Settler colonialism in action

[Raphael]

Racists like Linguoboy should not be tolerated.

This discussion was just starting to get interesting, and then you have to pop in. Great.

[bradrn]

Racists like Linguoboy should not be tolerated.

This discussion was just starting to get interesting, and then you have to pop in. Great.

When I see unhelpful statements like that I usually just ignore them. Otherwise it clogs up the conversation.

But you’re right, the discussion was finally getting interesting. I’m not sure I completely agree with Torco’s arguments, but they’ve certainly made me reflect on my own views, which is always what I look for in a discussion.

[Travis B.]

(Hmm, when did this thread get moved?)

the race's winner (the analogue for the settler, in this case) is not the shooter, but the fact that his racemates were shot so he could win does change the ethical reality he finds himself in: for example, if he celebrates the triumph this is a less deserved celebration than if he had won fair and square, and if he goes "see? us evens are just better" then he's complicit with the snipers. and there's some degree of onus on him as the newly crowned champion to, say, encourage races to be ran in closed stadiums instead of in the open or something like that. maybe advocate for running races in flak vests, I don't know. the thought experiment gets silly, but the gist of it is, I think, not wrong.

This is all fair enough and the applicability to our own world is obvious.

But, on the other hand, I there’s a certain degree of equivocation between two different viewpoints:

1. ‘We should be aware of our privileged position and the advantages we gain from it, and we should advocate for those less privileged whenever we have the chance’ (what you say)
2. ‘We are all actively complicit in every unfair action which has ever given us privilege, and should therefore feel personally guilty for every success we have unless we spend our every waking moment tearing down the structures of oppression’

Lest you think I’m exaggerating with that second one, here’s Linguoboy:

Given that the structure of global capitalism makes essentially everyone who's not living a bare-bones hunter-gatherer existence complicit in its systematic oppressions […]

I'm criticising people who are complicit in injustice for not working to remedy that injustice. Discussion of whether they are really "at fault" for this injustice seem like a tactic for excusing their inaction.

In your analogy, this is like blaming the racer for the actions of the shooter. And sure, if they coordinated the act beforehand, then he certainly deserves all the blame he can get. But if he went into the race trying to compete fairly, and had nothing to do personally with the shooting… then I don’t see how that makes any sense.

Agreed completely.

[Travis B.]

I would add on to that the question of how in any way can one be responsible for actions committed before one's birth? Even if one is a "settler-colonialist" by virtue of being born a European-American (or European-Canadian, European-Australian, or like), it is simply unfair to blame one for things committed by other settler-colonialists before one was born.

So that limits possible responsibility to actions by settler-colonialists after one's birth. But even then, one's practical control over such things in most cases is so limited in most cases (unless one is part of the structures of oppression oneself) that it is generally hard to ascribe personal responsibility for them to oneself. Even "democratic" governments are only nominally democratic, with the people having so little influence through their (generally) regularly scheduled votes that it is hard to blame the people (aside from people in such governments themselves) for the actions of even "democratic" governments. (Tell me when there ever was a referendum on, say, the building of pipelines through tribal lands or taking children away from native parents here in the US, really. And seriously, it is unreasonable to expect the people to rise up and overthrow said governments, with all that entails, and then blame them for said governments' actions when they do not.)

Consequently, while one can feel all the guilt one wants, the reality is that it is really hard to blame "settler-colonialists" for the actions of their governments unless they are part of those governments themselves.

The main exceptions to this are cases in which one is actually participating in said oppression by oneself even though one may not be part of a government by oneself. If you are a settler in Palestine who has taken land from the Palestinians, or you are a White farmer in South Africa who had received land from the apartheid government which had been taken from the native population, one is actually participating in oppression, and in these cases the only moral actions are to return the land one has received to those from which it had been taken.

[Torco]

Saying ‘everyone is guilty’ without qualification is as unhelpful as saying ‘privilege doesn’t exist’.

But at the same time… what does it mean to ‘choose to passively let our privilege benefit us’? To suggest a concrete example: as an Australian, I live on land which was dispossessed from the indigenous people who lived here. At the same time, I am extremely limited in what I can do about that fact. (...) People resent being made to feel guilty for factors which are so completely out of their control (or which appear that way), and I think that’s understandable.

Yeah, which is why at a tactical level, if nothing else, I don't like how sanctimonious people particularly opposed to particular hierarchies etcetera can get. you know the type of vibe I mean, shouting YOU'RE FUCKING TORTURING MILLIONS OF SOULS to some guy who's eating a burrito, or goint YOU'RE AN ACCOMPLICE TO FUCKING GENOCIDE FAM to some guy who's too deep in the zionist media bubble to even realize there's something wrong about sharing memes about hamas cooking babies or whatever. or just chanting THIS WAS A FUCKING NAZI SOLDIER while you spread cow dung on the yard of some old guy in who lives in Trelew... wait, except I kind of am for that last one, in some occations. It's complicated

And besides, if you look at the subset of people who are just very passionate about opposing evil hierarchies, systems of subjugation etcetera, they disagree on the particular systems to be opposed too! I know vegan people who are ok with capitalism, commies who are okay with eating animals, zionist anticapitalists, even back in the day I'm sure some abolitionists were also, I don't know, for the extermination of the chinese or whatever. Then again, those people shouting YOU'RE FUNDING TORTURE are probably salutary to some degree: we *are* funding torture, after all. then again there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, I don't know man, it's all crazy.

But you’re right, the discussion was finally getting interesting. I’m not sure I completely agree with Torco’s arguments, but they’ve certainly made me reflect on my own views, which is always what I look for in a discussion.

one is glad to be of service.

I would add on to that the question of how in any way can one be responsible for actions committed before one's birth? Even if one is a "settler-colonialist" by virtue of being born a European-American (or European-Canadian, European-Australian, or like), it is simply unfair to blame one for things committed by other settler-colonialists before one was born.

Yes, but no one (sane) says otherwise: what progs tend to say is something similar but not quite the same: that there exists a baseline duty of opposition to evil and that that duty is intensified in some cases, such as the case where one personally benefits from the evil in question. So it's not like I personally am responsible for the fact that the israelis are doing a genocide: however, if my uncle, who lives in Tel Aviv, is awarded for his military service some eighty hectares of the newly-annexed gaza strip, as well as say a couple kilos of gold extracted from the ashes of palestinians' bodies, probably tooth fillings, and then dies and leaves that land and money to me, his only nephew... well, doesn't that impose *some* duty on me?

edit: I think of course it does: do you think the same of these three torcos?:

torco-one: I move to Gaza on some related-to-a-soldier visa, open up a big parking lot in that area, using the tooth gold to pave the place and set up bathrooms and erect small shops to be rented, and proceed to live comfortably off of the rent and profits.

torco-two: I split that money half-and-half, keep half for me and give away the other half to the people trying to get food and water to the people of gaza, making full use of the tax benefits never to pay a dime in income tax again.

torco-three: I keep 20k of that money, enough for a downpayment on a nice house, and put the rest into various donations to various palestinians rights orgs, and not hire the tax attorney necessary to do the tax thing but, rather, keep paying taxes like a normal person.

[Travis B.]

I would add on to that the question of how in any way can one be responsible for actions committed before one's birth? Even if one is a "settler-colonialist" by virtue of being born a European-American (or European-Canadian, European-Australian, or like), it is simply unfair to blame one for things committed by other settler-colonialists before one was born.

Yes, but no one (sane) says otherwise: what progs tend to say is something similar but not quite the same: that there exists a baseline duty of opposition to evil and that that duty is intensified in some cases, such as the case where one personally benefits from the evil in question. So it's not like I personally am responsible for the fact that the israelis are doing a genocide: however, if my uncle, who lives in Tel Aviv, is awarded for his military service some eighty hectares of the newly-annexed gaza strip, as well as say a couple kilos of gold extracted from the ashes of palestinians' bodies, probably tooth fillings, and then dies and leaves that land and money to me, his only nephew... well, doesn't that impose *some* duty on me?

edit: I think of course it does: do you think the same of these three torcos?:

torco-one: I move to Gaza on some related-to-a-soldier visa, open up a big parking lot in that area, using the tooth gold to pave the place and set up bathrooms and erect small shops to be rented, and proceed to live comfortably off of the rent and profits.

torco-two: I split that money half-and-half, keep half for me and give away the other half to the people trying to get food and water to the people of gaza, making full use of the tax benefits never to pay a dime in income tax again.

torco-three: I keep 20k of that money, enough for a downpayment on a nice house, and put the rest into various donations to various palestinians rights orgs, and not hire the tax attorney necessary to do the tax thing but, rather, keep paying taxes like a normal person.

The question then is where does one draw the line about how far back this goes? Should we drive European-Americans living on land originally inhabited by Native Americans into the sea, as they are living on land that was not originally theirs? I know what answer you and others will probably give -- "you Travis are just engaging in reductio ad absurdum here". Okay then, let's bring things closer to the present. Should we drive non-Arab (and non-Old Yishuv) Israelis living on land originally taken from Palestinians into the sea, as they are living on land that was not originally theirs? Then things get dicier here -- for starters, there are Jewish Israelis living in Israel today* who were alive (and not small children) in 1948, and there are plenty of settlers who have personally taken land from the Palestinians in the West Bank who are alive today. Should those who personally took land from Palestinians be forced to give it back? The simple answer is yes.

But what about those Jewish Israelis born in Israel or even in the settlements who have not personally taken any land from the Palestinians? Should they be forced to return their land to the Palestinians and leave Israel? Again, the answer you and others will probably give is again "more reductio ad absurdum, sigh...". To me the answer is no and yes -- on one hand they did not choose to be born in Israel or even in the settlements. There is a big however though -- just because it is unfair to say they ought to be driven into the sea does not mean that they should not do what they can to ease the oppression of the Palestinians. That includes that either they can push for a one-state solution, including citizenship, equal rights, and a right to return for Palestinians (which includes allowing the Palestinians to rebuild and reinhabit towns that have been ruined since the 1948 war), or they can push for a two-state solution (and if they are settlers, sorry, but that means at least moving to Israel to allow for a Palestinian state with some semblance of territorial integrity, and if they have any objections to that they could have favored the one-state solution). So for settlers who themselves have taken no land, they can keep their land but accept a united national homeland for both Jews and Palestinians, or they can have their Jewish state but evacuate the West Bank so the Palestinians can have their Palestinian state too.

About your comments, though, there is a difference between being born with something and inheriting something that was not yours as an adult. No one is forcing you to accept what you inherit as an adult. And if that was taken from someone else, you can always give back what you inherit to those it was taken from. And in cases like said wealth acquired from melting down gold from the teeth of dead Palestinians, it is very hard to see how there is any other option that is moral at all..

* Well, now that I think of it, for people who were 18 years old in 1948, that means they were born in 1930... so there probably aren't that many left today.

[Torco]

Na the standard progressive answer may be something like "but reductio" but the better prog answer is something like this: these things aren't events, they're social processes and systems and structural features of the way people engage with one another. of course no one alive is responsible for slavery,not in the sense of being responsible for writing the law that legalized it or whatever: but the people who perpetuate the harmful consequences of it, that leverage the societal and generational repercusions of those systems, such as racial capital gaps vis a vis money but also other stuff, to ensure something very like it continues to occurr inasmuch as the current laws permit it? those are very much alive! US prisons are disproportionately...

okay, libprog speech filter off. but seriously, it's not a bad argument: maybe that fable of dental bullion happens not to me but to someone 30 years from now. someone who is, say, 21 years old at that moment, let's call him Bob. Bob isn't responsible for the evil of the current genocide in the sense he started it, but he *has* a duty vis a vis the evil of the current genocide: cause he's a person, and some duty to oppose evil is baseline, but also because he's literally rich because of it. And it's the same with most people: I benefit to some degree, but I'm not on the hook for coming up with sexism... I'm kind of on the hook to do some baseline struggle against it though: you know, try to deconstruct my own sexist habits from time to time, tell my dudes "dude, cringe" when they get too patriarchal, not be sexually creepy or threatening (unless it's her groove, you know?), that kind of thing.

As for the particulars of Israel/Palestine... yeah, I think Israelis have a duty to deconstruct their zionism, de-nazify their minds, and realize that the apartheid system is wrong: for example, they should vote in politicians that commit to a one-state solution, with legal equality for everyone on that territory and right of return for the palestinians and the rest of it. or to a two-state, fuck, if they really want it, but not one with bantustans! currently it seems like they won't. Yeah, maybe people who inherited stolen land may keep it, though it'd be nice if there was like a tax credit or something so people who got their land stolen could buy some of it back somewhere. but the relevant thing, ethically at least, is not this tally of grievances of the past people immediately go for, in their minds: it's identifying and trying to end really bad systems that are operating in the present.

now that I think about it... yeah, social justice theory has not a lot of distinction between perpetuating and participating... but that's to be expected, this is sociology: in some of our theories participating in a social fact *is* what that social fact is.

[bradrn]

however, if my uncle, who lives in Tel Aviv, is awarded for his military service some eighty hectares of the newly-annexed gaza strip, as well as say a couple kilos of gold extracted from the ashes of palestinians' bodies, probably tooth fillings, and then dies and leaves that land and money to me, his only nephew... well, doesn't that impose *some* duty on me?

[off-topic]
I know you like your illustrative analogies taken to the extreme, but let’s just be completely clear that Israel isn’t doing this, OK? (I’d say it’s not committing genocide either, but I know my limits in what I can convince you of.)
[/off-topic]

Na the standard progressive answer may be something like "but reductio" but the better prog answer is something like this: these things aren't events, they're social processes and systems and structural features of the way people engage with one another. of course no one alive is responsible for slavery,not in the sense of being responsible for writing the law that legalized it or whatever: but the people who perpetuate the harmful consequences of it, that leverage the societal and generational repercusions of those systems, such as racial capital gaps vis a vis money but also other stuff, to ensure something very like it continues to occurr inasmuch as the current laws permit it? those are very much alive! US prisons are disproportionately...

okay, libprog speech filter off. but seriously, it's not a bad argument: maybe that fable of dental bullion happens not to me but to someone 30 years from now. someone who is, say, 21 years old at that moment, let's call him Bob. Bob isn't responsible for the evil of the current genocide in the sense he started it, but he *has* a duty vis a vis the evil of the current genocide: cause he's a person, and some duty to oppose evil is baseline, but also because he's literally rich because of it. And it's the same with most people: I benefit to some degree, but I'm not on the hook for coming up with sexism... I'm kind of on the hook to do some baseline struggle against it though: you know, try to deconstruct my own sexist habits from time to time, tell my dudes "dude, cringe" when they get too patriarchal, not be sexually creepy or threatening (unless it's her groove, you know?), that kind of thing.

I suppose the problem I have is, well, that I’m already doing all that stuff, what you call ‘baseline struggle’ but I’d just call ‘being a decent human being’. (Or, at the very least, I hope that I am.) But it feels like that’s never enough to satisfy many leftists: they just tell us that what we’re doing is never good enough.

So, perhaps the important question is: does there exist a point at which you would say, ‘sure, you’re privileged, but I can see you’re making an effort to do what you can about it’? Or do people continue to be personally responsible unless they take radically extreme measures to change the system?

[Torco]

actually, not that clear: there's many credible reports of Israelis harvesting organs from the palestinian dead, as well as international aid workers and their own soldiers: skin, corneas, organs etcetera. sources include israeli doctors and confessions from forensic officials both as books and in front of a court, as well as NGOs and independent reporters. it's been reported in CNN, even, it's nor hard to find, alongside a bunch of headlines like "israel organ harvesting accusations obviously libelous - the jerusalem post". it's not clear that it is state policy, likely not, and the activity at that one center apparently stopped relatively recently, but still, not that unrealistic an illustration, that. war's always been gruesome.

I suppose the problem I have is, well, that I’m already doing all that stuff, what you call ‘baseline struggle’ but I’d just call ‘being a decent human being’. (Or, at the very least, I hope that I am.) But it feels like that’s never enough to satisfy many leftists: they just tell us that what we’re doing is never good enough.

true, and that's pretty annoying. the distinction between the obligatory and the superogatory is often lost to zealots, and honestly, yeah, we leftos have too many zealots. I'm just saying it's not some deep fault in the conceptual machinery, the ethics are sound, it's just some people are, you know, the kind of people who shout YOU'RE TORTUNING MILLIONS OF SOULS at you when you're eating your burrito.

as an aside: I dislike this leftprog inclination of calling political action "just being a decent human being". it fosters the illusion that ethics and politics is trivial: like, for example, what if I disagree with your praxis, do I believe you're not a decent human being? no, I just believe you're wrong about some particulars of what it means to do one's baseline duty: for example, in justifying or minimizing the current genocide: you don't think it's a genocide, so you don't think it's an evil to say so, whereas I do: does that mean either of us are "failing at just being a decent human being"? I'd say no. as for the concrete limit between the obligatory and the superogatory vis a vis patriarchy, capitalism, zionism, islamophobia and the rest of the systems of oppression etcetera... I dunno, man. that's a big ask. but I do think one's duty probably goes a bit further than one's comfort.

[bradrn]

actually, not that clear: there's many credible reports of Israelis harvesting organs from the palestinian dead, as well as international aid workers and their own soldiers: skin, corneas, organs etcetera. sources include israeli doctors and confessions from forensic officials both as books and in front of a court, as well as NGOs and independent reporters. it's been reported in CNN, even, it's nor hard to find, alongside a bunch of headlines like "israel organ harvesting accusations obviously libelous - the jerusalem post". it's not clear that it is state policy, likely not, and the activity at that one center apparently stopped relatively recently, but still, not that unrealistic an illustration, that. war's always been gruesome.

OK… we’re getting increasingly off-topic, but I looked this up. In some ways I wish I hadn’t, but it’s better that I’m aware of it.

That being said, it sounds like most reports were from the 1990s, and linked specifically to one morgue director who was fired for gross mismanagement (in all senses of the word). Not that that excuses any of it, but it makes me more confident that such outrages have been eliminated.

as an aside: I dislike this leftprog inclination of calling political action "just being a decent human being". it fosters the illusion that ethics and politics is trivial […]

The funny thing here is that, politically, I’m not particularly leftprog-inclined (as you may have gathered). So I don’t use that phrase to mean that political opinions are trivially obvious, or anything along those lines.

Rather I feel that, on a day-to-day basis, a lot of leftists’ demands boil down to simply being respectful of the people around you. Things like, for instance, not referring to people with words that make them feel uncomfortable (racial slurs, misgendered pronouns, what have you). Or being aware of the privilege that you hold, when talking to people who are less privileged than you. Or so on. If we reject the zealots’ demands to spend your whole life in active revolt, these kinds of actions are really what most people can do to combat unfairness around them.

And I think the zealots might be surprised at what you can accomplish with this. For instance, one time when I referred to someone as ‘they’, the person I was talking to asked: ‘why are you calling them “they”? Is this person transgender?’ And that gave me an opportunity to have a quick discussion about the importance of all this, and further normalise the use of such language. It might not be much, but small steps are still steps.

like, for example, what if I disagree with your praxis, do I believe you're not a decent human being? no, I just believe you're wrong about some particulars of what it means to do one's baseline duty: for example, in justifying or minimizing the current genocide: you don't think it's a genocide, so you don't think it's an evil to say so, whereas I do: does that mean either of us are "failing at just being a decent human being"? I'd say no. as for the concrete limit between the obligatory and the superogatory vis a vis patriarchy, capitalism, zionism, islamophobia and the rest of the systems of oppression etcetera... I dunno, man. that's a big ask. but I do think one's duty probably goes a bit further than one's comfort.

Sure, I wasn’t referring to these sorts of big political opinions. That seems like quite a different topic to ‘being decent’.

That being said, this is an interesting topic. Prima facie, there’s no reason why ‘being aware of privilege and trying to combat its effects’ should be especially correlated with, say, ‘believing Israel is committing a genocide’, plus the whole constellation of other beliefs generally considered ‘leftist’. But in practice, these opinions seem to very strongly go together. (As indeed they do with you.) Possibly, it may just be the universal tendency towards political polarisation, but I’m not entirely convinced that’s all there is to it.

[Torco]

I know right? ghastly stuff. I hope you're right and it was an isolated incident.

That being said, this is an interesting topic. Prima facie, there’s no reason why ‘being aware of privilege and trying to combat its effects’ should be especially correlated with, say, ‘believing Israel is committing a genocide’, plus the whole constellation of other beliefs generally considered ‘leftist’. But in practice, these opinions seem to very strongly go together. (As indeed they do with you.) Possibly, it may just be the universal tendency towards political polarisation, but I’m not entirely convinced that’s all there is to it.

I think there's like a common thread to what is considered right-wing and what is considered left-wing, actually. I haven't always thought so, and indeed it could be the case that they're just kind of random and i'm reading patterns where none exist, but it seems to me that things which we label as right-wing have to do with justifying and sor of... I don't know, reinforcing? ensuring the correct functioning of? systems of hierarchy, whereas things we think of as left wing are more about the problematization and working towards the abolition of those systems of hierarchy. I think this theory fits with what we know about the psychology of political orientation, as well as with what we observe about right-wing and left-wing thought, though not always with the actions: this can be chalked up to tactics (say, organizing parties as these authoritarian, bureaucratic and non-transparent systems we see in single-party socialists states like China is doing more hierarchy, but it's in the interest -nominally- of fighting capitalism, which would mean less hierarchy: reversely, right wingers could sometimes advocate for, say, the release of prisoners, which is less hierarchy, if those prisoners were, say, like in my country, ex intelligence operatives of the pinochet regime)... still, this tactics stuff is kind of a copout, and I admit destabilizes the model, but still.

like for example: zionism is -we leftos think- hierarchical: it entails the social superiority of some groups (i.e. israeli citizens, or jews) over people who aren't those things in various respects: for example, palestinians don't get right of return, only jews do, etcetera: indeed many zionists openly say that what they're doing is to protect the jewishness of the state (i.e. to keep jews, and not non-jews, as the ones calling the shots). capitalism is hierarchical: it entails that the people who have this fictive thing, o w n e r s h i p, get to make all the decisions, and for the most part in their own benefit. patriarchy entails the superiority of men over women, anti-trans entails the superiority of some people, those who conform to certain gender roles blabla, over those who don't -who, for example, would be denied access to some forms of employment etcetera. racism, well, it's somewhat self-explanatory how that's a movement for *more* hierarchy and not less.

edit: thinking the current actions of the israeli state amount to a genocide is less clearly about more vs. less hierarchy: us leftos tend to feel like only believing that the genocide is right could make someone not see that it is, indeed, a genocide, but I think that's a failure of the imagination: the information bubbles leftos and non-leftos live in are indeed very different. still, we're talking the entrapment of a few million people into a territory they can't escape, and then proceeding to bomb said territory so hard that you basically turned what was a poor but mostly functional ghetto into a field of rubble, denying the entry of humanitarian aid and all the rest of it, it's hard not to see an intention to exterminate here, or at least a sort of "i don't care if every one of them dies, we're going to do what we're trying to do anyway", and there's only so far the doctrine of collateral damage can go.

[Travis B.]

this can be chalked up to tactics (say, organizing parties as these authoritarian, bureaucratic and non-transparent systems we see in single-party socialists states like China is doing more hierarchy, but it's in the interest -nominally- of fighting capitalism, which would mean less hierarchy: reversely, right wingers could sometimes advocate for, say, the release of prisoners, which is less hierarchy, if those prisoners were, say, like in my country, ex intelligence operatives of the pinochet regime)... still, this tactics stuff is kind of a copout, and I admit destabilizes the model, but still.

To libertarian and democratic socialists, the likes of the Soviet Union and China are much better described as state capitalism or, more in the case of China today, some hybrid between state capitalism and private capitalism, than as socialism.

[bradrn]

I think there's like a common thread to what is considered right-wing and what is considered left-wing, actually. I haven't always thought so, and indeed it could be the case that they're just kind of random and i'm reading patterns where none exist, but it seems to me that things which we label as right-wing have to do with justifying and sor of... I don't know, reinforcing? ensuring the correct functioning of? systems of hierarchy, whereas things we think of as left wing are more about the problematization and working towards the abolition of those systems of hierarchy.

To some extent I agree with this: there’s plenty of political positions which are aligned as you say. For instance, advocating for LGBTQI+ rights is very clearly about demolishing the hierarchy of ‘straight > gay’. Similarly, in the US, the George Floyd protests a couple of years ago were clearly trying to eliminate the hierarchy of ‘white > black’.

But on the other hand, many political positions could be justified either way. I actually feel the clearest example of this is Zionism. In Jewish communities, a very common argument for Zionism is that Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel, from which they were forcibly removed and barred from entering for many years, and therefore to fix this situation Jews now deserve special rights and sovereignty over the whole of their land. (To be clear, I agree with the first half of this argument, but not the second.) This is, of course, a bog-standard leftist argument about the rights of indigenous people… but it’s one which goes the opposite direction to the usually ‘leftist’ political decision.

I think the issue is that the ‘hierarchy’ you refer to is less hierarchical than one might think at first. Thus, continuing this example, Jews are in some ways less privileged than ’white’ people (in experiencing systematic discrimination, and being a minority religion), and in some ways more privileged (we’re largely wealthy, highly educated, and have reasonably light skin colour). If you insist on oppression only going one way, then you’re forced to say that either ‘Jews are privileged’ or ‘Jews are unprivileged’ — and it just so happens that modern leftism ended up with the former.

To me, the most sensible approach would be for us Jews to become more aware of the ways in which we’re privileged in society, and for other people to become more aware about the ways in which society still perpetuates antisemitism. I suspect many people actually would agree with this position. But, alas, it’s hard to turn into a slogan…

[rotting bones]

We'll see how much you love the current system when you inevitably* have to work under a bad boss.

The problem is not that we're not getting enough respect. We're dying out here, as you'll realize after you enter the job market. The market economy puts the squeeze on everyone for no physically justifiable reason. Since the system is sacrosanct, the only people left to blame are the minorities in every group. Any non-leftist who doesn't celebrate brutality like Nietzsche is in denial.

As an old fashioned leftist, I don't give a crap who is respectful to whom. In fact, I suspect respectability politics to be a CIA-funded front to let the market mechanism carry out its implicit genocide. (I support violent direct action to protect minorities though.)

I said all this years ago, but my main problems are these: 1. Under a market mechanism, managers are incentivized to cut costs by underpaying employees. This lowers "demand" for products as measured by the market, sending the economy into a depressive spiral. 2. If a company produces a surfeit of products, thus reducing scarcity, this lowers profitability through the sale of these products, hurting the company's bottom line. ...

The "moderate" solution to these problems is to let the government regulate the market. This would work if political candidates didn't depend on corporate donations to win elections, but there is no way to effectively disincentivize politicians from accepting such donations under the market mechanism.

Regarding colonialism, the extension of this logic is that once the settlers have seized enough resources, settler supremacy becomes a self-perpetuating system. *Once you concentrate power, the people who wield it can no longer be held accountable. People like Jared Kushner have talked about how valuable Gaza's beachfronts could be.

The only lasting solution is to make all productive systems accountable to the people as a whole: direct democracy.

Besides, every political faction these days wants me to live my whole life in a regressive Islamic society, a prospect that's intolerable to me.

[Travis B.]

I said all this years ago, but my main problems are these: 1. Under a market mechanism, managers are incentivized to cut costs by underpaying employees. This lowers "demand" for products as measured by the market, sending the economy into a depressive spiral. 2. If a company produces a surfeit of products, thus reducing scarcity, this lowers profitability through the sale of these products, hurting the company's bottom line. ...

You mean under capitalism. Under market socialism this would not be the case, because it would be workers who would have to vote to underpay themselves, so they have a direct incentive to not do so. The only case where I see that workers would choose to pay themselves less is if it is necessary to maintain the viability of the enterprise (in cases where in the case of capitalism they would be simply laid off), as being paid less would be preferable to them over not being paid at all.

[rotting bones]

You mean under capitalism. Under market socialism this would not be the case, because it would be workers who would have to vote to underpay themselves, so they have a direct incentive to not do so. The only case where I see that workers would choose to pay themselves less is if it is necessary to maintain the viability of the enterprise (in cases where in the case of capitalism they would be simply laid off), as being paid less would be preferable to them over not being paid at all.

I don't think these things happen because managers are bad people (though many clearly are) or that they don't care about employees (though many clearly don't).

The fact is, under market competition, not exploiting workers will put you out of business. This is why IIRC the Mondragon Corporation hired temp workers and mistreated them instead of giving every worker the rights of full employeehood.

As I said before, what concerns me about market socialism based on worker co-ops is that because of the profit motive, most people would only be able to find exploitative work anyway. Again, I would support a movement based on this idea despite my reservations.

[Ares Land]

I'm not sure the left-wing=pro-Palestinian correlation is as strong as it appears to be. Plenty of counter-examples when you scratch the surface.
To begin with, there are plenty of left-wing Jews and right-wing antisemitism is still alive and well.

*paints big target on his back and chest* I'm not at all convinced colonialism is an apt analogy for Israel/Palestine. Colonialism was a vastly different phenomenon.
My personal view is that Israel is being eaten alive by conservative authoritarianism, just like most Western country. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that a narrative that Israel is evil by nature is currently taking hold, and I find that particularly troubling. (Not that I deny any of the suffering in Gaza, mind.)

[keenir]

We'll see how much you love the current system when you inevitably* have to work under a bad boss.

so, because bad employers exist, the entire system needs to be abolished? okay, then name a system that humans haven't abused or gamed to take advantage of on some level. i don't think such a thing exists or ever existed.

The "moderate" solution to these problems is to let the government regulate the market. This would work if political candidates didn't depend on corporate donations to win elections, but there is no way to effectively disincentivize politicians from accepting such donations under the market mechanism.

even if there were no politicians, or even with direct democracy, there would still be bribes and sponsorships - be it from corporations, megafarms, etc.

The only lasting solution is to make all productive systems accountable to the people as a whole: direct democracy.

with direct democracy, how do you stop the mob - proverbial or otherwise - from taking over? for someone who states that everyone else wants them to live in a regressive society, surely direct democracy would be the last thing you'd want.

Besides, every political faction these days wants me to live my whole life in a regressive Islamic society,

??????

I'm honestly not sure which part of that statement is hyperbole.

[bradrn]

I'm not sure the left-wing=pro-Palestinian correlation is as strong as it appears to be. Plenty of counter-examples when you scratch the surface.
To begin with, there are plenty of left-wing Jews and right-wing antisemitism is still alive and well.

Well, ‘left-wing Jew’ is often treated as synonymous with ‘Jew who hates Israel’ (at least from what I’ve seen). Though as you note, right-wing antisemitism is indeed alive and well… I’ve seen at least one comment to the effect that hatred of Israel is the one topic which can unite the far-left and far-right.

*paints big target on his back and chest* I'm not at all convinced colonialism is an apt analogy for Israel/Palestine. Colonialism was a vastly different phenomenon.

I agree (which is probably no surprise). There may be similarities, but I think they’re vastly outweighed by the differences.

My personal view is that Israel is being eaten alive by conservative authoritarianism, just like most Western country.

There is a connection, yes, but I do feel that conservative authoritarianism is distinctly more entrenched in Israeli politics than in most other Western countries. Trump became president in 2016, but Netanyahu has been PM since 1996 (albeit not continuously).

[Torco]

In Jewish communities, a very common argument for Zionism is that Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel, from which they were forcibly removed and barred from entering for many years, and therefore to fix this situation Jews now deserve special rights and sovereignty over the whole of their land.

It's a redressive argument, and to that degree yeah, it sounds leftist. But other than that, no: it's trying to redress a past injustice of the form "these people own this land and it has been denied them", not a present hierarchy, necessarily. I have heard a more lefto-as-anti-hierarchy version, though: that the jews are treated as inferior and at risk of pogroms everywhere, and therefore a country for their own is a necessary protection from that. kind of the same argument as Liberia was founded.

The only lasting solution is to make all productive systems accountable to the people as a whole: direct democracy.

fuck yeah man! put it to a plebiscite: should we all pay half of our wage to some rich guy just cause he's rich? should the fruits of all of our work besides what we can bargain for when we're unemployed and facing homelessness... should it all go wherever some suit decides?

then again... did you move to Dubai or sth? the islamism stuff i mean

so, because bad employers exist, the entire system needs to be abolished? okay, then name a system that humans haven't abused or gamed to take advantage of on some level. i don't think such a thing exists or ever existed.

no, see, slavery wasn't bad because some slavers were especially mean to their slaves: it was bad because it entailed the establishment of an arbitrary hierarchy that was unjust, unnecesary, and cost millions of people their lives, freedoms, and wellbeing: i.e. it made some people masters and others slaves for the sole purpose of benefitting the masters. same with capitalism. sure, some bosses are less bad, but the whole system runs on, basically, we all do what rich people say. now granted, we're freer than slaves, and in principle a poor can become a rich (just like a black slave could become a slaveowner, as did happen in the US, i'm told): but yeah, anticapitalism is not a matter of 'a few bad apples'.

I'm not like a super expert on the history of colonialism but it seems to me exceedingly similar, especially anglosaxon colonialism, we're talking a) invading non-white peoples land and b) giving it to white people c) with military backing and d) justifying it as bringing civilization, punishing barbarians, and securing a place for the "us" to live. look at the indian wars in north america for an example and tell me the relevant differences, mutatis mutandis: the indian in manifest destiny is fulfilling kind of the same role as the palestinian in Israel: for real, is Gaza, the west bank etcetera too different from a reservation? apparently already gazan land is being sold in some us and canadian sinagogues.