A long and interesting post, Jim. You touch on a lot of points I agree with. But I don't know how much impact this kind of defense of Israel can have. For one thing, the literature on Naziism, anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vast, but you appeal again and again to well-known Trotskyist sources, as if this constitutes a scholarly argument. Instead it seems very tendentious. Very few people think that iterating something printed in The Militant makes a convincing reference. You also tend to state points which might be defensible, but since you take almost no account of opposing points of view it isn't clear that you are adding much to the conversation other than framing, in language sanctioned by the literature you cite, points that have been debated for a long time. I agree with what you say on many of those points, but not because the authors you cite are authorities on the subject.
Your basic point is that there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, and that Israel should be defended as a refuge. That's fine, but I do not believe it is necessary to posit a crisis of capitalism to defend Israel. Like many other states, Israel has a history that combines the sordid and the heroic, the idealist and the cynical. Anti-Semitism is revealed in questioning the legitimacy of Israel due to a colonial history that is similar to that of many states whose legitimacy is not questioned. Zohran Mamdani demanding that Israel should exist only "as a state of equality" while refusing to make a similar statement about states like Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal for a citizen not to be a Muslim, is anti-Semitism. It doesn't matter if there is a crisis of capitalism or not. As a secular Jew living in the U.S. I know from personal experience that anti-Semitism exists just below and sometimes well above the surface in this country, as it still does and always has in Europe and the Middle East. Israel's continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank has now permitted this to flourish openly under the guise of anti-Zionism. You had progressives all but openly supporting a corrupt, brutal, fascist cleptocracy in Gaza as if it was a liberation force. This has nothing to do with the declining rate of profit etc.
I am a Trotskyist, and so I quote from Trotsky. If you have reason to believe Trotsky was not authoritative, that's something we can discuss. But, of course, Trotsky was a Marxist. And only people who have studied the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky are likely to understand this line of argument.If you are not a Marxist, perhaps you can explain where Marx went wrong.
Fascism triumphed in Germany because the class struggle there left the ruling class no other choice but to put Hitler's party in power. Hitler's thugs, they reasoned, would crush the workers parties and make the workers serve the bosses again. Trotsky explained that.
I support the Militant newspaper and urge people to read it. The reason I call attention to the crisis of capitalism is because this crisis is very real and wreaking havoc all over the world. I have written several Substack posts on this topic.
Marxism is the only scientific analysis that helps us to understand the inevitability of the falling profit rate, and why it leads to a deepening and unresolvable crisis-- which is what we are living in right now.
You didn't just quote Trotsky, you quoted Jack Barnes, Abraham Leon, the Militant and others, almost all of the same trend. I'm sure you could have dug up a choice quote from Isaac Deutscher, George Novack, Peter Camejo... This sort of thing constitutes an argument only for the handful of people who agree that all reliable sources are Trotskyist and all Trotskyists are reliable sources, and they also already agreed with everything you said before you said it, so why bother?
I read your lengthy post hoping to get some insight into your views on Israel, which you promote frequently on FB. Instead I got a long rehash of well-known views and a lot of quotes from Trotskyist sources, most of which I was familiar with 50 years ago. I also write a Substack column, The Lamppost. I do a lot of research before I publish a column, and it does not come from any one kind of source, nor do I expect people to agree with me just because they share a broader point of view. I'm not averse to quoting Trotsky - when I think he's right. (The column I'm writing now has a few things to say about "permanent revolution".) Being a Trotskyist doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to back up your views with research.
Your statement about the triumph of fascism in Germany is pretty vague. To say "the class struggle there left the ruling class no other choice" doesn't explain anything. Having no other choice and having the ability to get Hitler appointed Chancellor are two completely different things. Trotsky's analysis of the triumph of fascism is a lot more nuanced than this. But that wasn't the main point of your column, or my comments. You insisted that the rise of anti-Semitism is the result of some sort of crisis of capitalism, and because Jews are once again the international scapegoats Israel must be supported as a refuge. It takes a lot to document a "crisis of capitalism", a lot more than reiterating the 150-year-old claim from Capital V.1 of a declining rate of profit. Secondly, you need more than rhetoric to show that this crisis is the cause of a rise in anti-Semitism, especially when there are more obvious proximate causes.
As you probably know, attention spans today are pretty limited, and few people under the age of 50 will read a post as long as yours (or some of mine). I read them, but I expect more than a run-through of well-rehearsed history backed by ideologically uniform authorities, which is what this post seemed to me. We agree that Israel is a legitimate nation. But the argument is both simpler and a lot more complicated than you make out. The simple argument is it's a nation with a colonial history similar to a lot of others. The more complicated argument requires historical, anthropological and philosophical arguments that you're not going to get from the sources you quoted.
Anton -- thanks again for your take on my essay. Naturally, I quote from authors I have learned from and who have provided authoritative statements on the question at hand. You say "why bother?" Do you think my quotes are a waste of time?
I have become educated in Marxism, so I am a Marxist. Marxists have received quite a bit of abuse over the years from those who defend the existing economic system. What do you think of that? What's the cause of the unpopularity of Marxism in the universities and among the ruling political elites. Why is that?
Also you seem to express disdain for Marx's book "Capital." I don't understand your bias against that book or its theories.
The other point you address is my implication of "some sort of crisis of capitalism." It seems you don't agree. If you like, you can read my other essays devoted to the deepening crisis of capitalism. I'll take a look at your Substack.
I am only saying that you should support your arguments with a more substantive body of research. That doesn’t mean I think your sources are not worth quoting, but quoting solely from sources approved by a particular ideological trend suggests you are only interested in speaking to people who already substantially agree with that trend. It’s up to you if you want to do that, but the amount of work you put into your essays suggests that you are hoping to reach a wider audience.
You say that Marxists are not held in high esteem in academia. I am not sure how to approach that claim, because there are many Marxists in academia worldwide, and the faculty at U.S. universities are overall very left of center. But if you are saying they are not Marxists I wonder what you are comparing this to. I am looking at my bookshelf, and just sticking to relatively recent work, there is a book by Thomas Piketty, one by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and another by Wolfgang Streeck, all of whom identify as Marxists, and the book “Karl Marx in America” by Andrew Hartman.
Perhaps you are thinking of the enormous influence of the Frankfurt School in the mid-20th century, in which case I would agree that there is nothing like that today. Or the group around Monthly Review, who produced a lot of work that was academically respectable. Marx is largely ignored by analytic (Anglo-American) philosophers, though not completely (e.g. Jon Elster’s “Making Sense of Marx”), but he is taken seriously by continental philosophers.
But I think it is fair to say that orthodox Marxism could not really survive the demise of the Soviet system, though of course Bernstein and many others already thought it needed to be revised at the beginning of the 20th century. Activists poring over Lenin and Trotsky and debating how to apply “What Is to Be Done?” or “The Permanent Revolution” in today’s world are not going to be taken very seriously in academia or out. Those days are over.
As for Capital V.1 it is one of the great books of history, and as I said in a reply on FB recently, it will never not be relevant to political discussions. But insofar as it has a predictive element to it, most of that cannot be sustained. Lenin tried to extend its plausibility with his theory of imperialism and the “labor aristocracy” but that is also way past its sell-by date. I studied Hegel quite a bit in my graduate philosophy program, so I am perhaps more aware than some of the deeply Hegelian nature of Marx’s work on political economy. Though he and Engels say they found him “standing on his head” it is also true that their inversion of his philosophy retains a lot of his philosophy, and tries to capture it as political economy. Some of it is successful, but a lot isn’t. I can’t say more now, but on a more concrete level, the road to socialism, or whatever we want to call a more just society, cannot be accessed through Marx’s predictions of capitalist collapse. (You might want to read Streeck, though, who has his own analysis of the demise of capitalism.)
A long and interesting post, Jim. You touch on a lot of points I agree with. But I don't know how much impact this kind of defense of Israel can have. For one thing, the literature on Naziism, anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vast, but you appeal again and again to well-known Trotskyist sources, as if this constitutes a scholarly argument. Instead it seems very tendentious. Very few people think that iterating something printed in The Militant makes a convincing reference. You also tend to state points which might be defensible, but since you take almost no account of opposing points of view it isn't clear that you are adding much to the conversation other than framing, in language sanctioned by the literature you cite, points that have been debated for a long time. I agree with what you say on many of those points, but not because the authors you cite are authorities on the subject.
Your basic point is that there has been a rise in anti-Semitism, and that Israel should be defended as a refuge. That's fine, but I do not believe it is necessary to posit a crisis of capitalism to defend Israel. Like many other states, Israel has a history that combines the sordid and the heroic, the idealist and the cynical. Anti-Semitism is revealed in questioning the legitimacy of Israel due to a colonial history that is similar to that of many states whose legitimacy is not questioned. Zohran Mamdani demanding that Israel should exist only "as a state of equality" while refusing to make a similar statement about states like Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal for a citizen not to be a Muslim, is anti-Semitism. It doesn't matter if there is a crisis of capitalism or not. As a secular Jew living in the U.S. I know from personal experience that anti-Semitism exists just below and sometimes well above the surface in this country, as it still does and always has in Europe and the Middle East. Israel's continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank has now permitted this to flourish openly under the guise of anti-Zionism. You had progressives all but openly supporting a corrupt, brutal, fascist cleptocracy in Gaza as if it was a liberation force. This has nothing to do with the declining rate of profit etc.
Thanks for your comment, Anton.
I am a Trotskyist, and so I quote from Trotsky. If you have reason to believe Trotsky was not authoritative, that's something we can discuss. But, of course, Trotsky was a Marxist. And only people who have studied the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky are likely to understand this line of argument.If you are not a Marxist, perhaps you can explain where Marx went wrong.
Fascism triumphed in Germany because the class struggle there left the ruling class no other choice but to put Hitler's party in power. Hitler's thugs, they reasoned, would crush the workers parties and make the workers serve the bosses again. Trotsky explained that.
I support the Militant newspaper and urge people to read it. The reason I call attention to the crisis of capitalism is because this crisis is very real and wreaking havoc all over the world. I have written several Substack posts on this topic.
Marxism is the only scientific analysis that helps us to understand the inevitability of the falling profit rate, and why it leads to a deepening and unresolvable crisis-- which is what we are living in right now.
You didn't just quote Trotsky, you quoted Jack Barnes, Abraham Leon, the Militant and others, almost all of the same trend. I'm sure you could have dug up a choice quote from Isaac Deutscher, George Novack, Peter Camejo... This sort of thing constitutes an argument only for the handful of people who agree that all reliable sources are Trotskyist and all Trotskyists are reliable sources, and they also already agreed with everything you said before you said it, so why bother?
I read your lengthy post hoping to get some insight into your views on Israel, which you promote frequently on FB. Instead I got a long rehash of well-known views and a lot of quotes from Trotskyist sources, most of which I was familiar with 50 years ago. I also write a Substack column, The Lamppost. I do a lot of research before I publish a column, and it does not come from any one kind of source, nor do I expect people to agree with me just because they share a broader point of view. I'm not averse to quoting Trotsky - when I think he's right. (The column I'm writing now has a few things to say about "permanent revolution".) Being a Trotskyist doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to back up your views with research.
Your statement about the triumph of fascism in Germany is pretty vague. To say "the class struggle there left the ruling class no other choice" doesn't explain anything. Having no other choice and having the ability to get Hitler appointed Chancellor are two completely different things. Trotsky's analysis of the triumph of fascism is a lot more nuanced than this. But that wasn't the main point of your column, or my comments. You insisted that the rise of anti-Semitism is the result of some sort of crisis of capitalism, and because Jews are once again the international scapegoats Israel must be supported as a refuge. It takes a lot to document a "crisis of capitalism", a lot more than reiterating the 150-year-old claim from Capital V.1 of a declining rate of profit. Secondly, you need more than rhetoric to show that this crisis is the cause of a rise in anti-Semitism, especially when there are more obvious proximate causes.
As you probably know, attention spans today are pretty limited, and few people under the age of 50 will read a post as long as yours (or some of mine). I read them, but I expect more than a run-through of well-rehearsed history backed by ideologically uniform authorities, which is what this post seemed to me. We agree that Israel is a legitimate nation. But the argument is both simpler and a lot more complicated than you make out. The simple argument is it's a nation with a colonial history similar to a lot of others. The more complicated argument requires historical, anthropological and philosophical arguments that you're not going to get from the sources you quoted.
Anton -- thanks again for your take on my essay. Naturally, I quote from authors I have learned from and who have provided authoritative statements on the question at hand. You say "why bother?" Do you think my quotes are a waste of time?
I have become educated in Marxism, so I am a Marxist. Marxists have received quite a bit of abuse over the years from those who defend the existing economic system. What do you think of that? What's the cause of the unpopularity of Marxism in the universities and among the ruling political elites. Why is that?
Also you seem to express disdain for Marx's book "Capital." I don't understand your bias against that book or its theories.
The other point you address is my implication of "some sort of crisis of capitalism." It seems you don't agree. If you like, you can read my other essays devoted to the deepening crisis of capitalism. I'll take a look at your Substack.
I am only saying that you should support your arguments with a more substantive body of research. That doesn’t mean I think your sources are not worth quoting, but quoting solely from sources approved by a particular ideological trend suggests you are only interested in speaking to people who already substantially agree with that trend. It’s up to you if you want to do that, but the amount of work you put into your essays suggests that you are hoping to reach a wider audience.
You say that Marxists are not held in high esteem in academia. I am not sure how to approach that claim, because there are many Marxists in academia worldwide, and the faculty at U.S. universities are overall very left of center. But if you are saying they are not Marxists I wonder what you are comparing this to. I am looking at my bookshelf, and just sticking to relatively recent work, there is a book by Thomas Piketty, one by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and another by Wolfgang Streeck, all of whom identify as Marxists, and the book “Karl Marx in America” by Andrew Hartman.
Perhaps you are thinking of the enormous influence of the Frankfurt School in the mid-20th century, in which case I would agree that there is nothing like that today. Or the group around Monthly Review, who produced a lot of work that was academically respectable. Marx is largely ignored by analytic (Anglo-American) philosophers, though not completely (e.g. Jon Elster’s “Making Sense of Marx”), but he is taken seriously by continental philosophers.
But I think it is fair to say that orthodox Marxism could not really survive the demise of the Soviet system, though of course Bernstein and many others already thought it needed to be revised at the beginning of the 20th century. Activists poring over Lenin and Trotsky and debating how to apply “What Is to Be Done?” or “The Permanent Revolution” in today’s world are not going to be taken very seriously in academia or out. Those days are over.
As for Capital V.1 it is one of the great books of history, and as I said in a reply on FB recently, it will never not be relevant to political discussions. But insofar as it has a predictive element to it, most of that cannot be sustained. Lenin tried to extend its plausibility with his theory of imperialism and the “labor aristocracy” but that is also way past its sell-by date. I studied Hegel quite a bit in my graduate philosophy program, so I am perhaps more aware than some of the deeply Hegelian nature of Marx’s work on political economy. Though he and Engels say they found him “standing on his head” it is also true that their inversion of his philosophy retains a lot of his philosophy, and tries to capture it as political economy. Some of it is successful, but a lot isn’t. I can’t say more now, but on a more concrete level, the road to socialism, or whatever we want to call a more just society, cannot be accessed through Marx’s predictions of capitalist collapse. (You might want to read Streeck, though, who has his own analysis of the demise of capitalism.)