internationalist posted:gyrofry posted:
im not going to defend finkelstein on this, but i recently heard an interesting talk of his in which he sort of explained how his approach has changed from the marxism of his youth to his current international law rhetoric -- not because of the intrinsic value of international law rhetoric, but primarily because of the fact that 'marxist language' no longer had currency or relevance to contemporary society
i think it was this one
Marxism was internationalist. Marxism and internationalism was associated with the Soviet Union and so when it fell they became discredited.
It would be like if prior to the left-right political divide Catholicism was associated with internationalism and so when the pope was deposed internationalism and Catholicism was thought to be the corrupt beliefs of a failed religion.
Personally, I don't care if an internationalist says they're Marxist or not. Internationalism is the morally correct belief but everyone hates it because being internationalist means a huge obligation to all of humanity that would create a huge burden and require a lot of sacrifice when all you get in return is the fact that you're morally good.
It's easy to blame one person like Finkelstein or Chomsky for modifying their beliefs according to their time or adhering to a strictly dogmatic leftist principle but the reality is the left has failed catastrophically internationally and the few individuals who represent internationalist beliefs have practically no support among the people of any significantly powerful nation. Those who want to stick a knife into these few remaining opposition figures are the same idiots who alienate religious people because they think believing in an imaginary man in the sky is dumb. If they actually paid attention to world affairs and cared they would realize they don't have the luxury to be choosy and should just be happy to see an internationalist opposition exist at all today.
I honestly wonder what people on the left who bitch about what little they have are going to do when these aging residual figures from a time when the left had some hope of having any potential to change the world are finally snuffed out.
You do realize you'll have nothing, right? There won't even be a facsimile of an opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
so much for a ruthless critique of everything existing i guess
internationalist posted:gyrofry posted:
im not going to defend finkelstein on this, but i recently heard an interesting talk of his in which he sort of explained how his approach has changed from the marxism of his youth to his current international law rhetoric -- not because of the intrinsic value of international law rhetoric, but primarily because of the fact that 'marxist language' no longer had currency or relevance to contemporary society
i think it was this one
Marxism was internationalist. Marxism and internationalism was associated with the Soviet Union and so when it fell they became discredited.
It would be like if prior to the left-right political divide Catholicism was associated with internationalism and so when the pope was deposed internationalism and Catholicism was thought to be the corrupt beliefs of a failed religion.
Personally, I don't care if an internationalist says they're Marxist or not. Internationalism is the morally correct belief but everyone hates it because being internationalist means a huge obligation to all of humanity that would create a huge burden and require a lot of sacrifice when all you get in return is the fact that you're morally good.
It's easy to blame one person like Finkelstein or Chomsky for modifying their beliefs according to their time or failing to adhere to a strictly dogmatic leftist principle but the reality is the left has failed catastrophically internationally and the few individuals who represent internationalist beliefs have practically no support among the people of any significantly powerful nation. Those who want to stick a knife into these few remaining opposition figures are the same idiots who alienate religious people because they think believing in an imaginary man in the sky is dumb. If they actually paid attention to world affairs and cared they would realize they don't have the luxury to be choosy and should just be happy to see an internationalist opposition exist at all today.
I honestly wonder what people on the left who bitch about what little they have are going to do when these aging residual figures from a time when the left had some hope of having any potential to change the world are finally snuffed out.
You do realize you'll have nothing, right? There won't even be a facsimile of an opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
the case for nobel peace prize winner barack hussein obama
http://road2tahrir.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/finkelstein-scholar-or-advocate/
Norman Finkelstein is called an ‘American Radical’, but I believe a far more appropriate term for him, and those who share his views is ‘American Liberal’.
...
He stakes all of his positions on these issues, which are virtually based on the same premises, that we should a) do what is popular or ‘realistic’ b) adjust our language and positions to appeal to ‘global consensus’ for fear that c) if we don’t, we will inevitably ‘turn people off.’ It is difficult to understand from where he comes up with his conclusions and what he lays down to be, ‘realistic goals’. What is clear however, is that all of these positions he urges are heavily based in an antiquated top down model of power and are, it is worth noting, most commonly held liberal Zionist positions. During this historic time it is more important than ever to be critical and understand the role of our allies, while building mechanisms for communication – in order to learn from one another.
Though it’s not complicated to understand once presented with the truth, the corporate media would have us believe otherwise, and the majority of American’s are utterly confused by the situation, issues and facts on the ground. The role of a scholar is to present facts and information, in a clear and succinct manner; which is very important in educating the masses and is desperately needed today. This is especially true for the case of Palestine, as for anyone with a belief in justice and human rights, the facts alone speak for themselves compelling one to join the cause.
The role of an advocate is to take these available facts and use the information to create analysis, build positions and ultimately take action. For many years now, Finkelstein’s stated position has been consistent (with itself). He suggests, like so many liberals, with regards to advocacy for Palestinian justice, that we take a more “practical” or “realistic” approach to the most difficult issues, until we are able to achieve ‘global consensus’.
Despite taking note of the global uprisings and referencing the shift of power in his talk, he continues to selectively advocate for “realistic” strategies, and appeal to this ‘global consensus’. He goes on to define this ‘international consensus’ broadly to mean: “the authoritative political, legal and human rights bodies in the world”1 and suggests that we place our hope in international law and bodies such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice-despite what he recognizes as their historic inability and/or political unwillingness to enforce their own laws, as they relate to Palestine. He even goes on to acknowledge “one of the best kept diplomatic secrets is that a broad international consensus has long existed on how to settle the Israel-Palestine conflict.”1 and in doing so, displays another example of his confusing and contradictory conclusions.
Using the same logic when speaking about one of the most important issues for Palestinians-right of return, he continues to overlook and thus dismiss altogether, the unlimited potential for people power, handing it over to Zionists: “For now, Israel will not honor a Palestinian right of return; to ‘demand’ it is the emptiest of gestures. That right will be honored only if the Palestinians become powerful enough to enforce it. If or when that happens, that some leaders verbally renounced the right will count for nothing.”
...
He suggests, like so many liberals, with regards to advocacy for Palestinian justice, that we take a more “practical” or “realistic” approach to the most difficult issues, until we are able to achieve ‘global consensus’.
This isn't true. As far as I know the idea has always been to take the most broad and efficient route of attack given his position as a public figure, scholar, etc.
I really don't understand what the point of all this criticism is anymore. It's one thing to say "go beyond Finkelstein" but it's another thing to totally undermine him at the point when his efforts are beginning to come to fruition. If this is all coming from a point of "radicalism" and "combating liberalism" it's rather pathetic and unproductive
It's easy to tell Palestinians to Be More Radical, Read a Marx, it's a little more difficult to swallow your self-image as a pure revolutionary spirit and advance some actually efficient work towards improving their position and wellbeing
Edited by babyfinland ()
babyfinland posted:He suggests, like so many liberals, with regards to advocacy for Palestinian justice, that we take a more “practical” or “realistic” approach to the most difficult issues, until we are able to achieve ‘global consensus’.This isn't true. As far as I know the idea has always been to take the most broad and efficient route of attack given his position as a public figure, scholar, etc.
I really don't understand what the point of all this criticism is anymore. It's one thing to say "go beyond Finkelstein" but it's another thing to totally undermine him at the point when his efforts are beginning to come to fruition. If this is all coming from a point of "radicalism" and "combating liberalism" it's rather pathetic and unproductive
It's easy to tell Palestinians to Be More Radical, Read a Marx, it's a little more difficult to swallow your self-image as a pure revolutionary spirit and advance some actually efficient work towards improving their position and wellbeing
the criticism isn't that finkelstein isn't marxist enough, it's that he's dismissing any discussion on zionism and dismissing BDS under the guise that it is divisive. even in the US, only 28% of Jews see themselves as Zionists.
Another one of his bizarre recommendations is, rather than educate the international community about the racist ideology of Zionism* and Israeli apartheid, he suggests we adjust our language to fit this ‘global consensus’. Would the civil rights, women’s rights or any other movements in the USA have succeeded if they backed down because they didn’t have popular support at the time? Could they have effectively succeeded without talking about the KKK and white supremacy, issues of gender and male dominance etc.? Are we more concerned about protecting people’s feelings, or “turning them off” – than we are capable of/educating the general public about the source of the injustices, and seeking justice for the oppressed?
...
He also takes a hard, critical look at boycott, divestment and sanctions, a powerful nonviolent strategy, modeled after the case of South Africa, largely credited for ending apartheid. He rejects this strategy, in direct opposition to Palestinian calls for international solidarity, put forward by Palestinian activists and 170 NGO’s in 2005. He does so using the logic that it is divisive and will turn people off. Yet if Finkelstein were consistent with even his own positions, rather than catering to Zionist critics, he would resent them as reasonable demands-to cease all relations with the state of Israel, until it complies with international law (demands of BDS call: http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro.). In fact, we can learn a great deal by Palestinian proponents of the call, who are well versed in steering clear of ideological debates altogether, and care not for semantics of a so called one or two state solution, and instead focus on achieving their rights.
the post isn't saying "the palestinians need to read more marx", it's saying "listen to the palestinians, maybe they're on to something"
Edited by pogfan1996 ()
pogfan1996 posted:
the criticism isn't that finkelstein isn't marxist enough, it's that he's dismissing any discussion on zionism and dismissing BDS under the guise that it is divisive. even in the US, only 28% of Jews see themselves as Zionists.
lol bs
Goethestein posted:
i bet thats the number that will answer "yes" to the survey question "Are you a Zionist" but the number that are "Zionists" according to the retarded standards of this forum is nearly 100%
its kinda irrelevant whether they're zionists or not, zionism is an unpopular concept and label and educating people about it is an intrinsic part of effective Palestinian advocacy. finkelstein opposes talking about it because it is divisive, when it really isnt
pogfan1996 posted:Goethestein posted:
i bet thats the number that will answer "yes" to the survey question "Are you a Zionist" but the number that are "Zionists" according to the retarded standards of this forum is nearly 100%its kinda irrelevant whether they're zionists or not, zionism is an unpopular concept and label and educating people about it is an intrinsic part of effective Palestinian advocacy. finkelstein opposes talking about it because it is divisive, when it really isnt
define zionism because it seems to me on its most basic level it means the right for an explicitly jewish homeland to exist which is a concept that is extremely popular among american jews and very popular amongst americans generally. people dont like the term because it's an "ism" which is one of those things that Ideologues use and has no place in our post-ideological society
Goethestein posted:pogfan1996 posted:Goethestein posted:
i bet thats the number that will answer "yes" to the survey question "Are you a Zionist" but the number that are "Zionists" according to the retarded standards of this forum is nearly 100%its kinda irrelevant whether they're zionists or not, zionism is an unpopular concept and label and educating people about it is an intrinsic part of effective Palestinian advocacy. finkelstein opposes talking about it because it is divisive, when it really isnt
define zionism because it seems to me on its most basic level it means the right for an explicitly jewish homeland to exist which is a concept that is extremely popular among american jews and very popular amongst americans generally. people dont like the term because it's an "ism" which is one of those things that Ideologues use and has no place in our post-ideological society
wtf stop trolling
Goethestein posted:
seems to me
aa so desu kaaa? hands up everyone who cares about how things seem to goat stein. anyone. anyone at all. take your time
littlegreenpills posted:Goethestein posted:
seems to meaa so desu kaaa? hands up everyone who cares about how things seem to goat stein. anyone. anyone at all. take your time
i upvoted this post, because i do. thanks also to all other upvoters.
Goethestein posted:
who really thinks that the majority of the american people would really care if every palestinian was exterminated. its always just so funny to read any argument that is predicated on the intelligence and decency of the american people
who cares what the majority of americans think regarding foreign policy, you idiot. most can't even find palestine on a map.
aerdil posted:
dang didnt realize u were becoming a MTW goatstein, how does steampunk fit into that aesthetic?
the people's armies of the 3rd world descend upon western europe in dirigibles
Goethestein posted:
i dont think you need to be a mtw to think that the majority of this countrys population are morons
ah the george carlin school of thought
babyhueypnewton posted:aerdil posted:
as far as i can tell chomsky is essentially a positivist lmaoChomsky getting owned by Foucault:
Summary: there is fundamental justice but I can't explain where it comes from because that would reveal it is rooted in bourgeois ideology and im a liberal...then a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with anything.
Whole thing is really good if you want to see the king liberal get owned
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
not going to read the rest because it actually looks like chumpsky owned the guy with the french name. chumpsky is a loser and his understanding of justice might be coloured by whatever modern nonsense he's in to, but he's right that justice is real and distinct from whatever debate is going on at that link. chumpskys mistake was that he isn't a good moralist and apparently couldnt explain right from wrong, and he doesnt know how to do cool fire and brimstone speeches about how his opponent stands for objective evil
Lykourgos posted:
not going to read the rest because it actually looks like chumpsky owned the guy with the french name. chumpsky is a loser and his understanding of justice might be coloured by whatever modern nonsense he's in to, but he's right that justice is real and distinct from whatever debate is going on at that link. chumpskys mistake was that he isn't a good moralist and apparently couldnt explain right from wrong, and he doesnt know how to do cool fire and brimstone speeches about how his opponent stands for objective evil
he should master the Cicero tactic of calling your opponent a pedarest
