Like Ture said about Marx: when you look at the world honestly, you can only come to certain conclusions; you don't need to be told what they are and once you've seen them you cannot be persuaded to think otherwise. When you hear that someone else has discovered the same thing it resonates.
redtea
joined 2 years ago
Thanks for writing this. I've reached similar conclusions. I'm feeling a lot of self loathing this week. My work had a big song and dance as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine. You could hear a pin drop at the moment; not a single fucking word about Palestine. I'm optimistic that Palestine will survive this. But it's getting hard to rationalise my own complicity in the whole thing.
It's crucial, I think. To fully understand the situation, we're going to have to understand all aspects of it. As anti-Semitism is disappointingly rife, we should not forget it. And it is imperative, I think we agree, to highlight the relationship between Zionism and antisemitism (including Zionism putting Jews in direct physical danger).
It comes through constantly. Yesterday, I saw a Finkelstein interview. The interviewer, Kay Burley, I think, said something about Israel being a safe haven for Jews and doesn't Finkelstein feel bad for challenging that.
Putting aside the point that Finkelstein is based, the implication is that wherever the interviewer is from (Britain?) is not safe, unwilling to become safe, or begrudgingly safe and the sooner all the Jews leave, the better. I don't want to say this is intentional. But it's implied every time the claim is made.
I don't want Jews to feel like they have to go to Israel to be safe; they should feel safe as my next-door neighbour. Highlighting stories about Jews caught in the cross fire in some way and being vocal about it could help create that atmosphere. Justice dies when good people remain silent, and all that. There may also be an argument that if we can make the west significantly less antisemitic, we might also encourage Israelis to leave Palestine. At the least it will make the choice easier.
[Edit: I just realised another implication of this—antisemites will have an incentive to ramp up antisemitism to make Israeli Jews feel as though they are safer fighting in Palestine than leaving. We should be on guard for this. It's another reason why being vocal about harm to Jews does not automatically mean ignoring Palestinians; it's part of the same struggle and could help Palestinians.]
Zionism gives antisemites an excuse: 'if you want to be safe, go to Israel (and disposses the Palestinians to secure it)'. The logic is premised on antisemitism and colonialism. The very people who make life unsafe and difficult for Jews and other oppressed people's essentially say, 'If you want freedom and security you can't have it here, you have to do the same thing that we did/do somewhere else'.
And as we know, some Jews will accept that logic, hence Zionism. But what will actually liberate Jews and other oppressed people's, including Palestinians, is abolishing class society. (If only someone had predicted this circa 1843–4.)
Then there's the problem of equating Zionism with Judaism. This is actively harmful to Jews. It's used as an excuse to oppress non-/anti-Zionist Jews. But as antisemites aren't overly interested in fine distinctions, they don't really care if any Jew suffers for it. If an antisemite targets a Jew for being anti-Zionist, they'll lose no sleep to later discover they were pro-Zionism.
The 'support' only extends to the settler colonial project; any benefit to Jewish people is incidental. It's a double win for racists who want Jews out of 'their country' and who are always looking for ways to oppress Arabs.
This is partly why I dislike the 'Israel lobby' rhetoric. Not only is it inherently antisemitic as it's based on a hive mind trope, but it also masks the motivations of racist imperialists. They don't need to be lobbied to support settler colonialism.
Just as I see e.g. Europe as an outpost of a single Anglo-European empire based in the US, I see Israel as an outpost, too. Not as a last stand hidden behind a circle of wagons that has to beg for aid. That model subverts history in so many ways.
The 'Israel lobby' rhetoric seems to be a front that diverts anger away e.g. from the US, British, etc, states – the international bourgeoisie – onto Israel, which has been framed as representing all Jews. Albeit, it's Zionists who make that equation and anti-Zionists who tend to say 'Israel lobby'. The effect is that anti-Zionists can fall into a trap created by structural antisemitism, normalising it for 'apolitical' 'bystanders'.
Another aspect is that while Israelis are settlers in Palestine, many would be refugees elsewhere (and likely mistreated in much of the rest of the 'international community'). This will become worse if there's a Jewish refugee crisis. The more the Zionist logic is pushed, the worse this will be.
I'm optimistic that a free Palestine would find a way to live in peace with Jews (and Christians and atheists) in a sovereign Palestine without expelling everyone. (No idea what that would look like in detail). It does seem to be a stated aim of Hamas, which seems clear that their enemy is Zionism, not Judaism. But that won't help Jews in the rest of the world, refugee from Israel or otherwise. I don't want any settlers settling Palestine or for Jews to be persecuted in the rest of the world (or for their Judaism in Palestine).
When Palestine is free, we will still have to find a way to tackle and end antisemitism. This war is going to make it worse and harder to fight. So keeping Judaism in mind throughout this war may help us to be prepared for what comes after. It doesn't diminish Palestinian suffering unless it's framed as a hierarchy. And ultimately, when Palestine wins, Palestinians will still have to fight, alongside Jews, against the same forces that lead to the oppression of both.
Glad you found it helpful. If some of these tricks don't work for you, that's fine, too, but I hope some of them do help.
PS I noticed some typos and fixed them in square brackets to make them easier to spot.
I'd keep them censored. They're openly speaking in public already but advertising their names on a platform they didn't choose to speak on will open them to vitriol from a wider audience than they might expect.
PatSoc seems to be an Anglo-European, mainly US phenomenon; it shouldn't be imposed on other societies as if it's a universal category.
Patriotism to a coloniser state means loyalty to it's colonising history and character. It's a call for redistributing the spoils of imperialism rather than ending imperialism, with some noises about ending imperialism at some unknown date in the future.
Kim Jong Un did speak about the need for patriotism. But the patriotism of a socialist state that has recently cut off colonial overlords has a different character to that of the patriotism of those ex-overlords. The one means patriotism for oppression , the other, as in the DPRK, is a call to be loyal to anti-imperialism.
This is a big can of worms. I'd caution against listening to anyone who calls the DPRK patsoc.
Current events provide another example: it would be bizarre to claim that a Palestinian Marxist is a PatSoc. Palestinian 'patriotism' (if that's the right word for it – I'm not entirely convinced) would look very different to Israeli patriotism.
Edit: this isn't a view steeped in literature; it's hard to divine what self-proclaimed patsocs themselves think because they're too tedious and wrong to engage with for prolonged periods. So treat this more as 'preliminary comments'.
That's the one lol. Definitely don't sort by all before bed or when you've got to get some work done.
Bear with me: stop trying!
Trying to become disciplined takes a lot of energy. There's an easier way. Create an environment in which reading theory is the easier option. Set things up so that reading theory is the easiest thing to do.
Do you prefer physical or digital or a mixture? [Store] reading materials close to the place where you're going to be able to pick them up and get stuck in with the time available and in that setting.
So you might have a physical copy of Capital in a quiet place with a chair but no TV and poor WiFi connection. Reading the book becomes the easier, preferable option to trying to browse the internet. If you can't do this, create it. Set your phone, if possible, to go on Aeroplane mode at a certain time of day. Or do it manually – you won't miss anything; it'll all be there when you log back on. Or leave your phone somewhere else, where you'd have to move to get it.
If you use a computer, save pdfs on your desktop. Save links to websites on your desktop. You could arrange them in columns, with short pieces on the left and long pieces on the right. Then if you have ten mins, open a source on the left. If you have more time, open one on the right.
Bookmark websites. Add them to your shortcut bar. 'Add to home screen' on your phone and move some of these around in your screen so it's as easy to click a work of theory on Prolewiki as it is to open your messages.
If you browse e.g. Marxists.org, you'll find loads of texts of different lengths. It's okay just to browse. Keep a note of shorter works and bookmark/save them as suggested above. You might read a short letter on the bus or the toilet or while waiting for the kettle to boil. You won't get through e.g. Capital in that time and you're likely to get frustrated if you try. Short works that are easy to read in chunks include letters, interviews, FAQ format.
Discipline is useful but it's overrated and we tend to see it upside down. Self-discipline comes from being disciplined practice. It's a lot harder to discipline ourselves in order to become disciplined. It also becomes a lot easier to be disciplined as you become more familiar with the subject. Familiar topics, even if technical, can be read as easily as fiction; it doesn't need discipline if you can find a way to make it so easy that you become increasingly familiar without letting yourself realise that you're 👻reading theory🎃.
Also, a leaf out of self-determination theory: you will grasp conceptual ideas a lot quicker and be far more motivated if you choose the material. There are reading lists. But if this feels like someone else is deciding what you're supposed to read, you probably won't do it if you struggle with paying attention as described, and it will be harder than it needs to be. So find out what you're interested in and read Marxist authors talking about that topic. Q: what are you interested in?
If something doesn't grab your attention, move on and come back to it later. The more familiar a topic is, the more motivated you'll be to engage with it. It's okay to read a little here and a little there. It's also okay to start anywhere in the book that looks interesting. One day you should finish the important texts. It doesn't have to be today or next week.
One trick is trying to read one word a day. It's a very low target. But you'll find that if you go to the effort of reading that one word, you'll read another and another. You might only read a paragraph in the end. But enough days like that and you've read what you set out to read. (This also works with writing, btw.)
I rarely: read cover-to-cover; start at the beginning; or finish one book before I start another. I start wherever looks most interesting or is most related to something that I know well. I have multiple texts on the go at once. If I get bored, I pick up something else. I often have a theme [in] mind and read the relevant parts in multiple texts about that theme and ignore the rest.
I can be 'disciplined' when I need to be, but if I don't need to be, I don't force it. The advantage is that because I read in the way that I do, I've often already dipped into a text before I sit down to finish it. This means I'm familiar with most of the major texts even if I haven't read them in full before. This makes things a lot easier when I need to finish a particular text.
I often find that [some] theory is too complicated or theoretical. It's hard to keep going when texts are difficult. If a text is particularly difficult: (1) skip that section until you come to an easier one – you can go back to the more difficult parts later, when you know more about what's being said; or (2) let your subconscious do the hard work for you – stop reading, leave it for an hour or a day or a week, etc, then read it again and you'll see that your mind had started to make sense of the text.
You could also focus on finishing chapters/sections rather than whole books, as a more realistic target to start with.
Essentially, the more you engage, the easier it all becomes. So the trick is to do anything that helps you to engage and keeps you engaged. If you need it, I'm giving you permission: make it easy, it doesn't have to be a chore.
This is what I do. You can read "all" in the morning if you're struggling to get out of bed.
Wouldn't be surprised if the US uses all this to block Chinese ships coming up the Red Sea, trying to weaken and provoke China before the BRI is quite ready to properly supplement the sea trade with overland trade. Then pincer Chinese sea trade via it's SEA vassals, hoping to deter Egypt and SA from following through with joining BRICS. Subtly and slyly, of course. The US already has a presence in the Med. I don't want to get carried away but this could be the spark for a rather large fire. Especially if there neighbours get involved.
Remember to be saving your receipts (screenshots, pdfs). There's going to be a lot of 'editing' as this goes on. Like we saw with Ukraine.
Not sure about that. The reference to Never Use Alone is part of an argument that's it's not as good as providing these safe consumption zones; it's a criticism of NUA.
view more: next ›
It's top work. You got the angles and values spot on.