[ckaihatsu]

I'm not speaking about balance of power, I'm speaking about ethics - which happens to be the reason why balance of powers is the issue to you, if I understand your arguments correctly.

Okay, I'm speaking about *balance of power*, because that's what *counts*, as in the Israeli settlers taking Palestinians' land, simply because they can get away with it.

There's no ambiguity. You mentioned 'weakness':

Okay, away from your bullshit abstract moralizing, and back to the real-world, is there a *power relation* between Israel and the Palestinians?

[You believe] weakness somehow gives you morality. It doesn't, not by itself.

viewtopic.php?p=15107559#p15107559

---


So this means that you acknowledge that Palestinians are *weaker* in the balance-of-power with the Israeli state. That's a *power relation*.


---

Why are you so concerned about purported 'fence-sitters', during the time of a proletarian revolution? As I already noted, those who sit-out are de facto politically *irrelevant*.

(Maybe you think fence-sitters are like the 'swing vote' in bourgeois elections. They're not.)

Because they can easily stop being on the fence.

Your concern here is *your own*, and is not socio-politically significant. Enjoy.

[wat0n]

As I said, I didn't evade anything.

No it doesn't. I stated "The history of Zionism's collaboration with anti-Semites is in this article below." and Ben Norton didn't say what I said, as you can read again:

I can easily read a restatement of what you said in that tweet

Okay, I'm speaking about *balance of power*, because that's what *counts*, as in the Israeli settlers taking Palestinians' land, simply because they can get away with it.

And yet you care about settlements over an ethical concern as well (one I happen to share, by the way).

So this means that you acknowledge that Palestinians are *weaker* in the balance-of-power with the Israeli state. That's a *power relation*.

Yet being weaker doesn't by itself make your behavior ethical, it only means you cannot do as you please. That's the part I mentioned and that you are still missing.

Taking this into the Russian Revolution, for instance, means that the crimes committed during the White Terror are not excused simply because they turned out to be weaker than the Bolsheviks.

Your concern here is *your own*, and is not socio-politically significant. Enjoy.

You do realize that it can in practice alter the balance of power, right? Why else do you think that (for instance) Robespierre's Terror ended how it did?

[ckaihatsu]

And yet you care about settlements over an ethical concern as well (one I happen to share, by the way).

Your meaning is unclear. Please rephrase.


---

So this means that you acknowledge that Palestinians are *weaker* in the balance-of-power with the Israeli state. That's a *power relation*.

Yet being weaker doesn't by itself make your behavior ethical, it only means you cannot do as you please. That's the part I mentioned and that you are still missing.

Taking this into the Russian Revolution, for instance, means that the crimes committed during the White Terror are not excused simply because they turned out to be weaker than the Bolsheviks.

Okay, then what's your political position 'ethically', concerning Israel-vs.-Palestinians, and Reds-vs.-Whites.


---

Your concern here is *your own*, and is not socio-politically significant. Enjoy.

You do realize that it can in practice alter the balance of power, right? Why else do you think that (for instance) Robespierre's Terror ended how it did?

The French revolutionaries had no political *way forward*, and so had no cohesive concept of what to do with the power that they gained through the French Revolution -- similar to the BLM movement today, I would say.

The dead-end of the French Revolution itself wasn't due to this-or-that *personage*, specifically, as with Robespierre. It was a lack of *politics*.

[skinster]

Norman Finkelstein who actually got cancelled (lost his teaching career for his political opinions) has been trolling Bari Weiss's phoney bullshit the last couple of days and it is funny.

I can easily read a restatement of what you said in that tweet

Roll your eyes all you like but this proves what a liar you are. Before I shared the article, I stated
"The history of Zionism's collaboration with anti-Semites is in this article below."

How would I know what the article was about if I hadn't read it? It wasn't from repeating what Ben Norton said because he didn't say what I said. He said things about how Bari Weiss whitewashes fascism and also mentioned the Soviet Union and a comment by the founder of Zionism. Here it is again to show what your lying looks like.


Anyway, you should read the article instead of trying to deflect away from it like a hasbara troll. You might not like it since your pet victim, Bari Weiss, tried to get the doctor who wrote the article fired from his job, but it shares a history that I stated above, that Ben Norton didn't state.

[wat0n]

Your meaning is unclear. Please rephrase.

Why are settlements unethical to you?

Okay, then what's your political position 'ethically', concerning Israel-vs.-Palestinians,

Both have been victimized by their unending conflict. Both have a right to self-determination and a state. And there have been criminals in both sides too.

One difference though is that Israel has so far shown to be a lot more tolerant with minorities, and more democratic as well.

and Reds-vs.-Whites.

Both can count victims in each side, both were authoritarians more than willing to engage in mass murder to further their goals.

The French revolutionaries had no political *way forward*, and so had no cohesive concept of what to do with the power that they gained through the French Revolution -- similar to the BLM movement today, I would say.

The dead-end of the French Revolution itself wasn't due to this-or-that *personage*, specifically, as with Robespierre. It was a lack of *politics*.

I would say the revolutionaries had plenty of politics involved, and a whole cultural transformation to boot as evidenced by their attempts to impose their own religion. The reason why the French Revolution failed was, if anything, an inability to think realistically about the best way to pursue their goals and of how many could be attained at that particular point in time. They share the same with the BLM movement indeed.

@skinster "The founder of Zionism, Herzl himself, said "the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies"" sounds like a more detailed way of saying what you stated.

[skinster]

@skinster "The founder of Zionism, Herzl himself, said "the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies"" sounds like a more detailed way of saying what you stated, "The history of Zionism's collaboration with anti-Semites is in this article below."

[ckaihatsu]

Why are settlements unethical to you?

I don't use 'ethics' as a yardstick -- I look at the *power relations*, which are empirical and indicate relative strengths-and-weaknesses in political will and ability, among the respective parties at-hand.

The Israeli settlements have *encroached* on Palestinian lands, as I referenced earlier, with data.

Both have been victimized by their unending conflict. Both have a right to self-determination and a state. And there have been criminals in both sides too.

One difference though is that Israel has so far shown to be a lot more tolerant with minorities, and more democratic as well.

I go by *body count*, which shows strengths and weaknesses. Israel has imposed its political will on the Palestinian population, as evidenced from the disproportionate body count, and the one-sided encroachment of Israeli settlements.

You're no longer looking at relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and political will imposed. You're trying to pretend that the conflict is somehow 'equal', or even-handed, and it's *not*. It's *one-sided*, in favor of *Israel's* interests, with *Palestinian* victims.

Both can count victims in each side, both were authoritarians more than willing to engage in mass murder to further their goals.

Since you're attempting to depict the Reds-vs.-Whites conflict as being relatively quantitatively even-handed, I'll ask you which side was more 'ethically' justified, and why.


---

The French revolutionaries had no political *way forward*, and so had no cohesive concept of what to do with the power that they gained through the French Revolution -- similar to the BLM movement today, I would say.

The dead-end of the French Revolution itself wasn't due to this-or-that *personage*, specifically, as with Robespierre. It was a lack of *politics*.

I would say the revolutionaries had plenty of politics involved, and a whole cultural transformation to boot as evidenced by their attempts to impose their own religion. The reason why the French Revolution failed was, if anything, an inability to think realistically about the best way to pursue their goals and of how many could be attained at that particular point in time. They share the same with the BLM movement indeed.


Okay, if the French revolutionaries *had* a political way-forward, above and beyond *cultural* factors, then what, according to you, *was* that politics that you're claiming existed?

Also, from what I can tell, the French revolutionaries were *anti-clerical*, on the whole, and did *not* have any religion.

[ckaihatsu]

Why are settlements unethical to you?

I don't use 'ethics' as a yardstick -- I look at the *power relations*, which are empirical and indicate relative strengths-and-weaknesses in political will and ability, among the respective parties at-hand.

The Israeli settlements have *encroached* on Palestinian lands, as I referenced earlier, with data.

Both have been victimized by their unending conflict. Both have a right to self-determination and a state. And there have been criminals in both sides too.

One difference though is that Israel has so far shown to be a lot more tolerant with minorities, and more democratic as well.

I go by *body count*, which shows strengths and weaknesses. Israel has imposed its political will on the Palestinian population, as evidenced from the disproportionate body count, and the one-sided encroachment of Israeli settlements.

You're no longer looking at relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and political will imposed. You're trying to pretend that the conflict is somehow 'equal', or even-handed, and it's *not*. It's *one-sided*, in favor of *Israel's* interests, with *Palestinian* victims.

Both can count victims in each side, both were authoritarians more than willing to engage in mass murder to further their goals.

Since you're attempting to depict the Reds-vs.-Whites conflict as being relatively quantitatively even-handed, I'll ask you which side was more 'ethically' justified, and why.


---

The French revolutionaries had no political *way forward*, and so had no cohesive concept of what to do with the power that they gained through the French Revolution -- similar to the BLM movement today, I would say.

The dead-end of the French Revolution itself wasn't due to this-or-that *personage*, specifically, as with Robespierre. It was a lack of *politics*.

I would say the revolutionaries had plenty of politics involved, and a whole cultural transformation to boot as evidenced by their attempts to impose their own religion. The reason why the French Revolution failed was, if anything, an inability to think realistically about the best way to pursue their goals and of how many could be attained at that particular point in time. They share the same with the BLM movement indeed.

Okay, if the French revolutionaries *had* a political way-forward, above and beyond *cultural* factors, then what, according to you, *was* that politics that you're claiming existed?

Reign of Terror

The Reign of Terror, or more commonly The Terror (French: la Terreur), refers to a period of the French Revolution when numerous public executions took place in response to revolutionary fervour, anti-clerical, anti-federalist and anti-aristocratic sentiment, and spurious accusations of treason by Maximilien Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. There is disagreement among historians over when exactly “the Terror” started, either in June 1793 or September 1793.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Re ... _of_Terror

Also, from what I can tell, the French revolutionaries were *anti-clerical*, on the whole, and did *not* have any religion.

[wat0n]

I don't use 'ethics' as a yardstick -- I look at the *power relations*, which are empirical and indicate relative strengths-and-weaknesses in political will and ability, among the respective parties at-hand.

The Israeli settlements have *encroached* on Palestinian lands, as I referenced earlier, with data.

I go by *body count*, which shows strengths and weaknesses. Israel has imposed its political will on the Palestinian population, as evidenced from the disproportionate body count, and the one-sided encroachment of Israeli settlements.

You're no longer looking at relative strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and political will imposed. You're trying to pretend that the conflict is somehow 'equal', or even-handed, and it's *not*. It's *one-sided*, in favor of *Israel's* interests, with *Palestinian* victims.

The word "victim" does involve an ethical judgement, which would contradict your claim above. Please explain further.

Since you're attempting to depict the Reds-vs.-Whites conflict as being relatively quantitatively even-handed, I'll ask you which side was more 'ethically' justified, and why.

Neither was. And actually we all know who won there.

Also, from what I can tell, the French revolutionaries were *anti-clerical*, on the whole, and did *not* have any religion.

The cult to the Supreme Deity doesn't ring any bells to you?

[Political Interest]

If you are talking about white privilege you are not real left.

You are a petit bourgeois pretender.

[ckaihatsu]

The word "victim" does involve an ethical judgement, which would contradict your claim above. Please explain further.

No, 'ethics' -- however defined -- are *not necessary*.

One can simply do a *material inventory* for each side, respectively, of material *gains* and *losses*, to arrive at a *conclusion*, or value judgment.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show

---

Since you're attempting to depict the Reds-vs.-Whites conflict as being relatively quantitatively even-handed, I'll ask you which side was more 'ethically' justified, and why.

Neither was. And actually we all know who won there.

Incorrect, because the sides were *not* equivalent in terms of historical-progressiveness.

Note that soviet democracy (workers councils) applied to the *workplaces*, which was a new *mode of production* in the world.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

Soviet democracy (sometimes council democracy) is a political system in which the rule of the population by directly elected soviets (Russian for "council") is exercised. The councils are directly responsible to their electors and bound by their instructions using delegate model of representation. Such an imperative mandate is in contrast to a free mandate, in which the elected delegates are only responsible to their conscience. Delegates may accordingly be dismissed from their post at any time or be voted out (recall).

In a soviet democracy, voters are organized in basic units, for example the workers of a company, the inhabitants of a district, or the soldiers of a barracks. They directly send the delegates as public functionaries, which act as legislators, government and courts in one. In contrast to earlier democracy models according to Locke and Montesquieu, there is no separation of powers. The councils are elected on several levels: At the residential and business level, delegates are sent to the local councils in plenary assemblies. These, in turn, can delegate members to the next level. The system of delegation continues to the Congress of Soviets at the state level.[1] The electoral processes thus take place from the bottom upwards. The levels are usually tied to administrative levels.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

And, the West was in error, geopolitically, because it *interfered* in what was a *domestic* political phenomenon in Russia at the time.

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War consisted of a series of multi-national military expeditions which began in 1918. The stated goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, to secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and to re-establish the Eastern Front. At times, the Czechoslovak Legion controlled the entire Trans-Siberian railway and several major cities in Siberia. Overthrow of the new Bolshevik regime and stopping the threat of Communism in Europe were long-term goals.[7][8]

After the Bolshevik government gave Eastern Europe to Germany and withdrew from World War I, the Allied Powers openly backed the anti-communist White forces in Russia. Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness from the overall global conflict, and a lack of domestic support. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allied powers to end the North Russia and Siberian interventions in 1920, though the Japanese intervention in Siberia continued until 1922 and the Empire of Japan continued to occupy the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War

---

The cult to the Supreme Deity doesn't ring any bells to you?

Reference, please.

[ckaihatsu]

I stand corrected on Black Lives Matter -- I didn't do any research until now.

Guiding principles

According to the Black Lives Matter website, there are thirteen guiding principles that should apply to those who choose to become involved under the Black Lives Matter banner, among them Diversity, Globalism, Empathy, Restorative justice and Intergenerationality.[26]

Broader movement

Concurrently, a broader movement involving several other organizations and activists emerged under the banner of "Black Lives Matter" as well.[11][27] For example, BLM is a member organization of the Movement for Black Lives established to respond to sustained and increasingly visible violence against black communities in the U.S. and globally.[28] In 2015 Johnetta Elzie, DeRay Mckesson, Brittany Packnett, and Samuel Sinyangwe, initiated Campaign Zero, aimed at promoting policy reforms to end police brutality. The campaign released a ten-point plan for reforms to policing, with recommendations including: ending broken windows policing, increasing community oversight of police departments, and creating stricter guidelines for the use of force.[29] New York Times reporter John Eligon reported that some activists had expressed concerns that the campaign was overly focused on legislative remedies for police violence.[30]

Black Lives Matters also voices support for movements and causes outside the reach of black police brutality, including LGBTQ activism, feminism, immigration reform and economic justice.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

[wat0n]

No, 'ethics' -- however defined -- are *not necessary*.

One can simply do a *material inventory* for each side, respectively, of material *gains* and *losses*, to arrive at a *conclusion*, or value judgment.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show

Incorrect, because the sides were *not* equivalent in terms of historical-progressiveness.

Note that soviet democracy (workers councils) applied to the *workplaces*, which was a new *mode of production* in the world.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show

This vision of "progressiveness" is also an ethical one, even more so given how these projects have always ended. That's the only thing this political project has to offer at this point.

And, the West was in error, geopolitically, because it *interfered* in what was a *domestic* political phenomenon in Russia at the time.

But these regimes are not in geopolitical error when they interfere on the domestic political phenomena abroad?

Reference, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

It even had a rival at the time, one that sounds like an oxymoron nowadays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

[ckaihatsu]

This vision of "progressiveness" is also an ethical one, even more so given how these projects have always ended. That's the only thing this political project has to offer at this point.

I think this is a matter of *semantics* -- for what *you* call 'ethics', *I* call 'value judgment' (based on material factors).

My point remains that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a democratic process into the workplace, which was a *first* in world history.


---

And, the West was in error, geopolitically, because it *interfered* in what was a *domestic* political phenomenon in Russia at the time.

But these regimes are not in geopolitical error when they interfere on the domestic political phenomena abroad?

You're not being clear. Please rephrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

It even had a rival at the time, one that sounds like an oxymoron nowadays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Okay, thanks.

[wat0n]

I think this is a matter of *semantics* -- for what *you* call 'ethics', *I* call 'value judgment' (based on material factors).

My point remains that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a democratic process into the workplace, which was a *first* in world history.

Just like we may not agree about the meaning of the word "ethics" I think we will not agree about the meaning of the word "democracy" either.

You're not being clear. Please rephrase.

What's not clear in my statement?

Okay, thanks.

You're welcome.

[ckaihatsu]

Just like we may not agree about the meaning of the word "ethics" I think we will not agree about the meaning of the word "democracy" either.

Well, either there's some kind of democracy in place for the selection of *representatives*, for the selection of *policy*, or else there isn't.

You don't *have* to 'agree' -- either it exists in some form, or it doesn't.

My point remains that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a democratic process into the workplace, which was a *first* in world history.


---

And, the West was in error, geopolitically, because it *interfered* in what was a *domestic* political phenomenon in Russia at the time.

But these regimes are not in geopolitical error when they interfere on the domestic political phenomena abroad?

You're not being clear. Please rephrase.

What's not clear in my statement? :?:

'These regimes', 'the domestic political phenomena abroad'.


---

You're welcome.

[wat0n]

Well, either there's some kind of democracy in place for the selection of *representatives*, for the selection of *policy*, or else there isn't.

You don't *have* to 'agree' -- either it exists in some form, or it doesn't.

My point remains that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a democratic process into the workplace, which was a *first* in world history.

How about cooperatives? They also used democracy at the workplace if you want to accept all sorts of conceptions of democracy.

'These regimes', 'the domestic political phenomena abroad'.


---

These regimes = Revolutionary regimes
Political phenomena abroad = The internal affairs of other countries

[ckaihatsu]

My point remains that the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a democratic process into the workplace, which was a *first* in world history.

How about cooperatives? They also used democracy at the workplace if you want to accept all sorts of conceptions of democracy.

Cooperatives are *revisionist* compared to the initial 'soviets' (workers councils), because cooperatives function *within*, and *tolerate* the continued existence of capital and capitalism, whereas soviets were only possible *due to* the Bolshevik Revolution which *repudiated* the rule of capital, in favor of the *workers themselves* determining how workplace production took place.

These regimes = Revolutionary regimes
Political phenomena abroad = The internal affairs of other countries

So that yields:

And, the West was in error, geopolitically, because it *interfered* in what was a *domestic* political phenomenon in Russia at the time.

But [revolutionary regimes] are not in geopolitical error when they interfere on the domestic [the internal affairs of other countries]?

Are you referring to czardom, or feudalism in Russia at the time?

Would you have preferred monarchy and feudal estates, over workers democracy and industrialization?

The main events of the revolution took place in and near Petrograd (present-day Saint Petersburg), the then-capital of Russia, where long-standing discontent with the monarchy erupted into mass protests against food rationing on 23 February Old Style (8 March New Style).[4] Revolutionary activity lasted about eight days, involving mass demonstrations and violent armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On 27 February O.S. (12 March N.S.) mutinous Russian Army forces sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, ending Romanov dynastic rule and the Russian Empire. A Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov replaced the Council of Ministers of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution

[wat0n]

Cooperatives are *revisionist* compared to the initial 'soviets' (workers councils), because cooperatives function *within*, and *tolerate* the continued existence of capital and capitalism, whereas soviets were only possible *due to* the Bolshevik Revolution which *repudiated* the rule of capital, in favor of the *workers themselves* determining how workplace production took place.

Even under that conception, cooperatives objectively predated the Bolsheviks (they are at least from the 18th century).

So that yields:

Are you referring to czardom, or feudalism in Russia at the time?

Would you have preferred monarchy and feudal estates, over workers democracy and industrialization?

I'm referring to neither, my point is for instance the intervention abroad carried out by communist regimes during the Cold War. Your idea that Revolution needs to be carried out at a global scale also implies intervening in other countries' internal affairs (if only to spread it everywhere).

[ckaihatsu]

Even under that conception, cooperatives objectively predated the Bolsheviks (they are at least from the 18th century).

Okay, sure, but you're sidestepping the *point* -- true workers control of social production *requires* the repudiation of both feudal / czarist rule, *and* also capitalist / *bourgeois* rule, which is what the initial soviets were.

'Cooperatives' will ultimately have to service investment capital, so capital becomes the yardstick by which to measure 'success', even if each workplace is collectivized, still within capitalism. Each workers cooperative does *not* enjoy true autonomy because of the imposition of capital, or exchange values.


---

Are you referring to czardom, or feudalism in Russia at the time?

Would you have preferred monarchy and feudal estates, over workers democracy and industrialization?

I'm referring to neither, my point is for instance the intervention abroad carried out by communist regimes during the Cold War.

Those so-called "communist" regimes were actually *Stalinist*, because of Stalin's nationalist consolidation (so-called 'socialism in one country', which was *not* workers control of production).

Sure, I'd support the USSR *geopolitically*, against Western nation-states' predations, but internally the USSR (etc.) did *not* support workers power.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show

---

Your idea that Revolution needs to be carried out at a global scale also implies intervening in other countries' internal affairs (if only to spread it everywhere).

No, not really, because even *that* conception / approach would *not* be appropriate or sufficient, because it would be too *top-down* and *state-driven*.

In other words *who* or *what* would be doing the 'intervening', into other countries' internal affairs, to purportedly spread the revolution everywhere? If there isn't sufficient workers and popular support for the growing international revolution *on-the-ground*, in each respective country, then it's not really a proletarian revolution, because revolution can't adequately be *imposed* from above. (Again consider parallels to today's Black Lives Matter movement).

So if there *is* mass support on the ground for a growing international proletarian upsurge and revolution, then such doesn't *need* any 'nation' or 'state', because the bottom-up groundswell, to empower workers councils in the workplaces, and to repudiate the rule of capital, would suffice. That said, I think the workers *would* have an interest in their own 'state', or organization with state-like powers, for the sake of *coordinating* those on-the-ground, local movements to seize workplaces and battle counterrevolutionaries, etc., but it would be a *formality* of coordination, and the proletarian revolution would not be *dependent* on that umbrella organization for its social power.