tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post3932406774589610848..comments2024-03-28T04:26:49.354+00:00Comments on Tony Greenstein's Blog: The Bundist past that Zionism has tried to ObliterateTony Greensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-89406023548842711182011-11-15T17:55:57.350+00:002011-11-15T17:55:57.350+00:00@Gert,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you ought...@Gert, <br /><br />Sorry to burst your bubble, but you ought to learn the history of the terms you use. Yes, that is universalism. You can't make words mean what you think they should mean. And no, ideologically Nazism is different. <br /><br />Universal law and values have been used in the way Bush used them since the 16th century at least, and they are not oddities, but part of a significant ideology that shapes the belief of millions of people. <br /><br />It's totally o.k. to ignore how people rationalize their behavior. It's what they do that really matters in the end. But if you decide for some reason you care about the ideology and the rationalization, that you want to understand what people have in their mind when they behave in this or that way, then you ought to actually pay attention to what beliefs people actually have and what arguments they actually use, rather than just slap your categories on them.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-54386312696374520632011-11-15T13:31:36.347+00:002011-11-15T13:31:36.347+00:00@Evildoer:
The Bush Doctrine (the ‘Freedom Agenda...@Evildoer:<br /><br />The Bush Doctrine (the ‘Freedom Agenda’, LOL) and the banning of bhurkas in France are examples of universalism? When a wolf dons sheep’s clothing it remains a wolf. American ‘universalism’ disguises its relentless pursuit of self-interest and exceptionalism.<br /><br />Regards those French politicians that managed to get the bhurkas banned, you only need to listen with some attention to see how much their claptrap is infused with various particularist arguments (‘in <i>France</i> we favour equality for women’ (do they f*ck!)), not to mention the massive support this no-brainer received from G-d knows how many blatant ‘Eurabia’ types.<br /><br />The Swiss banners of minarets mirror this false appeal to universalism when in reality ‘we [of that particular persuasion] in Switzerland… we don’t like alien religions’ would have been a more honest position. 100 % particularist, cloaked in fake and transparently false ‘universalist’ ‘arguments’.<br /><br />By your definition universalism can be found in Nazism.Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-69776773298419568152011-11-15T01:53:23.258+00:002011-11-15T01:53:23.258+00:00I am not disputing the princples of historical mat...I am not disputing the princples of historical materialism. But if you take as an example nationalism, then yes the right to self-determination is a universal principle and yet nationalism by definition is particularist. This is the contradiction that matters most.<br /><br />Yes Bush spoke in the language of universalism. As have all the spokesperson of imperialism and colonialism through the ages when serving particular needs. Hence their hypocrisy because what they were advocating was anything but universal values.<br /><br />Likewise the 'fuzzy feeling' as you call it of Jewish American feelings also relates to their class position. So yes, all groups do defend their interests in terms that are universal, but in ways that relate to the particular. <br /><br />Which is another way of saying that they have a dialectical relationship to each other or that under capitalism, all universal values are local!Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-86642168175322257512011-11-14T22:50:27.309+00:002011-11-14T22:50:27.309+00:00CONT.
So when the US helped the "democratic&...CONT.<br /><br />So when the US helped the "democratic" Israel against "Totalitarian" Egypt and Syria, the ideology that justified this help was a series of beliefs about universal right and wrong. Therefore Jews who could bask in the warmth of the "special relationship" never had to feel that they were privileging particular Jewish interests and sacrificing universal ones, since the dominant ideology said that their special fuzzy feeling about Israel was in harmony with universal principles of expanding "the free world". <br /><br />So I'm not saying that zionism is universalist. Zionism is ideologically an opportunistic hodge podge, and you can find universalist and anti-universalist arguments in it at the same time, just to take the stupidest example of Zionist "universalism", the Hashmoer Hat'zair idea of Jews coming to liberate Arab peasants from their landlords. <br /><br />But for the specifically American liberal Jews who started supporting Israel ferociously after 1967, after the US found Israel useful strategically, there never war a wrestling between nationalist solidarity and universal values. The two went hand in hand in harmony, because they were held together by the US ideology of "universal" freedom. So using this language of "particularism" vs. "universalism" to describe the ideological development of US Jewish identity is a-historical and divorced from reality. It is the imposition of ideological abstractions, and it should be questioned like any ideological operation.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-63982692608119863742011-11-14T22:50:01.155+00:002011-11-14T22:50:01.155+00:00Tony, you can divide people any way you like, but ...Tony, you can divide people any way you like, but historical materialism is based on the principle that historical categories are historically constituted, not given to the world on a platter of godly abstractions. If you want to give that insight up, you know where that takes you.<br /><br />I didn't argue that the Lubavitcher is a universalist. Obviously there are ideologies that are explicitly anti- or non-universalist, and obviously some forms of Jewish religiosity and some form of nationalism are indeed explicitly so. Nationalism itself is not necessarily anti-universalist in so far as "a right to nationality" has been recognized as a universal human right. <br /><br />But universalism, the idea that certain universal truth hold in all place, for all time and people, has a particular trajectory bound with the development of Western capitalism, with important signposts such as the doctrine of natural law, which was the foundation of colonial expropriation, and such. Capitalism as theory of humanity is also based on a set of universal axioms, from what Marx explicitly called the "universal law" of value, IIRC, to the idea of Homo Economicus, who, whether living in a village in Vietnam or speculating on Wall-Street, is always allegedly motivated by the same utility calculations.<br /><br />The Bush doctrine, whatever it relates to, was explained by Bush himself in the State of the Union thus: <br /><br /><i>Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.</i><br /><br />If you don't understand why this is explicitly a universalist statement, I am lost. The argument that it is not genuine, or that Bush didn't mean it, or that his actions were not in line with his words, have no bearing here, as we are discussing ideas. The IDEOLOGY behind US foreign policy is here explicitly universalist, and Bush is only continuing a long tradition. Of course Wilson's 14 points were the epitome of universalism. <br /><br />Likewise the justification of French laws banning Muslim signs is argued in terms of the universal principles of "secularism" established in the French revolution. They are the principles French state ideology considers right for all people, regardless of their skin color, gender, creed, etc. You can argue that this is hypocritical, but these are the arguments. It is not argued that France is uniquely Christian and therefore Muslims should be discriminated against. It is argued that "secularism" is the universally right way to order civil society everywhere, and France is merely leading the way, having "discovered" these universal principles of the good social order.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-68169259849133093922011-11-14T22:00:31.870+00:002011-11-14T22:00:31.870+00:00My own problem with evildoer's definition of u...My own problem with evildoer's definition of universalism is that it includes everything within it and thus makes it useless as a means of understanding the world.<br /><br />Without trying to be too abstract or theoretical, universalism to me means a set of ideas and understandings and their accompanying perspectives that do not posit a special, privileged place for a particular group(s).<br /><br />Zionism's adherents of course do think, or some of them do, that they are universalist, though I don't believe this is true of the racist rabbis of Lubavitch et al in Israel who operate on the basis of 'is it good for a Jew' and who define everything according to this. <br /><br />If this is universalism then we need a new category to define what was previously understood by this term.<br /><br />In so far as the US Cold War doctrines applied everywhere and to everyone then yes they were universal, although they were aimed at benefitting western elites not all humanity.<br /><br />The Bush Doctrine, in so far as there was one, seems particularly related to the New American century, not a particularly universalist concept.<br /><br />The laws against Muslim garb in France are clearly aimed at particular people and I don't see how they can be universalist except in so far as they apply to everyone. It's what's called indirect discrimination.<br /><br />You speak about false explanations of history, but that is the prerogative of every state and its national myth makers. Again it has little to do with universalism.<br /><br />I think there is merit in dividing people or better movements or parties between "universalists" and "particularists." Equality is universalist, it accepts that we are all born the same. Nationalism and racism are by definition particularist.<br /><br />I think the motivation behind Jews who support a foreign policy geared to their needs and identity cannot be universalist. It is again narrowly focussed on what is good for particular Jews in a particular location. <br /><br />'Jewishness' is a false construct in itself and the definition by e.g. Atzmon is very clearly particlarist i.e. it applies only to Jews!Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-62220076761971599112011-11-14T20:27:23.428+00:002011-11-14T20:27:23.428+00:00Gert, I'm not "cavalier" about unive...Gert, I'm not "cavalier" about universalism. Being the unreconstructed Marxist that I am, I take words to mean their full history, not only one particular aspect that I like/hate about them. <br /><br />"Universalism" is everything that was argued and done on the basis of the claim about the existence of universal truths/qualities/laws etc. So yes, US foreign policy during the Cold War was "universalist," as was the Bush Doctrine, as are the laws against Muslim garb in France today, as were Voltaire's anti-Jewish rants two hundred years ago. <br /><br />The fact that you disagree with these examples of universalism doesn't make them automatically "false," it makes universalism a complex idea, with aspects both commendable and less so, including providing a cover, as you correctly point out, to shameless greed. <br /><br />What I object to is false explanations that take history and abstract it in into a set of rigid, mutually exclusive categories that are purely imaginary and deeply ideological, such as dividing people between "universalists" and "particularists." <br /><br />And to the point. Jews (those specific Jews) did not put aside their universalism. They supported a US foreign policy that both catered to their Jewish identity AND at the same time expressed universal values within the language of universal values broadly accepted in US general culture. I understand you have a problem with that AND. And that is exactly what I criticized, the inability to recognize contradictions in reality as real. <br /><br />As it were, I have no desire to relegate "these ideas" to the dustbin. Just as "2" is the name of the set that includes all pairs, "Jewishness" is the name of the set that includes all things Jewish.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-33002375627027831192011-11-14T13:44:52.944+00:002011-11-14T13:44:52.944+00:00Evildoer:
I didn’t say that American Jews have gi...Evildoer:<br /><br />I didn’t say that American Jews have given up their universalist values, only that after 1967 (roughly) they started putting these aside for matters related to Israel.<br /><br />I think you’re being cavalier and flippant with your definition of universalist: who on Earth can consider the genocidaires like the faux-left Pol Pot as a manifestation of universalism???<br /><br />Also, you underestimate (or gloss over) the cold war value that a 100 % US loyal piece of real estate smack bang in the ME had for the US. That is what drove the unconditional support of the US for Israel during much of that period.<br /><br /><i>”Redscribe, the white power leftist wannabe, doesn't understand that nobody should care why people are hostile to "Jewishness."”</i><br /><br />What do you understand by “Jewishness” in this context? Jewish chauvinism? Jewish particularism? (I’m not as willing as you are to relegate these terms to the dustbin, based only on past abuse of these terms)Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-33532816878964320332011-11-13T23:33:20.287+00:002011-11-13T23:33:20.287+00:00@Gert,
American Jews never gave up their "u...@Gert, <br /><br />American Jews never gave up their "universalist" worldview. Rather, as they grew richer and conservative, many of them drunk the American manifest destiny kool-aid, which at that time identified universalism with "defense of the free world," i.e., anti-communist US Foreign policy. The key word that defined the new sensitivity was "totalitarianism." Here, the holocaust became a New American totem, associated not with Nazism per se, but with "totalitarianism," and the Jew as indeed the image of the universal victim, the quintessential "human" beneficiary of US foreign policy and defense of freedom and democracy. The US defended Israel, "the only democracy of the Middle East" primarily against "totalitarian" Soviet client states, thus reliving the experience of the "greatest generation" that liberated Europe from the Nazis. <br /><br />Thus, American Jewish support for Israel, including its Jewish chauvinist, "what is good for the Jews" aspect, was only possible on the basis of an ideological construct that made support for Israel flow from the allegedly universal principles of US foreign policy. That Jews were progressive on racial issues in the US was of course in line with their own fresh memories of racism, but by the time Jews adopted Israel, liberal support for civil rights was pretty established and no longer particularly radical. For some reason, there is a new tendency (rather old, but rearing its head again) identifying "universalism" as the catchword and "particularism" as the enemy. This is bullshit. Universal values have been used to commit genocide. Is there anything more "universalist" than capitalism? reread the communist manifesto.<br /><br />So young US Jews are not leaving Jewish particularlism in order to connect to universalist traditions. They are redefining their understanding of history and their own place in US society, and that requires redefining both what universalism means and what Jewish "particular" means. <br /><br />Redscribe, the white power leftist wannabe, doesn't understand that nobody should care why people are hostile to "Jewishness." Before the reactionary antisemites of the mid nineteenth century took over the idea of the Jewish plot and used it to attack communism, therefore clearly making it a right wing idea, prejudice against Jews and Jewishness was progressive and part of the very idea of modernity. Voltaire was notorious for it, and one finds "progressive" anti-Jewish prejudice in Marx as well. "Progress" was the argument that justified the expropriation of the Americas and the genocides of the natives. And of course, Zionism was a "progressive" movement. Read its original manifestos and you will see how much of the progressive tradition of white modernity was inherent to it. So the fact that some people adopt reactionary ideas out of "progressive" reasons is hardly news. It's been done before.Evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-8296343967747830472011-11-13T17:40:40.754+00:002011-11-13T17:40:40.754+00:00Again a very interesting post and it got me up to ...Again a very interesting post and it got me up to speed regards the Bund, like few resources have.<br /><br />I believe there’s a perhaps weak parallel to be made with regards to the evolution of American Jewry’s attitude towards Israel and Zionism. While a lot, perhaps even the majority, of American Jews sees themselves as ‘liberal’ (embracing, simply put, certain universalist values) this is far from so when it comes to Israel, especially since 1967. What Phil Weiss refers to as ‘progressive except for Palestine’ (PEP).<br /><br />It appears though that a number of younger American Jews are reconnecting with this universalist tradition, also with regards to Israel. To them, Israel is no longer ‘cool’ and they may end up anti-zionist or even non-zionist <i>tout court</i>. This isn’t necessarily good news for the Cause as in parallel we may see more religiously observant American Jews renew and reinvigorate their undying veneration for Israel and these people are decidedly less connected to democratic/universalist values. Already it seems that the current Israeli government is practically hijacked by fanatical religious factions, their intransigent positions with regards to the ‘Palestinian problem’ and their ‘price tag’ policies. In that regard, things are likely to get worse before they can get any better. As a Belgian author put it: “A number of Far Right American Jews who in the ‘Territories’ are looking for a new version of the American Frontier, but this time with ‘Arabs’ instead of Indians”…Gerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752117708821629614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-268586773626302562011-11-12T17:21:33.245+00:002011-11-12T17:21:33.245+00:00Tony G wrote:
"This film and the ideas behin...Tony G wrote:<br /><br />"This film and the ideas behind it give the lie to those who suggest that Israel and Zionism are the product of some mysterious ‘Jewishness’. That racism against Arabs and Palestinians is inherent in being Jewish. A film like this can give an understanding of the crimes that Zionism has committed against Jews, let alone Palestinians. Whereas being Jewish was seen as being progressive and radical up to the early 1950’s, today the term ‘Jewish’ is synonymous with imperialism, neo-conservatism, invasion, bombing of civilians, false accusations of racism, economic privilege and overt anti-Muslim racism. Who recalls that one of only two Communist MPs elected in Britain, was Phil Piratin for Mile End in the East End post-1945?"<br /><br />That is actually quite well put, and does appear to recognise that these days at least some people's hostility to 'Jewishness' comes from progressive, not reactionary motives (albeit those ideas are also very confused).<br /><br />In that sense it does parallel some things I have been arguing in my recent extended <a href="http://redscribblings.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/from-atzmon-to-dreyfus-a-reply-to-communalists-and-stalinists/" rel="nofollow">reply</a> to Tony.redscribehttp://redscribblings.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com