You canāt just contradict yourself and then claim Iām not understanding the context.
Just because someone is to the right of you doesnāt mean theyāre a right-winger. Youāre doing exactly the thing youāre accusing me of doing.
I know that not everyone to the left of me is a tankie. Unlike you, Iām capable of recognizing that leftism is an entire spectrum.
A tankie is an auth-comm, sure, and maybe you didnāt say anything that was explicitly auth-comm. But youāre insinuating that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, is a right-winger just because heās not as far left as you are. Thatās something that really only a tankie would do.
Can you give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment? Think for a second that āIāll pretend this guy isnāt an asshole and that maybe I misinterpreted somethingā. Can you do that? I think you seem to not know what you donāt know. You call yourself a āsocialistā. Thatās great. I just feel itās hard to have a conversation with someone that thinks Iām trying to backpeddle or trick you. Iām not. Have some good faith and listen to my example below.
Three people stand in a room. A socialist, a centrist, and capitalist.
The socialist wants classandprivatepropertyto be abolished. They want the surplus labor value to be distributed back to all of society by Democratic means. The means of production should be owned collectively andnot be held asprivatepropertyfor profit.
The Capitalist wants to maintain the current economic systems and give his class tax breaks.
The centrist wants to maintain the current economic systems but thinks we should tax the capitalist more so we can pay for a universal healthcare program.
The "Centrist"isby definition a "right winger". They want to maintain the systems of surplus labor extraction that allow the lifestyle of the capitalist to be maintained using the profits gained from others labor.
This is socialism 101. It isnot weird or wrong tocall the "centrist" a "right winger"in this context. They want to maintain the current economic system andclass hierarchy.
Bernie Sanders would fall into the category of the centrist in this example. This is the perspective in which āsome of us would call him a right wingerā.
I think you are hearing the label āright wingerā as an insult or a label you have an reaction to in a negative way.
For me, in this context, itās just a means of categorizing this divide. Nothing else.
Hope that clarifies my position. I hope, if you disagree, you can at least take my perspective in good faith. The divide between āthe leftā and āthe rightā among socialist is fundamentally based on this divide. āDo you think capitalism and class hierarchy should be ended?ā
Thatās it. Tons of people fall āleftā of that. Anarchist, Marxist, etc.
But itās a pretty well defined line. And I think if you call yourself a āsocialistā you should understand this divide.
I make the mistake of writing my comments to a reader that understands this. I shouldnāt. I should use better language that is more inclusive to understanding this. āRight wingerā sounds insulting and wrong to someone that doesnāt classify things this way.
I also made the mistake of being self critical at the end of my comment. But if you make it here I hope you understand.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like youāre engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call ārinos.ā Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, theyāre the party thatās further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, theyāre only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, theyāre the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesnāt mean theyāre secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What youāre describing as ācentristsā are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that itās divorced from reality. Itās an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. Itās theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I donāt think we really disagree much. But I think weāll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as ānot right wingā. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what āthe leftā is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, youāre kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant āIsrael has a right to existā. Iām sorry. But I donāt consider anyone that says that to be āon the leftā. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said āIsrael needs a regime changeā I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who donāt have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldnāt be wrong. Because those are infringements on other peopleās territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But thatās not the world we live in. Yes, Israelās government commits atrocities and thatās bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who donāt do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and donāt have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
Itās unfortunate that not everyoneās basic rights are respected, and Iām all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But Iām not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldnāt have been there in the first place.
And in case youāre wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because theyāre people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I donāt believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe itās entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that āonly one may survive,ā then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there canāt really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe Iām naĆÆve. Iām just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what āIsraelā sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think itās odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think itās odd that you call yourself a āsocialistā and canāt understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. Youāre just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. Itās exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by āa states right to existā and even what āa stateā means when you go off on a tangent about āwhat will the people living there doā.
Itās clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since itās formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if youāre gonna call yourself a āsocialistā.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
Yeah. Realized Iām banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that donāt read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
Theyāre just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I think itās odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration.
I donāt think thatās the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You canāt just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. Thatās how you get an endless war. Itās not fear mongering, itās called being in touch with reality.
An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I really think itās odd that you call yourself a āsocialistā and canāt understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither sideās civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israelās neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism.
If āliberal narrativeā means āethnic cleansing is wrong,ā then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? Iām against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. Thatās not idealism, thatās basic moral cognition.
Youāre just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using.
I understand it just fine. Youāre just assuming that I donāt because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
Itās clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire.
Itās clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesnāt justify what theyāre doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. Whatās so hard to get about that?
Please go read some Marxist literature if youāre gonna call yourself a āsocialistā
Iāve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I donāt treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because Iām not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasnāt a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So thereās that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say āitās clear thatā, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, itās a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state youāre defending the existence of.
Youāre entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldnāt confuse Marxās criticism of Utopian Social (what Iām assuming youāre referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marxās life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. Itās just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like youāre reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of āsocialismā when asked about why the Nazis were the ānational socialistā.
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealā¦ Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property.
You have the same ātakeā on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what youāve read if youāre siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the āideasā in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel āgoodā about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying āwell, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do thatā. But all that that āideaā is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending itās continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. Itās how I will ādefineā you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly āright wingā. No matter how much liberal āthoughtā you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. Itās text book Liberal Zionism. Itās why you canāt see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say āitās clear thatā, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, itās a good sign they are full of shit.
Thatās hilarious, because I was borrowing your āitās clearā language when I said that. Self-awarewolves.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state youāre defending the existence of.
Thatās not even what I was doing. 1), itās not fear-mongering when the official stated purpose of hamas is to eradicate jewish Israelis from the Levant. 2). I explicitly mentioned that I donāt support Israelās actions in Gaza and that they need a change in leadership, up to and including governmental structure, to ensure universal respect for human rights going forward.
You have the same ātakeā on Marx and socialism as Hitler did.
You had to severely distort what I said in order to arrive at that conclusion. Pointing out that Marx criticized socialism (which he did, on the grounds that they werenāt radical enough) is completely different from professing national socialism as the ātrue socialism.ā Get bent with your ludicrous strawman.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the āideasā in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality.
You might as well reverse that statement too, because your idealism is not even inline with dialectical materialism. The ideas in your head are divorced from reality.
I feel like this whole argument boils down to your refusal to admit that Hamas explicitly promotes the eradication of all Jewish Israelis from the Levant.
You can feel āgoodā about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state
I never did that, in fact I discussed examples of how former apartheid states were able to be reformed and abolish the apartheid systems without leaving entire demographics exposed to revenge killings. Literally the opposite of what youāre claiming I said, because I pointed out how it is possible to do properly.
You are defending itās continued existence.
Nope, if you actually read what I wrote thatās not what I was doing.
And in the case of Israel you are clearly āright wingā.
Not even a little bit. There are plenty of Israeli citizens who are leftists and disapprove of their governments and want regime change, but donāt want to dismantle the entire structures that protect them from neighbors who hate them and want them to die in the lands where they were born and hold their only citizenship. They, like I, oppose the right-wing, ultra-orthodox government in the Knesset.
Also, Hamas is a right-wing organization. So I really donāt get this moral pedestal-standing thatās so common on the leftā¦
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate
Another uncharitable mischaracterization of my position because youāre unable to tolerate any nuance or disagreement. I donāt need to justify my position, because my position is that āethnic cleansings are bad.ā
Youāre the one who has to jump through all these hoops and apply layers of leftist theory in order to make your position seem justified, when the end result of your position is necessarily one of two options: 1), you succeed, the state of Israel is dismantled, and Hamas exterminates every Jewish Israeli remaining in the Levant; or 2), you fail, and because there was never any option for a peaceful resolution, Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
There is no peaceful resolution in your approach. You literally remove that option from the table when you say the only solution is to completely abolish the state of Israel.
Under my approach, āPalestinian civilians and Israeli civilians alike are innocent and deserve to have their human rights respectedā while āHamas and the Knesset/Mossad/IDF alike are genocidal terrorist organizations which need to be abolished and replaced by forms of civil governance if the Palestinian and Israeli people are ever going to live together in peace.ā
Do you see how thatās different from saying either āIsraeli civilians and government = Good; Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Badā or āPalestinian civilians and Hamas = Good; Israeli civilians and government = Badā?
My view is actually more in line with critical theory in that respect, distinguishing between the disenfranchised proletariat and ruling class on both sides, while avoiding the trap of ethnoreligious campism altogether.
But since my position is nuanced and well-reasoned, and doesnāt mindlessly parrot the narrative you prefer to push, I guess youāll just continue to call me ignorant and a zionist and pretend I donāt know what Iām talking about because thatās easier for you than considering a view that doesnāt perfectly align with your own which might make you question your own presumptionsā¦
You canāt just contradict yourself and then claim Iām not understanding the context.
Just because someone is to the right of you doesnāt mean theyāre a right-winger. Youāre doing exactly the thing youāre accusing me of doing.
I know that not everyone to the left of me is a tankie. Unlike you, Iām capable of recognizing that leftism is an entire spectrum.
A tankie is an auth-comm, sure, and maybe you didnāt say anything that was explicitly auth-comm. But youāre insinuating that Bernie Sanders, a leftist, is a right-winger just because heās not as far left as you are. Thatās something that really only a tankie would do.
Fuck, sometimes lemmy is as bad as redditā¦
Can you give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment? Think for a second that āIāll pretend this guy isnāt an asshole and that maybe I misinterpreted somethingā. Can you do that? I think you seem to not know what you donāt know. You call yourself a āsocialistā. Thatās great. I just feel itās hard to have a conversation with someone that thinks Iām trying to backpeddle or trick you. Iām not. Have some good faith and listen to my example below.
Three people stand in a room. A socialist, a centrist, and capitalist. The socialist wants class and private property to be abolished. They want the surplus labor value to be distributed back to all of society by Democratic means. The means of production should be owned collectively and not be held as private property for profit. The Capitalist wants to maintain the current economic systems and give his class tax breaks. The centrist wants to maintain the current economic systems but thinks we should tax the capitalist more so we can pay for a universal healthcare program. The "Centrist" is by definition a "right winger". They want to maintain the systems of surplus labor extraction that allow the lifestyle of the capitalist to be maintained using the profits gained from others labor. This is socialism 101. It is not weird or wrong to call the "centrist" a "right winger" in this context. They want to maintain the current economic system and class hierarchy.Bernie Sanders would fall into the category of the centrist in this example. This is the perspective in which āsome of us would call him a right wingerā.
I think you are hearing the label āright wingerā as an insult or a label you have an reaction to in a negative way.
For me, in this context, itās just a means of categorizing this divide. Nothing else.
Hope that clarifies my position. I hope, if you disagree, you can at least take my perspective in good faith. The divide between āthe leftā and āthe rightā among socialist is fundamentally based on this divide. āDo you think capitalism and class hierarchy should be ended?ā
Thatās it. Tons of people fall āleftā of that. Anarchist, Marxist, etc.
But itās a pretty well defined line. And I think if you call yourself a āsocialistā you should understand this divide.
I make the mistake of writing my comments to a reader that understands this. I shouldnāt. I should use better language that is more inclusive to understanding this. āRight wingerā sounds insulting and wrong to someone that doesnāt classify things this way.
I also made the mistake of being self critical at the end of my comment. But if you make it here I hope you understand.
Okay, maybe I was wrong about you being a tankie, because it does seem like youāre engaging in good faith. That was my bad.
But I still disagree with you. In the current state of US politics, right-winger has a very specific meaning. Republicans are right-wingers, including the very few remaining moderates who maga call ārinos.ā Right-wingers are fiscal and social conservatives. Most of the right-wingers in US are quite far to the right, and nearly the entire party is subservient to the alt-right maga agenda, with very few exceptions.
Democrats are the centrists. They call themselves liberals, but most of the establishment Democrats are actually neoliberals, which in reality is fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, many people in the US mistake Democrats for leftist, because relatively speaking, theyāre the party thatās further left than the other (though being centrist).
The Democratic Socialists of America or DSA is a caucus within the Democratic party that includes the progressives. They typically oppose the establishment DNC party line on matters of fiscal policy. On the absolute scale, sure, theyāre only mildly leftist. But on the relative scale of US politics, theyāre the only true leftists in office.
But just because they understand the merits of working within the system for incremental change, doesnāt mean theyāre secretly right-wingers. They are left of center.
What youāre describing as ācentristsā are social democrats. Common in Europe, including the Nordic Model (which was arguably one of the most successful political experiments in history regarding universal human rights, equal opportunity, and wealth distribution). There are no social democrats in US politics, but if there were they would be on the left of the spectrum.
The problem with choosing an absolute scale over a relative scale is that itās divorced from reality. Itās an idealization rather than a realization. And the centerpoint is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the lens of the author. Itās theory without practice, an ideological lens without a pragmatic application.
Calling Bernie Sanders a right-winger is just a mental masturbatory armchair exercise for people whose leftier-than-thou attitude prevents them from contributing to any meaningful change in the world.
I donāt think we really disagree much. But I think weāll have to agree to disagree on categorizing people that are liberal Zionist and also in favor of maintaining capitalism as ānot right wingā. Bernie Sanders is both of those things.
You criticize the idea of what āthe leftā is in the US; basically a creation of two neoliberal parties. Which I agree with. But, youāre kind of conforming to it by not recognizing that Bernie is a right winger on many issues.
The most important issue recently being his Liberal Zionism and constant āIsrael has a right to existā. Iām sorry. But I donāt consider anyone that says that to be āon the leftā. No matter how much I might agree with their domestic policies.
If you said āIsrael needs a regime changeā I would agree with you, but there are people in Israel who were born there, people whose parents were born there, people who donāt have any other citizenship but Israeli. Where do you expect all those people to go if the state of Israel ceases to exist?
You can point to the atrocities surrounding the establishment of the state of Israel, and the continuing atrocities surrounding their settler-expansionism, and you wouldnāt be wrong. Because those are infringements on other peopleās territory; territory and people who should have sovereignty.
In an ideal world, the UN and ICC would have teeth and be able to enforce international law to prevent such infringements and atrocities. And every nation would be governed by heads of state and legislative coalitions that respect human rights, and are bound by constitutions which assure human rights are respected, so there would be no need for IGOs to use the teeth that they would have.
But thatās not the world we live in. Yes, Israelās government commits atrocities and thatās bad. They should be held accountable and replaced by people who donāt do that. But the people who live there, who were born there and donāt have anywhere else to go, have a right to live and be self-determining just like everyone else in the world.
Itās unfortunate that not everyoneās basic rights are respected, and Iām all for holding the people who are responsible for those infringements accountable. But Iām not on board with wiping an entire civilization of people off the map because their leaders are psychopaths, or even because historically their forebears shouldnāt have been there in the first place.
And in case youāre wondering, yes, the same applies to Palestinians. Because theyāre people and deserve autonomy, sovereignty, dignity, and self-determinism, just like everyone else.
This might seem a little idealistic, but I donāt believe life has to be a zero-sum game. I believe itās entirely possible for two nations with a history of conflict to learn to live in peace. It would require a lot of progress, and we currently seem to be going in the wrong direction, but that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt be aiming for that goal. Because if we accept the premise that āonly one may survive,ā then the only way we can go is backwards, and it can only end in the destruction and devastation of one or both nations. So as long as either one is calling for the death and destruction of the other, there canāt really be an ideal outcome.
Leadership change is necessary on both sides, and robust measures put in place with impartial international oversight. Only then, with time the people of both nations can learn to coexist.
Of course, either side would skewer me for not picking a side. Maybe Iām naĆÆve. Iām just not on board with ethnic cleansing, no matter which way it goes.
Palestine is what āIsraelā sits on. Israel is the invention of a western colonial project and an apartheid state.
I think itās odd you think the only solution to undoing the crimes and injustice of Israels formation is to perform a reverse genocide or remigration. Or at least you are hinting and fear mongering at this like your a white person in apartheid South Africa.
No. Israel does not have a right to exist. An apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist. A state that has enacted a genocide does not have a right to exist. The power structures of that state need to be destroyed.
I really think itās odd that you call yourself a āsocialistā and canāt understand basic vocabulary have used to describe class and state structures.
This conversation is just getting dull. Because you are consistently jumping to liberal narratives and definitions that are rooted in idealism and not in dialectical materialism. I really think you need to stop calling yourself a socialist or maybe do some reading. Youāre just not capable of understanding the vocabulary am using. Itās exhausting having to try to explain what I mean by āa states right to existā and even what āa stateā means when you go off on a tangent about āwhat will the people living there doā.
Itās clear. They will continue living there under a different state if they so desire. The abolishment of Israel is the abolishment of the apartheid state. The apartheid state IS what Israel is. It always had been. Since itās formation.
Please go read some Marxist literature if youāre gonna call yourself a āsocialistā.
Or at the very least pick up a Norm Finkelstein book to understand some history on Israel.
Heās a braindead liberal. Looks at his comment history, be goes around justifying wars and genocides and calls himself a socialist.
Yeah. Realized Iām banging my head against the wall. They said Marx was against socialism. Dude is dumb enough to fall for liberals that donāt read not understanding that Marx lived in an era of Utopian vs. Scientific Socialism.
Theyāre just a liberal Zionist. Definitely why they freaked out over me saying Bernie was.
I donāt think thatās the only solution, but it would be the inevitable result if Israeli citizens suddenly lost the protection of the state. Hamas and other organizations have the declared purpose of exterminating every Israeli. You canāt just expect them to willingly disarm when there are militant organizations that want them all dead. Thatās how you get an endless war. Itās not fear mongering, itās called being in touch with reality.
South Africa was reformed and abolished apartheid without dismantling the entire structure of the state.
Nazi Germany ceased to exist, but it was replaced by a constitutional republic. It was still Germany, and no one swept in to exterminate all the ethnic Germans. The same can not be said of what would happen if you suddenly dismantled the state of Israel.
Yeah, sure, destroy the power structures. If you can do so without exposing the civilian populace to violence and persecution.
I do understand the vocabulary, I just have a different take on it than you based on the fact that 1) Neither sideās civilians deserve to be exterminated, and 2) Israelās neighbors include militant organizations that want to exterminate them all.
If āliberal narrativeā means āethnic cleansing is wrong,ā then fuck it I guess that makes me a liberal? Iām against any side arguing for ethnic cleansing. Thatās not idealism, thatās basic moral cognition.
I understand it just fine. Youāre just assuming that I donāt because that makes it easier to dismiss my arguments without actually engaging with them.
Itās clear that Hamas would exterminate every Israeli civilian if the state of Israel suddenly laid down arms. That doesnāt justify what theyāre doing in Gaza. Their response has been completely disproportional to the instigating attack. Targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter which side is doing it. Whatās so hard to get about that?
Iāve read Marx. I like many of his ideas, but I donāt treat it like a fucking bible. I can engage with its critically and have a nuanced take. I can accept some of his premises and conclusions while rejecting others. Because Iām not a campist nor an ideological purist.
Also, Marx wasnāt a socialist. He disparaged socialists. So thereās that.
Good rule of thumb when you hear someone say āitās clear thatā, and then they follow it with a conclusion they present no evidence, itās a good sign they are full of shit.
Your comment is filled with fear mongering of a theoretical ethnic cleansing in order to defend and maintain a real and existing ethnic cleansing being done by that same state youāre defending the existence of.
Youāre entire argument is based in your head and not in material reality. You are not a socialist. You are a liberal Zionist.
A socialist wouldnāt confuse Marxās criticism of Utopian Social (what Iām assuming youāre referring to) for a criticism of socialism as we use the word today. That is, scientific socialism, that Marxās life work is entirely based on.
Marx spent his entire life outlining every definition and detail of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism and how he defined each. Itās just a testament to your lack of reading to make such a simple mistake. Stop reading people that quote Marx out of the massive context of his works and just read Marx. Because it sounds like youāre reading garbage from the right. Like, literally Hitler said Marx perverted the meaning of āsocialismā when asked about why the Nazis were the ānational socialistā.
You have the same ātakeā on Marx and socialism as Hitler did. You might want to rethink what youāve read if youāre siding with Hitler and saying Marx disparaged socialism.
The problem you will have with Marxist (like myself) is that we do not care about the āideasā in your head anymore then what they promote in material reality. You can feel āgoodā about making an argument to maintain an apartheid state by saying āwell, CLEARLY, the currently oppressed will become the oppressors if we do thatā. But all that that āideaā is doing is giving you justification for the current oppression. You are not engaging with an arguing of how to dismantle the apartheid state. You are defending itās continued existence. And, to a Marxist, that is what is important. Itās how I will ādefineā you on a left to right spectrum. And in the case of Israel you are clearly āright wingā. No matter how much liberal āthoughtā you use to justify your defense of it.
All you are doing is searching for a justification for your support of maintaining the oppression that makes you not feel like a supporter of an ethnostate. Itās text book Liberal Zionism. Itās why you canāt see that Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing.
Thatās hilarious, because I was borrowing your āitās clearā language when I said that. Self-awarewolves.
Thatās not even what I was doing. 1), itās not fear-mongering when the official stated purpose of hamas is to eradicate jewish Israelis from the Levant. 2). I explicitly mentioned that I donāt support Israelās actions in Gaza and that they need a change in leadership, up to and including governmental structure, to ensure universal respect for human rights going forward.
You had to severely distort what I said in order to arrive at that conclusion. Pointing out that Marx criticized socialism (which he did, on the grounds that they werenāt radical enough) is completely different from professing national socialism as the ātrue socialism.ā Get bent with your ludicrous strawman.
You might as well reverse that statement too, because your idealism is not even inline with dialectical materialism. The ideas in your head are divorced from reality.
I feel like this whole argument boils down to your refusal to admit that Hamas explicitly promotes the eradication of all Jewish Israelis from the Levant.
I never did that, in fact I discussed examples of how former apartheid states were able to be reformed and abolish the apartheid systems without leaving entire demographics exposed to revenge killings. Literally the opposite of what youāre claiming I said, because I pointed out how it is possible to do properly.
Nope, if you actually read what I wrote thatās not what I was doing.
Not even a little bit. There are plenty of Israeli citizens who are leftists and disapprove of their governments and want regime change, but donāt want to dismantle the entire structures that protect them from neighbors who hate them and want them to die in the lands where they were born and hold their only citizenship. They, like I, oppose the right-wing, ultra-orthodox government in the Knesset.
Also, Hamas is a right-wing organization. So I really donāt get this moral pedestal-standing thatās so common on the leftā¦
Another uncharitable mischaracterization of my position because youāre unable to tolerate any nuance or disagreement. I donāt need to justify my position, because my position is that āethnic cleansings are bad.ā
Youāre the one who has to jump through all these hoops and apply layers of leftist theory in order to make your position seem justified, when the end result of your position is necessarily one of two options: 1), you succeed, the state of Israel is dismantled, and Hamas exterminates every Jewish Israeli remaining in the Levant; or 2), you fail, and because there was never any option for a peaceful resolution, Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
There is no peaceful resolution in your approach. You literally remove that option from the table when you say the only solution is to completely abolish the state of Israel.
Under my approach, āPalestinian civilians and Israeli civilians alike are innocent and deserve to have their human rights respectedā while āHamas and the Knesset/Mossad/IDF alike are genocidal terrorist organizations which need to be abolished and replaced by forms of civil governance if the Palestinian and Israeli people are ever going to live together in peace.ā
Do you see how thatās different from saying either āIsraeli civilians and government = Good; Palestinian civilians and Hamas = Badā or āPalestinian civilians and Hamas = Good; Israeli civilians and government = Badā?
My view is actually more in line with critical theory in that respect, distinguishing between the disenfranchised proletariat and ruling class on both sides, while avoiding the trap of ethnoreligious campism altogether.
But since my position is nuanced and well-reasoned, and doesnāt mindlessly parrot the narrative you prefer to push, I guess youāll just continue to call me ignorant and a zionist and pretend I donāt know what Iām talking about because thatās easier for you than considering a view that doesnāt perfectly align with your own which might make you question your own presumptionsā¦