tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post5546387668768865508..comments2024-03-28T04:26:49.354+00:00Comments on Tony Greenstein's Blog: Gilad Atzmon's attack on Judeo-Marxism and Israeli anti-Zionist Moshe MachoverTony Greensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-91781956576432386642010-08-19T10:03:50.587+01:002010-08-19T10:03:50.587+01:00I admire Atzmon and own his albums, but I am afrai...I admire Atzmon and own his albums, but I am afraid he is full of crap, and therefore I keep my distance. I don't think anti-semitism is any kind of threat nowadays, but wishing to resurrect it is evidence of political reaction and a retrogressive mentality. Moshé is an honourable man, tireless in the defence of Palestinian rights, and to call him a "Judaeobolshevik" is ridiculous and doesn't stand a moment's examination. Atzmon separates Karl Marx, whom he admires, from "Judaeobolshevism" when Marx himself was a secular Jew. It doesn't make any sense at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727486764806746310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-6217904890578647662009-07-05T23:51:38.562+01:002009-07-05T23:51:38.562+01:00My advice to Gilad Atzmon is to paraphrase Frank Z...My advice to Gilad Atzmon is to paraphrase Frank Zappa -- 'Shut up and play your saxophone.'Dr Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-59445113439589396032009-07-05T22:29:26.208+01:002009-07-05T22:29:26.208+01:00In religious societies such as Saudi Arabia or Ira...<i>In religious societies such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, religion legitimises the most reactionary and barbaric elements of that society in the repression they meet out in order to sanctify the operations of modern capitalism.</i><br /><br />It is important to understand how politics and religion intersect in any particular configuration. But this is not what you are doing. Instead of a serious analysis, you offer anti-religious prejudice.<br /><br />Any ideology that can mobilize people can be turned against them, the same way any knife that can cut a salad can cut a throat. Bait and switch is not unique to religion. Wasn't the promise of (earthly) paradise also used to enable the most barbaric and reactionary elements of actually existing socialism? Is feminism inherently "backward looking" because Laura Bush used it to justify bombing Afghanistan? <br /><br />Any political analysis opens space for both reactionary and progressive forces. This is the great fetish of politics, the thing we are not allowed to acknowledge in our quest for the political holy grail, a politics so pure that it can only move us forward. But that is as likely to exist as a knife that only cuts salad. Marxism is an excellent analytical toolbox. Over the long term it has proven a lousy mobilizer. The big religions have been much better at mobilizing people, but as an analytical toolkit is has been far less impressive. Both have been very good at cutting our own throat with. So let's respect these complex legacies (to which I hardly do justice here) without prejudice and without phony "patriotism" (my language is better than yours because I use it).evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-25387932529960960702009-07-05T22:03:05.760+01:002009-07-05T22:03:05.760+01:00Secularism is not a fundamentalist ideology becaus...<i>Secularism is not a fundamentalist ideology because secularism really means the separation of religion from the State. Nothing more. Secularists therefore come in all shapes and sizes.</i><br /><br />You are right but for the wrong reason. Secularism isn't fundamentalist per se because it isn't a "return to the original text." (and that is why radical Shiite Islam is also not fundamentalist btw). I was using the term facetiously, my apologies, as a synonym for "fanatic." And I do consider secularism today, the idea that religion is a malignant force, a fanatic ideology.<br /><br />Besides, I support the separation of religion from the state in order to safeguard religion from the malignant influence of the state, not in order to defend the state from religion; the state can get lost.evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-74628470823107565152009-07-05T20:51:39.836+01:002009-07-05T20:51:39.836+01:00Atzmon deliberately conflates Islmist politics wit...Atzmon deliberately conflates Islmist politics with Islam and all Muslims.<br /><br />This is exactly what he does with Jewish people and zionism.<br /><br />There is no such thing as an Islamic monolithic worldview anymore than there is a Jewish monolithic worldview.<br /><br />In fact, what Atzmon claims of Muslims and Islam is exactly what the likes of Melanie Philips, Harry's Place blog and the rest of the grotesque Islamophobes claim about Islam and Muslims.<br /><br />Great article and great comment by evildoer.<br /><br />I'll get back to TGB with some more observations later if I may.<br /><br />ps<br />Just to chime in with evildoer's observations that not all secular politics are progressive, even those on the Left, but which claim the article by Hisham Bustani deploys in order to allege that us western lefties are arrogant and racist - I can recommend lenin of Lenin's Tomb first book (and hopefully not his last) -<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Defence-Murder-Richard-Seymour/dp/1844672409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1246823192&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">The Liberal Defence of Murder</a> <br />(2008)joe90 kanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15925893894108250518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-66670654333521648012009-07-05T20:36:21.592+01:002009-07-05T20:36:21.592+01:00Levinsohn asks me whether I like Ibish. I've ...Levinsohn asks me whether I like Ibish. I've never met him. He's never been on my 'friend list'. What Ali Abunimah and Ibish wrote about Israel Shamir was, of course, spot on. And they were proved correct as Shamir became an open fascist and holocaust denier - Auschwitz was an internment camp and Leiberman was just fine!<br /><br />So the comment about seeking comfort from reactionary quisling elements in Arab society is just crap, since I have clearly criticised him and ironically you should say the same about Atzmon, who quotes Ibish approvingly when it comes to the colonial nature of Israel but ignores his and Abunimah's comments about Shamir!<br /><br />Evildoer's comments are more serious of course and I don't have time to do them justice. So quickly:<br /><br />i. Secularism is not a fundamentalist ideology because secularism really means the separation of religion from the State. Nothing more. Secularists therefore come in all shapes and sizes.<br /><br />2. Marxism is a means of understanding and analysis as well as a guide to action. That is why it is forward looking. Of course there are those, primarily but not only Stalinists, who look backward to a reified Soviet Union divorced from anything other than stage puppets.<br /><br />3. Religion can indeed be a hindrance. It can also be the medium through which people organise, as with the Shah of Iran. The danger is that its backward looking ideology, looking at a golden age of the Ummah etc. acts to chain people to the past socially whilst the society itself has all the trappings of modern society. Or to put it another way. In religious societies such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, religion legitimises the most reactionary and barbaric elements of that society in the repression they meet out in order to sanctify the operations of modern capitalism.<br /><br />This of course breeds corruption and hypocrisy, as the religious ideology becomes a tool in the hands of the ruling clique in order to ward of criticism.<br /><br />Not all those who are religious are fundamentalist and if I didn't make that clear in the article I am doing so now. There are those, the Christian Peacemakers of the Catholic Living Stones in Britain, under whose founder the late Father Michael Prior, I studied. They apply the best of the religion and its most humanistic aspects.<br /><br />Witness the debate between the univeralist rabbi Hillel and the authoritarian rabbi Shamai. But who does Zionism take as its guide? Not Hillel or the Prophets either. They prefer the Book of Joshua (the Book of Genocide).<br /><br />But I say this bearing in mind that the largest pro-Zionist lobby in the USA is not AIPAC or Jewish supporters of israel but the Christians for Zionism, who certainly are biblical fundamentalists with their Revelations and Rapture.Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-2897708374279083712009-07-05T18:04:09.934+01:002009-07-05T18:04:09.934+01:00Of course any Marxist worth their salt would share...<i>Of course any Marxist worth their salt would share the position that not only Islam, but all religion is backward looking and when it comes part of the ideology of an oppressed people it cannot but become a hindrance in terms of being able to appeal to a wider audience.</i><br /><br />You are welcome to advocate your (and Machover's) secular fundamentalist ideas, but please don't project your hatred of religion on "every marxist". Religion is not inherently "backward looking", some of it is, indeed often most of it is, but them most of everything is. And quite a few Marxists have been backward looking themselves. These are ignorant generalizations that classify and dismiss people based on social identity, and come close to, and often more than close to, racism. <br /><br />Nor is religion "a hindrance" any more than non-religion is. It isn't like materialist analysis, not to mention the willingness to get mobilized in pursuit of justice and liberty, are widely popular attitude among people who define themselves as "secular". If you think "secular" is "progressive" you need to get out more. This is lazy and arrogant. Perhaps you should do some penance for your sin of pride and make a blog entry about Gustavo Gutiérrez, or the work of Christian Peacemakers Team in Hebron. <br /><br />Respecting people who are different from you may be a better way to be appealing to a wider audience than blaming their not-getting-you on their difference. <br /><br />(PS. This is not an attack on the rest of the article, which to my mind is pretty obvious.)evildoerhttp://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-9178549879789417372009-07-05T16:39:39.846+01:002009-07-05T16:39:39.846+01:00In other words in his search for allies Greenstein...In other words in his search for allies Greenstein is forced to seek comfort from the most reactionary, quisling elements in Arab society.Levinsohnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-64042470063757763652009-07-05T16:38:01.409+01:002009-07-05T16:38:01.409+01:00Please let me know. Do you like Ibish or not? Is h...Please let me know. Do you like Ibish or not? Is he a valid resource or not? Is he just good to be quoted when he is on your same obsessed battle horse? <br /><br />You got a lot of mileage out of him a while ago, is he no longer on your friend list?<br /><br />Wasn't this from your fingertips? In 2001 an article, Serious Concerns About Israel Shamir by Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish stated that ‘We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric.’Levinsohnnoreply@blogger.com