaders, continuing social inequality, and no immediate or appreciable improvement in living standards. Of course, the Palestinians, confronting stronger opponents with weaker leadership, can at this stage only dream of a negotiated end to Israeli apartheid, but were that to be improbably realized, I think we can agree that you, Brasky, and Pollock would still be there denouncing it as a sellout "pre-empting the possibility" of socialist revolution in the Mideast. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
I wish I could say it's been a while since I've read such a heartfelt, soul-stirring, homage to reformism as Marvin's, but unfortunately I hear it all too frequently. First, a correction to what Marvin writes: "I'd be surprised if you really viewed the fall of apartheid "as a non-issue at best, a joke at worst". Marvin has a bit of trouble with what people actually write, and he tends to get things a bit twisted. I never wrote that the fall of apartheid is a non-issue or a joke. What I wrote was that if Marvin was referring to the "deal" between Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish workers in occupied Palestine as a "compromise" along the lines of the deal in South Africa, then "preserving cultural identity of the minority is a...joke." Preserving the cultural identity of theAfrikaners in South Africa is a non-issue or a joke, because the deal that was cut was a deal to preserve the economic, class power of the minority, not the right to speak Afrikaner. No such deal can create the "democratic, secular" Palestine Marvin desires, because those deals preserve and extend the economic power and privilege of the minority through the process of "accommodation." No, I don't consider the end of apartheid a joke-- never said any such thing-- but the sort of Mandela-de Klerk deal does not bring democracy, or secularism, or socialism. Regarding the history of the ANC and the struggle in South Africa, Marvin would do well to look at the COST of the deal to the struggle in South Africa-- what was lost in terms of the prospects for revolution. Does anyone think the Afrikaners made this deal out of the goodness of their hearts; a sudden burst of Christian morality? The deal was made for economic reasons-- greater access to the world markets; eliminate the considerable financial burdens of running an apartheid state; and most importantly pre-empting the possibility of actual revolution and expropriation of property by a movement who's real strength was in the organizations of the miners and workers. And that cost is being paid right now in the deteriorating conditions for those living in the townships. - Original Message - From: "Marv Gandall" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Artesian writes: [...] > If, however, you're referring to the the type of deal struck by de Klerk, > Botha with Mandela, then preserving "cultural identity" of the minority is > a > non-issue at best, a joke at worst, as the economic and social power of > the > minority has been preserved. === The outcome of those negotiations was the dismantling of the legal and political system of apartheid, including the unbanning of the ANC, which was effectively an agreement to replace white rule with a black majority government. It was a concession forced on the apartheid regime by powerful domestic and international pressures. Because it was a "deal" resulting from a military stalemate rather than the ANC dictating terms in the aftermath of a successful armed struggle, it necessarily required reciprocal assurances by the Congress that Afrikaner assets would not be seized nor regime officials prosecuted for their crimes. Otherwise, there have been no deal. In this context, I consider that the extension of political and other democratic rights to the black masses was an historic advance, even though the ANC, like most other national liberation movements, subsequently fell well short of the expectations of it's active supporters. I'd be surprised if you really viewed the fall of apartheid "as a non-issue at best, a joke at worst". You didn't oppose the enfranchisement of the black majority and the legalization of the ANC because these represented less than a socialist revolution which would have economically and politically expropriated the white ruling class, did you? You wouldn't now reverse that deal if you could, would you? YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
On Oct 18, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dennis Brasky wrote:
> Self determination means the oppressed nation BY AND FOR ITSELF
> makes decisions concerning its status without feeling the need to
> get approval...
And exactly how do 'Marxist" Wilsonians think such a granfalloon as a
"nation" is supposed to "make decisions" (let alone be "feeling"
something)? By majority vote in a referendum (by all "nationals"
anywhere in the world? by "nationals" within some defined {by who?}
territory? by majority of those "nationals"? by majority of those
"nationals" actually voting? by simple or qualified majority?)? By
the voice of a single universally recognized national leader (like the
Dalai Lama)? By seizure of power by or negotiated payoff to a
military junta (like the FLN leadership)? By vote of the United
Nations (like the Javan {alias Indonesian} rulers selfdetermining
themselves in West Papua)? By an assembly of merchants, land
speculators, and slaveholders (like the American Continental
Congress)? By informal democratic popular assemblies formed in the
course of a revolutionary upsurge (1917 Russia)?
No: nations, oppressed or not, make no decisions. Decisions are made
by people, individually or collectively, stupidly or reasonably,
arbitrarily or deliberatively, democratically or autocratically. But
not by hypostatized "nations."
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
OK-- socialists workers who happen to be Jewish in Israel, cross the "national" line, and struggle for a revolution, dismantling of the Israeli settler state, the right of return, the removal of Israeli real estate holdings, settlement, etc. in occupied territories, social, collective organization of the means of production, and most importantly, access to water with Palestinians, and these same workers want to be able to go to a synagogue, pray, keep Kosher, and have Hebrew taught alongside Arabic in public schools? Done. Once all that other stuff is accomplished, that part is a piece of cake. And for there to be a "secular, democratic" political system, that system necessarily will be socialist. If, however, you're referring to the the type of deal struck by de Klerk, Botha with Mandela, then preserving "cultural identity" of the minority is a non-issue at best, a joke at worst, as the economic and social power of the minority has been preserved. On another note, while I appreciate Dennis' sentiment when he defines "self-determination" as when the oppressed nation makes decision concerning its status without feeling the need.," I believe the argument is at core, inadequate and faulty. First, what Marvin was getting at was a tactical accommodation and whether such accommodate was necessary to accomplish the revolutionary goal. Secondly, there is no such thing, as you all know is IMO, as an oppressed nation by and for itself. The "national" appearance, manifestation, moment, is simply the preliminary expression of the essential class struggle that is at the heart of the matter. There are oppressed peoples, but even there and then, emancipation depends on class-conscious struggle. Thirdly, even at their most "respectful," "no interference" times, the Bolsheviks after conquering power had no trouble whatsoever absolutely intervening in the struggles of "oppressed nations," and dictating to militants in those countries what decisions and actions should be taken. - Original Message - From: "Marv Gandall" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
As we used to say back in the day, when somebody laid out the reality of the situation in a few incisive sentences: "There it is." Thanks go to Andy. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Pollack" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Marv Gandall wrote: > > So you are both saying that, following the dissolution of the Zionist > state, > you would not support cultural rights for the Hebrew-speaking minority and > even a limited measure of political autonomy as an interim measure PROVIDED > these were agreed to by the Arabic-speaking majority in the post-Zionist > state? > > SELF determination means that the oppressed nationality would determine its future without the permission and approval of anyone including revolutionaries from the oppressor nation. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > "The project to found Israel as a settler state was and still is ?a > crime?, > said comrade Conrad. But that crime has resulted in the coming into > being > of > an Israeli Jewish, or Hebrew, nation and a working class solution must > recognise this reality. While comrade Conrad could envisage the > necessity > of > expelling recent Israeli settlers from the West Bank as part of an > agreed > democratic settlement, it was out of the question to talk about > uprooting > the Israeli Jewish people as a whole. The Israeli Jewish nation, > like any > other, has the right to self-determination, so long as it is not > exercised > at the expense of the oppression of other peoples. > > In my opinion, comrade Conrad spends a little too long worrying about the existence and future of the 'Jewish nation', 'Hebrew nation', etc and too little time worrying about the only nation in that region under existential threat and that is the Palestinian nation. Just a small point. MATT. --- 'In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.' Proclamation of Independence, 1916. 'The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.' Karl Marx, 1852. a.marx...@gmail.com YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
wrote: > One state-solution theorists admit that their triumph would lead to a mass > exodus of a large percentage of the current population of Israel. I read lots of one-state literature and that's news to me. Emotionally, I am for every single Russian immigrant from the 1970s on -- starting with that pig Avigdor Lieberman -- going back to where they came from. And the same for every single US-born Jew. As for those born in Europe before Hitler, and those from North Africa and the Middle East, that's more complicated. But politically, my position is that every single one of them could stay, and Palestine (river to sea) would have the resources for them and every single Palestinian refugee around the world -- IF AND ONLY IF all of the capitalists among the above were expropriated. And in order to sustain the fledgling socialist state if Egypt and/or one or two other big Arab states joined them. As for the liberal worries about those mean Arabs suppressing the Hebrew "culture" -- fuck that. It was a totally artificial creation, and they should all be forced to learn Arabic, and the Jews-only schools dismantled. Andy YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
i put Marv on moderation for a couple days until he gets clipping text straight. Les YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
You're right, of course. Abbas would be much more malleable than a Mandela or even a Mbeki. But such a move would involve the Zionists abandoning Zionism, ie. a "Jewish" state. The Afrikanner ruling class rejected the notion of a seperate Afrikaner state because they didn't want to be cut off from the South African market which they dominated. The issue of an interim voluntary federation of anti-Zionist Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking Palestinians as a way station to the declared goal of a unitary state is a much different question entirely. - Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" To: "Marv Gandall" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors > Marv Gandall wrote: >> It's not possible to conceive of a socialist revolution in >> Palestine/Israel >> which would not involve the participation of the Jewish masses, and if >> such >> were to come to pass, the question of a "Jewish state", especially in >> terms >> of what it has come to represent, would be moot. It's very unlikely that >> Hebrew-speaking revolutionaries, having shed their blood with >> Arabic-speaking Palestinians against the Zionists and the Zionist idea, >> would be asking, if anything, for more than the new state's support for >> the >> preservation of their language and culture. > > But the conflict is not about language and culture. It is about power, > land, wealth, etc. > > And, furthermore, what is so amazing about the Zionist project is its > inability to think outside the box. South Africa abandoned apartheid but > did nothing to attack the power, land, and wealth of the white minority. > A more clever Zionist leadership would abandon the racial basis of the > state and put the ineffable Abbas in charge of the government. Nothing > would change, however. > > But since the presence of religious zealots in the veins of Israeli > society prevents this, the inevitable outcome will be like Algeria no > matter how long it takes. The demographics favor this. > > > > > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marvgandall%40videotron.ca YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Artesian writes: > Dennis is quite write to point out that there is no such thing as > self-determination for the Afrikaners in South Africa, for the Israelis in > the Middle East, just as the French in Algeria were not entitled to, nor > struggling for self-determination. So you are both saying that, following the dissolution of the Zionist state, you would not support cultural rights for the Hebrew-speaking minority and even a limited measure of political autonomy as an interim measure PROVIDED these were agreed to by the Arabic-speaking majority in the post-Zionist state? If the the Afrikaners in South Africa and French in Algeria accepted the legitimacy of ANC and FLN rule, and the latter were willing to accede to minority demands for some (negotiated) measure of cultural and political autonomy as an interim means of fostering unity and in the economic interest, you would oppose these concessions on principle and condemn the governments for agreeing to these demands? YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > I would be wary of such a "solution" though Louis. France in 1940 is a good > example of how fast a terribly oppressive people can transformed into an > oppressed group in a flash. Demographically it's also a different game than > in Algeria and South Africa and I think it does matter--- in terms of how > hard it will be to eradicate Zionism as opposed to those other apartheid > states-- that Israel was created on the basis of “exclusion colonization”, > relying mostly on Jewish labor, as opposed to regular “exploitation > colonization". Bhaskar (and everybody else), please remember to clip extraneous text. I am not sure what you are trying to say about France. The class distinctions remained the same. The Vichy government was made up of the same "people" who would seek to retain Algeria. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
I would be wary of such a "solution" though Louis. France in 1940 is a good example of how fast a terribly oppressive people can transformed into an oppressed group in a flash. Demographically it's also a different game than in Algeria and South Africa and I think it does matter--- in terms of how hard it will be to eradicate Zionism as opposed to those other apartheid states-- that Israel was created on the basis of “exclusion colonization”, relying mostly on Jewish labor, as opposed to regular “exploitation colonization". One state-solution theorists admit that their triumph would lead to a mass exodus of a large percentage of the current population of Israel. This has serious economic, as well as moral implications. I'm tempted to agree, but I see it as sort of a cop out. On paper it's obviously the ideal solution Zionism was a historical crime littered with an inherent racist ethos. But is there any doubt that this solution cannot be solved without the worldwide return of emancipatory politics as opposed to the current paradigm? On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: > Marv Gandall wrote: > > It's not possible to conceive of a socialist revolution in > Palestine/Israel > > which would not involve the participation of the Jewish masses, and if > such > > were to come to pass, the question of a "Jewish state", especially in > terms > > of what it has come to represent, would be moot. It's very unlikely that > > Hebrew-speaking revolutionaries, having shed their blood with > > Arabic-speaking Palestinians against the Zionists and the Zionist idea, > > would be asking, if anything, for more than the new state's support for > the > > preservation of their language and culture. > > But the conflict is not about language and culture. It is about power, > land, wealth, etc. > > And, furthermore, what is so amazing about the Zionist project is its > inability to think outside the box. South Africa abandoned apartheid but > did nothing to attack the power, land, and wealth of the white minority. > A more clever Zionist leadership would abandon the racial basis of the > state and put the ineffable Abbas in charge of the government. Nothing > would change, however. > > But since the presence of religious zealots in the veins of Israeli > society prevents this, the inevitable outcome will be like Algeria no > matter how long it takes. The demographics favor this. > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
You're right, of course. Abbas would be much more malleable than a Mandela or even a Mbeki. But such a move would involve the Zionists abandoning Zionism, ie. a "Jewish" state. The Afrikanner ruling class rejected the notion of a seperate Afrikaner state because they didn't want to be cut off from the South African market which they dominated. The issue of an interim voluntary federation of anti-Zionist Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking Palestinians as a way station to the declared goal of a unitary state is a much different question entirely. - Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" To: "Marv Gandall" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors > Marv Gandall wrote: >> It's not possible to conceive of a socialist revolution in >> Palestine/Israel >> which would not involve the participation of the Jewish masses, and if >> such >> were to come to pass, the question of a "Jewish state", especially in >> terms >> of what it has come to represent, would be moot. It's very unlikely that >> Hebrew-speaking revolutionaries, having shed their blood with >> Arabic-speaking Palestinians against the Zionists and the Zionist idea, >> would be asking, if anything, for more than the new state's support for >> the >> preservation of their language and culture. > > But the conflict is not about language and culture. It is about power, > land, wealth, etc. > > And, furthermore, what is so amazing about the Zionist project is its > inability to think outside the box. South Africa abandoned apartheid but > did nothing to attack the power, land, and wealth of the white minority. > A more clever Zionist leadership would abandon the racial basis of the > state and put the ineffable Abbas in charge of the government. Nothing > would change, however. > > But since the presence of religious zealots in the veins of Israeli > society prevents this, the inevitable outcome will be like Algeria no > matter how long it takes. The demographics favor this. > > > > > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marvgandall%40videotron.ca YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Someday I will produce a post without typos etc. I don't know when, but the odds say sooner or later, I will. - Original Message - From: "S. Artesian" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors > YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Come on-- there is no principle of self-determination for a Jewish nation, since 1) no such nation exists 2) what does exist, a Zionist state, exists as an overseer, a foreman, a cop in the Middle East. Whatever the Bolshevik notion of self-determination was an was not, the impetus, the material driving force for that notion was not some abstract tenet of a "national-ism" but rather the material reality that self-determination for the oppressed, the segregated, was inseparable from class struggle, and the overthrow of capitalism. That that self-determination was in practice converted into something else-- justification for working class subordination to local bourgeoisie is part and parcel of the retreat, and defeat, of the struggle to overthrow capitalism. If the argument at the heart of uneven and combined development, at the heart of Trostky's permanent revolution is accurate-- that a national, democratic, liberal, bourgeois revolution can no longer accomplish, achieve either the historical marks of such previous revolutions, cannot emancipate the means of production through the imposition of the social relations of capital, the corollary argument-- that such "national" revolutions can only survive, achieve a undemocratic, illiberal, but still capitalist life through the defeat of the working class is not argument at all, but an historic fact. Dennis is quite write to point out that there is no such thing as self-determination for the Afrikaners in South Africa, for the Israelis in the Middle East, just as the French in Algeria were not entitled to, nor struggling for self-determination. - Original Message - From: "Marv Gandall" To: "David Schanoes" Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Marv Gandall wrote: > It's not possible to conceive of a socialist revolution in Palestine/Israel > which would not involve the participation of the Jewish masses, and if such > were to come to pass, the question of a "Jewish state", especially in terms > of what it has come to represent, would be moot. It's very unlikely that > Hebrew-speaking revolutionaries, having shed their blood with > Arabic-speaking Palestinians against the Zionists and the Zionist idea, > would be asking, if anything, for more than the new state's support for the > preservation of their language and culture. But the conflict is not about language and culture. It is about power, land, wealth, etc. And, furthermore, what is so amazing about the Zionist project is its inability to think outside the box. South Africa abandoned apartheid but did nothing to attack the power, land, and wealth of the white minority. A more clever Zionist leadership would abandon the racial basis of the state and put the ineffable Abbas in charge of the government. Nothing would change, however. But since the presence of religious zealots in the veins of Israeli society prevents this, the inevitable outcome will be like Algeria no matter how long it takes. The demographics favor this. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
Dennis Brasky writes: If the Israeli Jews are offered self determination after the coming socialist revolution, what form will that take? Won't it be a Jewish state in Palestine - where the Palestinians would want their state? But the Jews already have such a state, so why do they need a revolution? This would do nothing to break away the Jewish working class from Zionism. On the contrary, it is an unprincipled concession to it, one that the Palestinians could never support. Any leftists advocating it would earn for themselves distrust. = It's not possible to conceive of a socialist revolution in Palestine/Israel which would not involve the participation of the Jewish masses, and if such were to come to pass, the question of a "Jewish state", especially in terms of what it has come to represent, would be moot. It's very unlikely that Hebrew-speaking revolutionaries, having shed their blood with Arabic-speaking Palestinians against the Zionists and the Zionist idea, would be asking, if anything, for more than the new state's support for the preservation of their language and culture. Crucially, however, your stance avoids the question of how to respond to the actual political situation as it exists today. The only discernible movement is in the direction of two rigidly segregated states, with the subordinated Palestinian entity hardly warranting being called such. Fatah and the rest of the world with few exceptions accept the continuation of an Israeli state de jure and Hamas and it's allies are reluctantly compelled to do so de facto. In this context, it's almost utopian to even envisage a federation of two Palestinian and Israeli states as a transitional measure, much less a socialist revolution which dissolves these boundries, but at least the former is something which leftish forces in each society have contemplated as more realizable at the outside, and a possible basis for united action. You invoked Lenin, but neglected to mention or are perhaps unaware that the Bolshevik notion of self-determination allowed for such voluntary federations, perceived as an interim measure accompanying progress towards socialism at the economic level, so it it would not be unprincipled for someone such as yourself to support such a temporary political arrangement in the Middle East as consistent with that tradition. On the other hand, it seems clear that if there is any program at the present time which most Arabic-speaking Palestinians, let alone the overwhelming majority of Hebrew-speakers, "could never support", it is placing a revolutionary socialist agenda ahead of their national aspirations, and that "any leftists advocating it would earn for themselves distrust" from both sides. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] self determination for oppressors
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote: > "The project to found Israel as a settler state was and still is “a crime”, > said comrade Conrad. But that crime has resulted in the coming into being > of > an Israeli Jewish, or Hebrew, nation and a working class solution must > recognise this reality. While comrade Conrad could envisage the necessity > of > expelling recent Israeli settlers from the West Bank as part of an agreed > democratic settlement, it was out of the question to talk about uprooting > the Israeli Jewish people as a whole. The Israeli Jewish nation, like any > other, has the right to self-determination, so long as it is not exercised > at the expense of the oppression of other peoples. > > Did the Afrikaaner community have the right of self-determination? Lenin advocated this slogan for *oppressed* nations. It is a means to convince the oppressed that the working class movement of the oppressor nation supports their struggle, even if it includes separation. It is not a feel good slogan. If the Israeli Jews are offered self determination after the coming socialist revolution, what form will that take? Won't it be a Jewish state in Palestine - where the Palestinians would want their state? But the Jews already have such a state, so why do they need a revolution? This would do nothing to break away the Jewish working class from Zionism. On the contrary, it is an unprincipled concession to it, one that the Palestinians could never support. Any leftists advocating it would earn for themselves distrust. YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
