I was dreading writing this since I did not want to risk starting any drama, but I don’t know what else to do anymore after seeing the moderating staff reject my report.

It’s truly undeniable that these last three years have been stressful for all of us — most of all Palestinians — so some cynicism is to be expected. That being said, tolerating anti-Jewish sentiment like this does not help any of us either. All that it really does is play into the Herzlians’ hands, capitulating to their alarmism, and makes our spaces less welcoming to Jewish critics of Zionism. I know that we’re all tired of Herzlians constantly abusing accusations of antisemitism, but going so far as to tolerate that phenomenon only gives them exactly what they want to see.

And for the record, yes, I do think that bashing Germans or Italians or the Japanese per se during World War II would have been wrong, because it misidentifies ethnicity as the real problem and needlessly erases the Germans, Italians, and Japanese folk who opposed the Axis. It would have been easier to understand coming from the people whom the Axis oppressed, but even so I would have gently discouraged that kind of thinking. I refuse to play ethnic supremacists’ games by indulging in a little ethnocentrism myself.

I am not going to ragequit Lemmygrad.ml again, but I have to be honest and admit that tolerance for toxicity like this only makes me less interested in using this forum and convinces me that I was correct to limit my usage anyway. That isn’t meant to be a threat; if you truly see nothing wrong with speech like this then I guess that there’s really not much that I can do to stop you. But however you feel about that, I’ll do what feels natural to me and be around less and less.

‘Jewish people today are a privileged subset of white people in the racial hierarchy that exists in western society. Nobody should be worrying about “anti-semitism” any more than they should have worried about anti-German sentiment or anti-Italian sentiment during the second world war.  If somebody said “fuck the jews”, it is about as offensive as if someone said “fuck white people”, which is to say not at all. There is no implicit racially charged unjustness in those statements as opposed to if someone said “f- black people” or “f- Palestinians”. These groups of people are actual oppressed minorities whereas white people and jews are not oppressed.  Jewish supremacists demand that Jews be treated like an inherently oppressed minority whilst they are actually at the top of the chain. There is a genocide going on. Calling a German a kraut wasn’t offensive during the second world war.  The vast majority of people in the world do not think about or care about Jews. The vast majority of the jews in the world live in Israel which is an ethnostate created for them, and the US where they are at the top of the racial heirarchy, often enjoying much better wealth and social prestige than any other group of people. Anti-semitism is not a 21st century thing anymore.  Apart from fringe neonazi groups, nobody really hates jews for being jews.’
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I feel you. I try to push back on this kind of thing to an extent, but I don't think there is really an instance-wide rule against it, unless the language is needlessly combative. And I can sort of see where it comes from, the boiling rage that is induced in a person to see headline after headline of violent entities committing mass murder and facing no consequences.

But still, we have to try to push back and make the distinctions, even if it's not always popular in the moment, or results in some misunderstandings that need clarification. One way of putting it, is it's not good material analysis to feed into "this region sucks" or "this people sucks" narratives and I don't think most of the time it is meant to be material analysis to begin with. I think it is more often just rage mode, unfiltered "I'm sick of this shit and I want to put them down in the only way I know how" and the way people tend to know how if they come from the imperial core, is to do the imperial core thing of saying "it's us vs. them, they are absolute trash, we are good and enlightened," etc.

I try to point out to people that flattening of narratives to oversimplified "us vs. them" is not what successful liberation forces tend to be doing. LovelyB points it out here in emphasizing the IRGC's letter to the American people: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12950123/8791112 (EDIT: this part was written before their subsequent crashout and comment removals - the link that matters is the IRGC's letter, found here: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12917289)

It's like I've said multiple times on this forum, people don't change sides and then immediately unlearn their previous ways and adopt a bunch of new ones. The transition is a lot bumpier and uneven than that. And for those of us in the imperial core, it can be pretty easy to slip into "communism with imperial dehumanization characteristics." I mean, think about it, does the IRGC talk the way they do because they are a "better people" or something? No, I'd say it's part deliberate strategy and part them being a more principled, human-needs-focused culture in general; meaning, the current culture, not something inherent to being Iranian throughout history. Different material conditions, different leadership, differently developed culture could give a very different result.

Our primary objective is not to describe the world, but to enact change in it, including in ourselves (we are not above it). Unlike the wrong-headed philosophies of those who believe ideas take precedence over all, we can't liberate simply by having better ideas and debating them. We can't exist outside the culture, the society, the ecosystem, and then judge it as if from outside. We are always in the thick of it, pushing in one direction, being pulled in another. I emphasize this for a couple of reasons. One is that when we recognize this, it's easier to see how we are impacted by the dominant culture, even when we despise it in our hearts and minds. The other is that change, rather than being perfectly right about ideas in the abstract, is what is most needed. Of course we don't always agree on how to go about that change and end up back in ideas, but we still have to shift back to change too. But change has to mean improving material conditions, so that improved culture can more easily follow. We can, and I believe should, strive to hold fellow communists to a more principled standard than we would in more casual contexts, but we also have to be understanding of the inertia involved from the dominant culture, as well as the limitations of human beings. For some people, the seemingly dehumanizing rage mode may be an attempt to get past liberal pacifism, to contend with the militancy required of revolution, to recognize that overcoming brutality cannot be gentle. For others, it may be nothing more than an expression of pre-existing imperialist thought in their minds, but with the allegiance changed.

I do believe it's something we have to watch for and discern about, if only because the opportunistic rightists do not fear the imperialist thought, do not want to reject it, and are perfectly happy to pretend like they are on the same side as liberation, while recruiting for something that is more about reasserting capital. That is the strongest reason I have in defense of being careful with it. I understand revolutionaries are not pacifists. I understand liberation is not a dinner party. But I also understand that historically, the most successful liberation forces have tended to be principled, sometimes in ways that surprised others, have tended to offer help readily where they could, and have tended to have a "world village" view that transcends borders. This does not mean they deny or hide from embedded issues and pave over it with liberal platitudes, but neither that their priority is to condemn and grant themselves a view of superiority, of being better for the world because of where they come from rather than because of what they do. Their priority is "what is to be done?" In tandem with doing it. And if they can do that in a way that empowers their people to thrive together as a communal whole, they have done their jobs well.

  • source