Thanks you for this concise analyzes, consider my mind blown. Yet again.
I briefly would like to address the last paragraphs, where you speak about leftist antisemitism.
Now, to be clear, i do not say leftist antisemitism does not exist. But as someone who lives in the German-speaking part of the world, for me the bigger problem is how antisemitism is getting weaponized. At its core it so very much depends which definition of antisemitism gets used. The so-called IHRA or the Jerusalem definition start from such a different vantage point that according to the former, your writing here would be considered to be antisemitic. In fact, i have been accused by German "leftists" of being antisemitic simply for sharing an article written by you.
According to the IHRA-definition almost any criticism of Israel, of Zionism, or even many slogans like "Free Palestine" or "From the river to the sea" are considered to be antisemitic. And it is in that sense that "the left" gets demonized here. Some have called what is happening in Germany "philosemitic McCarthyism" (Neiman) when even "leftist" jewish thinkers like Gessen, Buttler, Fraser and Klein, or jewish artists like Breitz get accused of antisemitism simply for voicing their critique of the Netanyahu government. The so-called "Antideutsche" in Germany go even further, when they frame every criticism of imperialism or of the USA to be antisemitic. Which is absurd.
So in short, yes, if there is actual antisemitism on the left, according to the Jerusalem definition here, it needs to stop. The problem is, i have yet to see any of that (which is not to say, it does not exist, just that on the social media that i use (mastodon) and in the circles i move in, it does not happen). And the way accusations of antisemitism get weaponzied against the left is also a huge problem.
Philosemitism is definitely one of the most significant antisemitisms in practice in the NATO countries. There are also some other currents, like "patriotic socialists", gaining currency in left spaces, who are trying to root for the destruction of Israel (good) while defending or remaining aloof to the colonial states they live in or whose foreign policies they support (bad), which does seem like an example of antisemitism by exceptionalizing Israel for following a path that many states have taken or tried to take before it.
Here are some articles on philosemitism, since I believe it's basically state ideology in a lot of Israel-backing countries.
I agree with this. And in addition to exceptionalizing Israel, another increasingly common form of antisemitism on the Left is praising Hamas. I don't speak Arabic, but I'm pretty sure they're a markedly antisemitic organization, unlike earlier currents of the Palestinian liberation movement and many parallel currents today that don't get as much attention.
Yes, you are very correct. Hamas is a very authoritarian, backward-looking and of course strongly anti-Semitic organization, which never means any kind of liberation for the Palestinian people. They would rather establish a theocracy like the mullahs in Iran or the Taliban. While women in this area, called Gaza, used to be seen in colorful dresses and loose hair, this disappeared pretty quickly when Hamas took over the administration of Gaza. Indirectly, Hamas has helped the Israeli state in its quest to destroy the Palestinian people and at least any possibility of a future. That was the plan when they, Mossad, raised their baby. When, under Fatah and the PLO, Palestinian children and teenagers only threw stones, the Israeli military still fired. With Hamas armed with rockets, the increasing military destruction and attacks by the IDF and the wall could of course be justified much better. These plans by the Israeli state and its secret service are perfidious enough. Hamas is therefore jointly responsible for everything that is happening now. I noticed how left-wing orgs. uncritically shouted the slogans on the streets of Berlin together with Palestinians who are close to Hamas. Yes, it is possible to condemn the Israeli state like any state without blaming every Jew for the crimes and also to fight for the Palestinian people without courting that damn Hamas. What else should anarchists in particular do? The PLO's primary concern was the liberation of the Palestinian people and an independent state in which they could live in peace. There was even a time when this seemed to become a reality, when Arafat and Rabin signed this agreement. But Itzak Rabin was shot by a right-wing extremist fanatic. I'll refrain from speculating, but things went downhill rapidly from there. Don't miss understand me, I never will support states, but I am thinking, this was a chance against the hell, where are the Palestines experience now.
Appreciate the time taken to push back on attempts to exceptionalize Israelis as if their pro-genocide unity is without precedent or rival, especially in other states with large European ruling & "middle" classes. If those under U.S. or Canadian occupation launched a liberation war—whatever ideology the leaders did or didn't claim—within the borders of those states today…
Just wanted to note, though, that while most uses of "Israeli settlers" refer to the extra-fascist wing that expropriates the West Bank & Jerusalem without waiting for state approval, those living in the major Israeli cities, kibbutzim, & other colonial outposts are no less settlers, whatever their professed liberalism & leftism. Several of the Israeli anarchists (way more likely to be heard than Palestinian anarchists) are quite clear about this too.
On the failures of the Palestinian solidarity movement, I think this from October has still proven itself to be largely on point.
Thanks for this! And I agree about the settlers: even a community that doesn't have its own paramilitary unit relies on armed force to maintain its control of the land. Same as here in the US...
Yeah, I definitely agree that the 10 Theses here are still mostly on point, it's a good text to distribute for the ways it gives a critical analysis of what's going on, for identifying a really good strategic direction to take (strategic and ethical and intelligent and necessary), and for pushing us to do better.
I just want to add the small critique that bringing back materialism and advancing a self-defeating/meaningless concept of "material solidarity" is such an unforced error. On the one hand, the materialists of the 20th century gave us such a long and tragic arc to learn from, given how central international solidarity for national liberation and anticolonial movements was to their strategy, and how massive their failure. Additionally, it misses out on how much practices and thinking on support, care, and solidarity have developed, particularly in queer and feminist circles coming out of the overlapping Black liberation, anarchist, and disability justice traditions. It's just a needless step backwards. The best solidarity is not exclusively material, and materialism was just the latest religion to captivate the masses and help self-select and recruit their would-be leaders.
I bring this up because, in the spirit of the 10 theses, we need to do a lot better, and also because crypto-vanguardist currents are trying to quietly resuscitate some of the worst mistakes of the last century. It's likely that the author is simply missing out on some history and it's all well intentioned, by "materialist" popping up in a text should be a gentle red flag.
"Materialist solidarity occurred historically under unique circumstances where people in the United States were compelled to act in new ways. As bad as the conditions in Palestine have gotten, they have not affected conditions in ways that force broader segments of oppressed and exploited people here in the United States to act."
To be completely honest, I'm not entirely what the author(s) consider these highlights of "materialist solidarity" to be, or what they believe insufficient action against the U.S./Israel nexus can be chalked up to. My "largely on point" comment came from believing they were raising the right questions more than thinking they'd proposed helpful (to me) answers. I might also be in the group that's missing a little history, though, as I'm not sure what the crypto-vanguardist currents are or how materialist is a red flag. Is it just cover for MLs (or movements that claim ML ideology while mostly trying to engage in fairly standard capitalist nation-state building)? Are you trying to warn against those who suggest ideology is largely irrelevant & it's just whoever gets "results" whose efforts matter? I think I can imagine nodding along to those points but not sure if that's what you're saying. I do think there's an enormous amount that can be done better "this time around" without trying to retread or reenact episodes like the struggle against the U.S. & French counterinsurgencies in Vietnam—it seems to me that their "high points" are arguably higher than the present, but their shortcomings are rarely addressed (despite some critique offered by participants decades later) & could largely be avoided by carefully drawing on the lessons of the various movements you named in your comment.
Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it, about learning from and trying to improve on past solidarity movements.
As far as the M word, a part of it is just non-strategic, kinda uninformed and very behind the times preference for material solidarity (sabotage of infrastructure? economic support?) over integrated solidarity that is also emotional and relational. It's just like: here, take this inferior version of this tool we've been developing.
"Materialist" with the ism attached only appears once in the text, in the quote you're sharing. There's a possibility that one appearance is an accident, careless writing, but based on how the rest of the text is written I think that's less likely.
And I think favorable references to materialism are problematic, not only because they rehabilitate Marxist-Leninists, who we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt 103 years ago were a counter-revolutionary, upper class, and increasingly right-wing approach to revolution... but also because materialism *really doesn't make the list of things that are useful from a Marxist framework. Quite the opposite, it's just a mystification that goes back to Marx being swept up by the intellectual religion of his day. Most of what Marx refers to as material is actually social and relational, and if you insist on ignoring how the material world is always-already culturally reconstructed and put his particular cart before his particular horse, casting both state strategy and revolutionary developments as subsequent to and caused by changes in economic modes, every time I've seen it's always been based on falsifications.
The most recent example I can think of of someone actually trying to do this in a thorough way rather than a run of the mill lazy way was, I think, End Notes (big apologies if I'm confusing their publication with another one), trying to explain the uptick in global revolt they mistakenly tie to the economic downturn.
Thanks you for this concise analyzes, consider my mind blown. Yet again.
I briefly would like to address the last paragraphs, where you speak about leftist antisemitism.
Now, to be clear, i do not say leftist antisemitism does not exist. But as someone who lives in the German-speaking part of the world, for me the bigger problem is how antisemitism is getting weaponized. At its core it so very much depends which definition of antisemitism gets used. The so-called IHRA or the Jerusalem definition start from such a different vantage point that according to the former, your writing here would be considered to be antisemitic. In fact, i have been accused by German "leftists" of being antisemitic simply for sharing an article written by you.
According to the IHRA-definition almost any criticism of Israel, of Zionism, or even many slogans like "Free Palestine" or "From the river to the sea" are considered to be antisemitic. And it is in that sense that "the left" gets demonized here. Some have called what is happening in Germany "philosemitic McCarthyism" (Neiman) when even "leftist" jewish thinkers like Gessen, Buttler, Fraser and Klein, or jewish artists like Breitz get accused of antisemitism simply for voicing their critique of the Netanyahu government. The so-called "Antideutsche" in Germany go even further, when they frame every criticism of imperialism or of the USA to be antisemitic. Which is absurd.
So in short, yes, if there is actual antisemitism on the left, according to the Jerusalem definition here, it needs to stop. The problem is, i have yet to see any of that (which is not to say, it does not exist, just that on the social media that i use (mastodon) and in the circles i move in, it does not happen). And the way accusations of antisemitism get weaponzied against the left is also a huge problem.
Philosemitism is definitely one of the most significant antisemitisms in practice in the NATO countries. There are also some other currents, like "patriotic socialists", gaining currency in left spaces, who are trying to root for the destruction of Israel (good) while defending or remaining aloof to the colonial states they live in or whose foreign policies they support (bad), which does seem like an example of antisemitism by exceptionalizing Israel for following a path that many states have taken or tried to take before it.
Here are some articles on philosemitism, since I believe it's basically state ideology in a lot of Israel-backing countries.
http://tuftsobserver.org/zionist-philosemitism-has-got-to-go/
https://scribe.rip/5-philosemitic-dog-whistles-to-watch-out-for-2a10cf0597a5
I agree with this. And in addition to exceptionalizing Israel, another increasingly common form of antisemitism on the Left is praising Hamas. I don't speak Arabic, but I'm pretty sure they're a markedly antisemitic organization, unlike earlier currents of the Palestinian liberation movement and many parallel currents today that don't get as much attention.
Yes, you are very correct. Hamas is a very authoritarian, backward-looking and of course strongly anti-Semitic organization, which never means any kind of liberation for the Palestinian people. They would rather establish a theocracy like the mullahs in Iran or the Taliban. While women in this area, called Gaza, used to be seen in colorful dresses and loose hair, this disappeared pretty quickly when Hamas took over the administration of Gaza. Indirectly, Hamas has helped the Israeli state in its quest to destroy the Palestinian people and at least any possibility of a future. That was the plan when they, Mossad, raised their baby. When, under Fatah and the PLO, Palestinian children and teenagers only threw stones, the Israeli military still fired. With Hamas armed with rockets, the increasing military destruction and attacks by the IDF and the wall could of course be justified much better. These plans by the Israeli state and its secret service are perfidious enough. Hamas is therefore jointly responsible for everything that is happening now. I noticed how left-wing orgs. uncritically shouted the slogans on the streets of Berlin together with Palestinians who are close to Hamas. Yes, it is possible to condemn the Israeli state like any state without blaming every Jew for the crimes and also to fight for the Palestinian people without courting that damn Hamas. What else should anarchists in particular do? The PLO's primary concern was the liberation of the Palestinian people and an independent state in which they could live in peace. There was even a time when this seemed to become a reality, when Arafat and Rabin signed this agreement. But Itzak Rabin was shot by a right-wing extremist fanatic. I'll refrain from speculating, but things went downhill rapidly from there. Don't miss understand me, I never will support states, but I am thinking, this was a chance against the hell, where are the Palestines experience now.
Appreciate the time taken to push back on attempts to exceptionalize Israelis as if their pro-genocide unity is without precedent or rival, especially in other states with large European ruling & "middle" classes. If those under U.S. or Canadian occupation launched a liberation war—whatever ideology the leaders did or didn't claim—within the borders of those states today…
Just wanted to note, though, that while most uses of "Israeli settlers" refer to the extra-fascist wing that expropriates the West Bank & Jerusalem without waiting for state approval, those living in the major Israeli cities, kibbutzim, & other colonial outposts are no less settlers, whatever their professed liberalism & leftism. Several of the Israeli anarchists (way more likely to be heard than Palestinian anarchists) are quite clear about this too.
On the failures of the Palestinian solidarity movement, I think this from October has still proven itself to be largely on point.
https://haters.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/26/10-anarchist-theses-on-palestine-solidarity-in-the-united-states/
Thanks for this! And I agree about the settlers: even a community that doesn't have its own paramilitary unit relies on armed force to maintain its control of the land. Same as here in the US...
Yeah, I definitely agree that the 10 Theses here are still mostly on point, it's a good text to distribute for the ways it gives a critical analysis of what's going on, for identifying a really good strategic direction to take (strategic and ethical and intelligent and necessary), and for pushing us to do better.
I just want to add the small critique that bringing back materialism and advancing a self-defeating/meaningless concept of "material solidarity" is such an unforced error. On the one hand, the materialists of the 20th century gave us such a long and tragic arc to learn from, given how central international solidarity for national liberation and anticolonial movements was to their strategy, and how massive their failure. Additionally, it misses out on how much practices and thinking on support, care, and solidarity have developed, particularly in queer and feminist circles coming out of the overlapping Black liberation, anarchist, and disability justice traditions. It's just a needless step backwards. The best solidarity is not exclusively material, and materialism was just the latest religion to captivate the masses and help self-select and recruit their would-be leaders.
I bring this up because, in the spirit of the 10 theses, we need to do a lot better, and also because crypto-vanguardist currents are trying to quietly resuscitate some of the worst mistakes of the last century. It's likely that the author is simply missing out on some history and it's all well intentioned, by "materialist" popping up in a text should be a gentle red flag.
Is this the section you're referring to?
"Materialist solidarity occurred historically under unique circumstances where people in the United States were compelled to act in new ways. As bad as the conditions in Palestine have gotten, they have not affected conditions in ways that force broader segments of oppressed and exploited people here in the United States to act."
To be completely honest, I'm not entirely what the author(s) consider these highlights of "materialist solidarity" to be, or what they believe insufficient action against the U.S./Israel nexus can be chalked up to. My "largely on point" comment came from believing they were raising the right questions more than thinking they'd proposed helpful (to me) answers. I might also be in the group that's missing a little history, though, as I'm not sure what the crypto-vanguardist currents are or how materialist is a red flag. Is it just cover for MLs (or movements that claim ML ideology while mostly trying to engage in fairly standard capitalist nation-state building)? Are you trying to warn against those who suggest ideology is largely irrelevant & it's just whoever gets "results" whose efforts matter? I think I can imagine nodding along to those points but not sure if that's what you're saying. I do think there's an enormous amount that can be done better "this time around" without trying to retread or reenact episodes like the struggle against the U.S. & French counterinsurgencies in Vietnam—it seems to me that their "high points" are arguably higher than the present, but their shortcomings are rarely addressed (despite some critique offered by participants decades later) & could largely be avoided by carefully drawing on the lessons of the various movements you named in your comment.
Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it, about learning from and trying to improve on past solidarity movements.
As far as the M word, a part of it is just non-strategic, kinda uninformed and very behind the times preference for material solidarity (sabotage of infrastructure? economic support?) over integrated solidarity that is also emotional and relational. It's just like: here, take this inferior version of this tool we've been developing.
"Materialist" with the ism attached only appears once in the text, in the quote you're sharing. There's a possibility that one appearance is an accident, careless writing, but based on how the rest of the text is written I think that's less likely.
And I think favorable references to materialism are problematic, not only because they rehabilitate Marxist-Leninists, who we found out beyond the shadow of a doubt 103 years ago were a counter-revolutionary, upper class, and increasingly right-wing approach to revolution... but also because materialism *really doesn't make the list of things that are useful from a Marxist framework. Quite the opposite, it's just a mystification that goes back to Marx being swept up by the intellectual religion of his day. Most of what Marx refers to as material is actually social and relational, and if you insist on ignoring how the material world is always-already culturally reconstructed and put his particular cart before his particular horse, casting both state strategy and revolutionary developments as subsequent to and caused by changes in economic modes, every time I've seen it's always been based on falsifications.
The most recent example I can think of of someone actually trying to do this in a thorough way rather than a run of the mill lazy way was, I think, End Notes (big apologies if I'm confusing their publication with another one), trying to explain the uptick in global revolt they mistakenly tie to the economic downturn.
Only great!