are communists necessarily anti-semitic?

[bikerdruid]

Nothing to see here, there's no anti-semitism on the left...

i don't think that anyone here has said that.
skeptic's claim that communists are necessarily anti-semitic is what is at issue here.

 

[Praktik]

Right. Which is why my claim that Asian (not communist) anti-Semitism was greater than zero. Exactly appropriate to the evidence presented.

Yes, and a bet any sane man would take in an instant!

But had this and your link on the backburner recently, masonic and rothschild centered conspiracy theories being something of a hobby of mine (due to my previously mentioned strong personal connection to people so afflicted) and I remembered the article saying the student had returned from America. Of course.

It struck me as quite obvious what happened: these conspiracy theories have the most currency in America and pockets of Western Europe, who have built not insignificant subcultures around them (some neo-nazi, some "secular" 9/11 truther types get into it, etc). So what happened here was a transmission of a particularly American + Western European thread of conspiracy subculture to a visitor.

Says more to me about globalization and memetic transmission than it does about any homegrown anti-semitism in China, let alone homegrown anti-semitism borne of Communism!

Cause you could theorize that China could have any political system, as long as it was one that allowed for travel to and from the United States, and see a similar paper being written. Equally, you could take a cue from the OP and ask, insanely, if there was some inherent nature of capitalism that breeds anti-semitism, since thats where the kid "caught" the disease.

Where are the Chinese threads of anti-semitism?

And I say this from a place of curiousity not combativeness...

 

[bigjelmapro]

Bigjelmapro, since you have lived on 7 kibbutzim, perhaps you would be able to describe how the current kibbutz model defers from the past?

My understanding is that one definition of communism is that all property is publicly owned and that people work according to their abilities and are paid according to their needs.

Since the kibbutzim are within the boundaries of Israel, a parliamentary democracy, and its members are citizens of Israel -- to whatever extent that kibbutzim were and are communist has to be due to how they were managed internally.

Socialist, so Communism minus the form of government. All the laws, rules and regulations of the Israeli government apply to these kibbutzim. The issue of landownership is, unless its a moshav, collectively owned by the kibbutz.

And again, its a model.

As to how they are managed internally, I would hazard a guess that most have a board that are elected, deciding anything from building/maintenance projects to holiday celebrations, not much different from gated communities elsewhere in the world, albeit more involved. For those that reside in the kibbutz itself, either they work for their room and board or pay a monthly charge, as is the case with many tourists and IDF conscripts (lone soldiers for example).

I've never been in a kibbutz, or heard of one, past, present, or future, where its residents are required (or will be required) to pool their resources for the good of the kibbutz.

If you have the info, I'd like to hear more about what the typical model is now (if in fact the 270 or so kibbutzim are similar enough to have a typical model) before I give my opinion as to whether they could still be considered a communist economic model for their members at least as far as their internal affairs.

I'm particularly interested in what the typical model is for an "urban kibbutz". Per this Wiki article there are about a 100 of them. But I've not been able to find out how a typical urban model is set up and managed. Do they have to have a means of bringing in income by owning a factory or a store for example? Or do some of them just share expenses?

What's difficult to understand about an urban kibbutz? It simply is one residing in or in close proximity to an urban area. This would in most cases imply that a portion of the residents would be working outside the kibbutz and that there would possibly be less emphasis on agriculture.

Capitalist kibbutz? Isn't that an oxymoron? If the Wiki article is accurate I would say that at least 72% of the kibbutzim no longer fit the communist model.

How would it be? The kibbutz model, as stated before, was based on a socialist communal model mostly out of necessity (ie many immigrants arriving with only the clothes on their back in a poorly developed area) rather than strict adherence to any certain ideology, albeit, there are some hardcore supporters of the strict socialist model.

Its the concept of communal living that remains a constant and I very much doubt its an oxymoron. They aren't absolutes.

 

[WildCat]

Proof that the Japenese didn't share this particular prejudice with the Nazis. One reason is probably that while their were Jews in Japan, they were not a large enough minority to attract prejudice.

The Japanese hate all non-Japanese equally. You're either Japanese or Gaijin.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, I understand what correlation is and yes, I understand statistics. You're the one who presented the existence of Asian communism as evidence that overall communists would be less anti-Semitic, presumably because their levels of anti-Semitism would be watered down by the non-anti-Semitic Asians. If that's not what you meant, then please clarify.

I'm not claiming they're less or more or anything. I'm just getting annoyed by the whole BS bingo and claiming there's a correlation, without actually showing any correlation.

So in your opinion communist anti-Semitism would be comparable to baseline anti-Semitism?

I'm not the one who claimed a correlation either way. Support your correlation claim, really.

Right. Which is why my claim that Asian (not communist) anti-Semitism was greater than zero. Exactly appropriate to the evidence presented.

It's exactly irrelevant since you claimed a correlation, not the existence of one example which isn't even shown to have both attributes that supposedly correlate. I don't see a correlation there. Support your correlation claim, really.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not claiming they're less or more or anything...

Okay, so when you asked "Exactly how much antisemitism do you find in China? Vietnam? Kambodia?" I should not have taken that as an indicator that you believe anti-Semitism in these places is less than among European communists?

Okay, whatever.

I'm not the one who claimed a correlation either way. Support your correlation claim, really.

What I was trying to do is draw the discussion into more a centrist realm. Kotatsu and Taarkin were arguing essentially that communism isn't inherently anti-Semitic because there are Communists who are not anti-Semitic. While true, I don't think it was really an item of contention, and is not really a counter to Skeptic's claim that "Communist dogma almost by definition must hate Judaism."

 

[HansMustermann]

A more moderate version of an unsupported libel is still an unsupported libel. E.g., I'm pretty sure that if I were to say "Mycoft blows his wage on booze and beats his wife on pay day" or "there's a strong correlation between payday and Mycoft blowing his wage on booze and beating his wife", it would still be an insulting libel either way.

The only "center position" in the absence of any real data either way is to assume the baseline. Making an unsupported accusation that some group are in some way deficient isn't suddenly OK if it's just phrased to leave room for some exceptions instead of the blanket generalization. It's still just as bogus. The center position between right and wrong is still wrong, even if by only half as big a margin.

 

[Skeptic]

A more moderate version of an unsupported libel is still an unsupported libel. E.g., I'm pretty sure that if I were to say "Mycoft blows his wage on booze and beats his wife on pay day" or "there's a strong correlation between payday and Mycoft blowing his wage on booze and beating his wife", it would still be an insulting libel either way.

Except that it isn't libel if it's true. The "red-green" (Islamist / Communist) alliance is a well-known fact. What do you think makes communists march in the street together, in unison, with those who would kill them as infidel atheists if they had the chance? You guessed it: desire to "liberate Palestine", that is, destroy Israel.

One example is "queers for Palestine". Well, in the PA and Gaza queers, as they call themselves here, are killed. But while killing homosexuals anywhere else is an intolerable hate crime according to pro-homosexual groups (and according to any decent person), here, these same groups ignore it and forgive it; why? Because those who do it also kill Jews.

Mycroft added above an example of a communist group that did, mirablis dictu, recognize the not-hard-to-spot Jew-harted behind the "Communists for freeing Palestine" facade and took steps to stop it. This was totally ignored, of course.

 

[HansMustermann]

There's a difference between being against the occupation of certain territories or the colonizing there against all international treaties, and wanting to destroy Israel. So already we have a piece of BS to base that generalization on.

Second, even that would not mean antisemitism. Antisemitism is defined as the hatred of Jews as people, not just disliking a certain country or (to return to an earlier canard) religion. Basically same as supporting the independence of the ex-USSR countries doesn't mean being anti-Russian, and same as thinking the USA should pull out of Iraq isn't really anti-American, and supporting the independence of Tibet doesn't mean being anti-Chinese, etc. There is a fundamental difference between not liking the actions of a country, and actually having anything against the people.

Basically, I'm sorry, but "anti-semitism" isn't some trump-all card that means everyone should give you whatever lollipop you want and be totally for it.

Third, it's the spotlight fallacy. Just because you can find some people who make the news for marching for this and that, doesn't mean everyone is. There are plenty of communists world-wide who don't give a flying f-word about Israel or Palestine either way.

Fourth, I've seen the association fallacy. Just because Marx held certain bigoted views, doesn't mean all communists do. Or just because some communists were atheists, and indeed in Marx's dogma one had to be, doesn't mean that the guys proclaiming themselves communists in Gaza even are atheists at all. Nobody actually ever managed to make full blown communism even work at all, e.g., using money and different wages was already a major deviation even in the USSR. There is room to cherry-pick something that is still close enough, but loses this or that point from Marx or Lenin, and religion is one such point. In fact, it's the least important point. There's plenty of room to be for some form of communal ownership and wealth distribution while being a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever. Even the USSR under Stalin eventually figured out that they're better off leaving the church alone.

Or in other words, similarly Newton believed in all sorts of occultism, and considered himself to be some sort of messiah, but that doesn't mean all physicists share those views.

 

[Virus]

At least she has the excuse of having gone round the bend because of a terrible trauma. What's the excuse of those who do it voluntarily?

Actually George Bush personally visited her home and offered his condolences. She seemed pretty cool with it. Then she went lefty and started praising the "resistance" that killed her son.

 

[Skeptic]

Second, even that would not mean antisemitism.

Oh, yes it would. For the same people that wanting to wipe France off the face of the Earth is hatred of the French people.

Basically same as supporting the independence of the ex-USSR countries doesn't mean being anti-Russian,

Supporting independence for those who declared repeatedly their goal is the "staged plan" for wiping Russia off the face of the earth is anti-Russian, however.

 

[HansMustermann]

1. What, every single Palestinian, including the women and children and all, are for that?

2. I don't remember the right to self-determination or the applicable international treaties being contingent on liking each other. We don't tell, say, Serbia "ok, go ahead and re-occupy the Croats if you think they hate you."

In fact the whole point of that principle is precisely situations where a region or minority hates being part of a certain country. It's stupid to essentially say that they only have that right if they're totally content and cool with their masters. If occupying a territory actually caused the kind of hatred you describe, then that's not a reason against their right to self-determination, but exactly the kind of situation where that principle was supposed to be applied.

3. Generally, last I heard, law and international law were concerned with what someone does, not with what you think someone's intention is, nor with slippery slope kind of arguments. Otherwise we'd have to bomb the Vatican, 'cause, you know, they want to bring the kingdom of their God to the whole world

 

[Skeptic]

1. What, every single Palestinian, including the women and children and all, are for that?

Of course not, but that's irrelevant. The leadership and the ideology and the guiding policy are for that. Also, unfortunately, many survery show that quite a few Palestinians -- 40% or so, IIRC -- support just, presumably including many women and children.

2. I don't remember the right to self-determination or the applicable international treaties being contingent on liking each other.

So the Palestinians should just get the territories for nothing, not even an agreement to not continue to kill Jews?

3. Generally, last I heard, law and international law were concerned with what someone does, not with what you think someone's intention is, nor with slippery slope kind of arguments.

That's right. And international law does not require a country that captured territories in a war of agression against it to return them unconditionally.

otherwise we would have to bomb the vatican...

If the Vatican had sent thousands of terrorists and tens of thousands of rockets into Italy as part of a religious war to wipe Italy off the face of the earth -- as the pope repeatedly declares -- you can bet your behind they would be bombed.

The problem is the Palestinians do not just think, or dislike; they engage in a terror war whose purpose is Israel's destruction and they openly declare getting a state would be a tool to continue that war.

 

[Taarkin]

Skeptic, is communism inherently anti-Semitic? If so, how? Earlier you said that Judaism and communism contradict each other. How? Does a thing being contradictory to Judaism make that thing inherently anti-Semitic?

 

[HansMustermann]

Of course not, but that's irrelevant. The leadership and the ideology and the guiding policy are for that. Also, unfortunately, many survery show that quite a few Palestinians -- 40% or so, IIRC -- support just, presumably including many women and children.

Right. So that would leave, what, 60% who don't? Seems to me like one can still sympathise with the majority of the population in there, without having some shared anti-Israel agenda. Much less an anti-semitic agenda.

So the Palestinians should just get the territories for nothing, not even an agreement to not continue to kill Jews?

I think most people hope an agreement could be found.

That's right. And international law does not require a country that captured territories in a war of agression against it to return them unconditionally.

Err...

1. the Gaza strip, which you mentioned earlier, went into Israel control after the 6 day war, where, sad to say, Han shot first. Err... Israel shot first. I think it's pretty hard to present it as a war as aggression against Israel, when Israel started that war by bombing Egypt. Even swallowing Israel's claim of it being a preemptive strike, nevertheless a preemptive strike is still starting the war, not being on the receiving end of a war of aggression.

2. While the West Bank I also don't see how that can be construed as a war of aggression against Israel either. Jordan honoured its alliance with Egypt, in a war where, again, Israel shot first. I'm sorry, but if you attack a member of an alliance, you're still the aggressor when they honour their alliance obligations. Otherwise, you know, England and France would count among the aggressors in WW2, when they honoured their obligations to Poland by declaring war on Germany.

3. While there may be no rule that says you have to just give them back, there are international accords against unilaterally annexing parts of an occupied territory, and against colonizing it. E.g., Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, article 49, paragraph 6. (Yes, it has been ruled repeatedly that non-forcible transfers into occupied territories are forbidden by that one too.) So basically, sorry, "we're not breaking rule X" is good and fine, but doesn't mean much when you are breaking rules Y and Z.

4. Still, I don't see how one would need to be anti-semitic to notice that Israel is in violation of such international conventions. Nor to be unimpressed by the rationales put forth by Israel. Everyone has rationales, and everyone loves to present itself as the victim who only fought and conquered in self-defense. Even Germany in WW2 managed to claim that. Welcome to the club.

If the Vatican had sent thousands of terrorists and tens of thousands of rockets into Italy as part of a religious war to wipe Italy off the face of the earth -- as the pope repeatedly declares -- you can bet your behind they would be bombed.

Right. So, given Israel's long history of bombing its neighbours "preemptively", when do we start?

Not seriously, but really, cut it out with the lopsided presenting it as a clear cut case of one being the innocent victim and the other being the evil aggressor. If you act like a complete dick in the area, you don't get to wonder why on Earth those guys hate you, and frankly both sides there amply proved that being circumcised doesn't prevent one from being a complete dick

Mind you, it would still be nice if everyone just cut it out with the bombing each other already. We're not in the 19'th century any more. But I'm not swallowing the BS propaganda that it's unilaterally the Arab's fault either way.

The problem is the Palestinians do not just think, or dislike; they engage in a terror war whose purpose is Israel's destruction and they openly declare getting a state would be a tool to continue that war.

And yet again we return to that "the Palestinians" generalization, although even you didn't claim that a majority of the population actually has any such goals.

 

[Taarkin]

Wrong thread guys!

 

[bigjelmapro]

Skeptic, is communism inherently anti-Semitic? If so, how? Earlier you said that Judaism and communism contradict each other. How? Does a thing being contradictory to Judaism make that thing inherently anti-Semitic?

What are you trying to hard to rewrite the OP of this thread?

Can you spot the difference?:

'Are Communists necessarily anti-semitic'

vs.

'Is Communism inherently anti-semitic'

For both the OP and your attempt to rewrite it, Communist and Socialist leaders of the past and present, from philosophers to political leaders, overwhelmingly viewed religion in the negative to its effect on society and its development, from Marx to Lenin. Some went so far as to violently purge/destroy/rethink/rewrite/etc. religion out of the society which they ruled, ie Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

Its not quite a stretch that this anti-religious stance or actions against religion overall can be translated to being anti-semitic against one specific religion. Judaism being the case here...

Or by what definition of anti-semtism are we working with here?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Right. So that would leave, what, 60% who don't? Seems to me like one can still sympathise with the majority of the population in there, without having some shared anti-Israel agenda. Much less an anti-semitic agenda.

Join the other thread regarding this topic and you'll find out that the majority of the peace loving Palestinians support a two-state as a stepping stone to a one-state solution devoid of Israel, which is anti-Israel, wouldn't you say?

The rest of your post is pure comedy. No wonder you're replying here.

 

[Cleon]

For both the OP and your attempt to rewrite it, Communist and Socialist leaders of the past and present, from philosophers to political leaders, overwhelmingly viewed religion in the negative to its effect on society and its development,

Interesting. Many prominent atheists (Dawkins, Myers, Harris, etc) feel exactly the same way.

So are atheists inherently anti-Semitic?

No. This entire line of argument is ridiculous.

 

[Pardalis]

Dawkins and Harris are often being accused of Islamophobia as well.