I will finish the line of argument that I began in my last post and then I will take a break for a bit from this Marx book. Even though I am safely ensconced here in my retirement community, I am simply too disturbed by the world to concentrate on anything else.
It's very disturbing and unsettling, first of all, because of the violence and second of all, because there's no good guy.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, in politics one can sit back and root for the progressive forces or at least for the wretched of the earth against the evil dominant classes or groups, but here's there's no one you can identify with or root for and you have to fall back on vague principles like a peaceful and rational solution and that's disturbing and unsettling for those of us (almost
everyone) who like to see the world in black and white simple terms.
We can identify with the victims of the war crimes on both sides.
ReplyDeleteIt appeared you decided to become a Stoic shall we say on your deathbed- it is very unwise to take the world personally. Perhaps you all along were a Rabbi
ReplyDeleteDavid Zimmerman,
ReplyDeleteI can empathize with the victims of war crimes on both sides, but that's not the same as identifying with them.
For example, I'm listening to an interview with Teresa Valdes in Youtube, long-time Chilean feminist activist and academic, with general progressive views, has advised several progressive governments, a sociologist, very well-educated and well-read. I identify with her completely.
To identify with someone there has to be a community of values, for me at least.
Recently I read an essay that I had somehow overlooked by my mentor Hans Sluga on the political philosophy in one of my favorite philosophical works of the past half-century, Stanley Cavell's The Pursuits of Happiness, on what Cavell calls 'the Hollywood re-marriage comedies' (including some of the greatest Hollywood movies: Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, The Philadelphia Story, and the sublime The Lady Eve). Sluga there recounts Protagoras's sense of politics as educational and something not restricted to public life and the state, then counter-poses Cavell's optimistic/comedic sense of politics with Max Weber's pessimistic/tragic sense. Sluga argues for something like Protagoras's sense and urges the thought that philosophical thinking with regard to politics requires both the tragic and the comic sense. Hans's essay made a tremendous impact, and I have continually recalled it as I've read about the Gaza attacks. One of the most grotesque, disorienting, and disheartening things about the international reaction has been the enthusiasm for ignoring, downplaying, justifying, and/or celebrating the mass killings of civilians.--As usual I'm with s. wallerstein on this.--Although Hans's essay addresses a very distant topic from Gaza, I'd like to recommend it as, albeit only very indirectly relevant, a profound essay on political thinking that speaks to the bases of issues of about horror and possibility, and whole-heartedness and divided identifications, sympathies, and loyalties:https://www.truthandpower.com/?p=851
ReplyDeleteTo SW:
ReplyDeleteHow about the value of not being brutally killed or maimed? Is that not a suitable basis for identification? Or. are you using the term in some technical sense?
John Rapko,
ReplyDeleteWithin my admittedly restricted range of sampling, I have seen no one celebrating the killing of civilians.
P.s. Someone forwarded to me a recent statement (i.e. from yesterday a.m. I think) put out by J Street that struck the right notes imo.
ReplyDeleteAs for what s.w. said, I don't think nec. in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys" but it's clear that people who carry out terrorist attacks are not "good". People who kill lots of civilians even when not intending to are also not "good" though whether intent here makes some difference is, as an abstract question at least, something one cd debate.
In terms of "identification", I have a couple of relatives, though not ones to whom I am very close, who live in Israel (they're younger than I am). So perhaps I can "personalize" the conflict on the Israeli side in a way that I can't "personalize" it on the other side, but that does not mean that I don't empathize w civilians in Gaza who are suffering right now.
It just occurred to me that the relatives in question might be within the age range to be called up as military reservists but I'm not sure. I shd prob take steps to find out.
LFC,
ReplyDeleteChilean far leftists in some cases celebrate the attacks as "armed resistance" against a tyrannical occuption.
David Zimmerman,
ReplyDeleteI use "identification" as most people in my experience use it.
To give more examples, I don't identify with Trump or with Republicans (even though I don't celebrate them being killed or maimed), I don't identify with Netanyahu, I don't identify with Hamas, I don't actually identify with Biden but I do identify with Bernie Sanders because I feel like he's an old friend, since I do have old friends who are very much like him in their political outlook and probably in their general cultural preferences.
I often identify with Professor Wolff, I almost always identify with Brian Leiter, I
never identify with Henry Kissinger.
I've noticed that news agencies (& other public groups) seem to be grouping people in the Middle East instead of specifically distinguishing them. Many poor Israelis were raped, tortured, kidnapped, or murdered. But we don't know who exactly did those crimes. And because of that many people on the side of Israel feel it's justified for every civilian in Gaza to be fair game. This seems to be a pattern of behavior that has existed historically forever.
ReplyDelete"We don't know who was culpable in the last battle, so let's decimate every tenth soldier of the Legion. That will teach them!"
Or am I mistaken?
s.w.,
ReplyDeleteYes, when I said I was aware of "no one" celebrating I was exaggerating. But in the context of the overall "international reaction," the phrase J. Rapko used, I don't see a lot of celebration.
M. Llenos
ReplyDeleteI think you're mistaken. First, it's clear who was responsible for the Oct 7 attacks: the so-called armed wing of Hamas was responsible.
Second, this does not justify the intentional targeting of civilians in Gaza. The problem is that when air strikes are ordered in a densely populated territory where Hamas infrastructure is integrated w the civilian pop., civilians are going to be killed and bombs are going to destroy apt buildings and kill entire extended families. Could the Israeli air force be more discriminating in its use of force? I'm sure it could. OTOH I've never sat in the cockpit of an aircraft tasked with hitting an identified military target where the military targets are not wearing stickers saying "bomb me." Even so, I'm not sure why hospitals for example should *ever* be hit unless the bomb -- even if it's not a PGM -- is simply mis-targeted, which I'm sure happens.
LFC
ReplyDeleteI personally prefer WW2 justice in the form of the Nuremberg Trials over WW2 justice in the form of the mass bombings of: Dresden, Cologne, Essen, Dortmund, Hanover, Nuremberg, & Chemnitz.
P.s. Undoubtedly in the Israeli pop. there is a strong feeling of desire for revenge in some quarters, and that feeling does not mix well w a response that conforms to the rules of armed conflict.
ReplyDeleteIt remains to be seen, in the anticipated ground invasion of Gaza, how closely the iDF will follow the rules of war (to use the phrase that is being used by Biden et al.). I'm sure they'll *try* but the question is how much of a priority will it be operationally. And since I'm far from an expert on how the IDF fights, in terms of doctrine and practice, I don't know.
ML
ReplyDeleteThe fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, for example, were *designed* to kill civilians en masse (certainly that was the case, in terms of intentions, in the latter and prob the former as well).
Also WW2 bombs, from a technical standpoint, were highly imprecise. Pilots wd drop a bomb over a factory producing munitions, for example, hence a legitimate mil target, but whether the bomb hit the target wd often be a roll of the dice. It's probably best to be frank here and say that the bombing of cities, by both sides, in WW 2 was a war crime. (For a more nuanced take, see Walzer on "supreme emergency" in _Just and Unjust Wars_).
ML & LFC, anyone who materially supported Hamas bears responsibility, not just folks bearing arms (this obviously doesn't include most Gaza residents). Netanyahu, et al allowed Hamas to suck Israel into a no-win situation (stupidity and incompetence at best). One hopes there is an accounting coming.
ReplyDeleteI see that thousands of assault rifles are being distributed to civilian security teams, including West Bank settlers. Whatever could go wrong?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-says-10000-assault-rifles-purchased-for-civilian-security-teams/
LFC--
ReplyDeleteI hadn't read much about the international reaction until this morning. One thing led to another, and I saw a couple of times people celebrating the attacks while EXPLICITLY stating that there was nothing wrong with the killing of civilians in the attacks. That strikes me as something very close to celebrating the mass killing of unarmed non-combatants, i.e. civilians, and is certainly of a piece with justifying the killings. I couldn't read any more. Treating as unimportant/justifying/celebrating the mass killing of civilians is on my short list of things I'll never do under any circumstances.
aaall
ReplyDeleteI saw that item re assault rifles in NYT yesterday. The govt I think has to do this politically even though it's a case of after-the-fact, bc the residents of the border areas are extremely angry that they were not, for the most part, in a position to defend themselves, nor did the army manage to do so as things unfolded. However a well-known retired Israeli general, acc to NYT, when he heard what was happening jumped in his car (a white Audi, the NYT specified) and drove to the scene(s) with his weapon, a 9 mm pistol.
J. Rapko
ReplyDeleteThat anyone is saying that is both sad and repellent.
Until god is dead, there will always be religious wars. You can't stop them or prevent them because they are not rational in any civilized sense that can be addressed by reason. Unfortunately, the political entities in control of all sides benefit from the status quo (chaos, war, civil turmoil), as do the financial interests of the "funders". At best, we can establish pockets of humanity and hope evolution prevails from there.
ReplyDeleteP.s. to clarify, West Bank settlers should *not* get assault rifles partly bc the army is or has been there w a major presence, also bc West Bank settlers really have no business being there at all. Residents of Israel proper on the southern border -- that's a different case. Except it's after-the-fact.
ReplyDeleteLet me quote Leiter's comment today.
ReplyDelete"One certainly learns a lot about the moral emptiness and emotional depravity of people at moments like this."
That's sadly true. By the way, I'm not referring to anyone commenting here.
"One certainly learns a lot about the moral emptiness and emotional depravity of people at moments like this."
ReplyDeleteYes, one certainly does, and it's disheartening (though not surprising) that most of that moral emptiness and emotional depravity is coming from the left. Freddie DeBoer, for example, is utterly noxious on this issue, as are many leftist academics, lawyers, and journalists, as Leifer's article shows. Chris Hedges has been spewing his usual "they had it coming" bile, too.
I'm so glad some people seem to still believe they know what "left" means and can apply the label to others and their opinions. As for myself, I gave up on the term as it came more and more, thanks to the sloppy thinking (if that's what it actually is) on various media, mainstream and otherwise, where it seems more and more to refer to everything uttered or done by anyone to 'the left' of Attila the Hun, or do I mean to 'the left' of Donald Trump and his minions. In other words, as I see it, it has become a conceptually vacuous term.
ReplyDeleteAs to moral clarity, I'll stand with this (until I'm persuaded I'm mistaken):
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/a-jewish-plea-stand-up-to-israels-act-of-genocide/
PS. It's not Leifer, but typos are excusable. But I'm sorry to see Chris Hedges treated in that unpleasant fashion, though I'll admit he does tend to repeat himself at too great length. But basically he's right, isn't he, about violence not being something recently discovered and employed in terrible ways by those we might disapprove of?
Joshua Leifer wrote the Dissent article linked to by Leiter.
ReplyDelete"Left" has a perfectly respectable use even if, like most concepts, its boundaries are vague. This vagueness doesn't detract from its usefulness, just as having three legs and wobbling a bit doesn't detract from the usefulness of a table.
ReplyDeleteI stand by what I wrote before, GJ, the term is so vague and is employed to designate all sorts of positions that are so fundamentally in conflict with each other that to apply it as a label to anything or anyone is worse than useless. It's more like a table with only two legs, or maybe only one. And even a three legged table (I'm assuming you're talking abou one which has lost its fourth leg, not a three-legged table, which would surely be quite as stable as a three legged stool)--even a three legged table would would need some means of support ( a wall, or a pile of books, or whatever) in order to function as a table. So we're left to wonder what hidden supports those who employ the term "left" are unstatedly employing in order to lend their shoogly concept any seeming usefulness at all. It's no longer a debate--quite a meaningful one I've always thought--between democratic socialists and adherents of the communist international, maybe because the latter no longer really exist. And the former has pretty much surrendered to politico-economic orthodoxy. So who is the left? Joe Biden? the German social democrats? Starmer? Etc. etc. And what's left about them other than that some people will label them that. Meantime, another voice from the wilderness:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n20/judith-butler/the-compass-of-mourning
Reasonable people can disagree about who's on the left and who isn't, just as reasonable people can disagree about who's on the right and who isn't. But when Freddie DeBoer describes himself as being on the left, he's not uttering gibberish, and neither is the person who refers to Alex Jones as a vile, far-right provocateur. They're both saying something true. It doesn't follow from your confusion that people don't know what they're talking about when they use the word.
ReplyDeleteRajan Menon's piece at Boston Review, "Beyond Moral Condemnation," is good for background to the present crisis -- at least on a quick reading I would say so, w/o endorsing nec. every sentence.
ReplyDeleteAccording to a new YouGov poll, Jeremy Corbyn is now the most popular politician in the UK, a few percentage points ahead of both Starmer and Sunak. In a new piece in The Jacobin, he urges the same simple point some of us have urged here: "We should condemn the targeting of all civilian life, no matter who does it. That this is apparently controversial is testament to the depravity of a media and political class that shuts down, distorts, and denounces calls for peace."
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response, GJ. I do, however, have to protest that I’m not confused about the term “left.” I just find it less than useful nowadays in evaluating people, movements, and actions. As to people using it to denominate themselves and others, I accept that some employ the term to try to elevate themselves or to denigrate others. They’re not uttering rubbish, but they are, I think, engaging in a sort of speech act that affords us little analyical purchase on unfolding reality. (I’m suddenly thinking of someone singing, “Love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.” I'm also reminded of Marx saying he wasn't a Marxist because it was being used in such a fashion as "left" now is.)
ReplyDeletePS Thanks, John Rapko for pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn has been a conistent voice for moral clarity throughout these sorry times.
"The Moral Law causes people to be in complete accord with there ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger."
ReplyDelete--Chapter One of The Art of War by Sun Tzu
What Sun Tzu wasn't able to mention is that this fundamental rule applies more towards Republics and Democracies than it does towards Monarchies and Dictatorships and Governments backed by Terrorists Organizations.
Hence the outcry against the Gaza Invasion, but little anger of the Palestinians towards the genocide of Israeli civilians. Because of this Netanyahu's reelection chances are most likely extremely low for the foreseeable future.
The leadership of Republics and Democracies need their followers to be in accord with their policies more so than Tyrannies when going to war. That's what I meant.
ReplyDeleteJames Wilson,
ReplyDeleteI for one don't care if people consider me to be a "true" leftist or not.
I have a neighbor who is far to the left of me and from time to time, when we converse or rather argue politics, he sentences that I am no longer on the left.
I generally respond asking him who appointed him "political commissar", but really I don't give a shit any more.
When you're a teenager and trying to construct an identity for yourself, being considered "truly" on the left is as important as being seen as "cool", but at age 77 it has no importance.
Thanks for supporting my point, s.w.: the term has become quite meaningless and obfuscating wrt what one actually stands for. Worse, perhaps, is finding oneself labelled in such a way as to suggest one is in alignment with those holding political positions one has little or no sympathy with.
ReplyDeleteJames Wilson,
ReplyDeleteThe Chilean psychologist and public intellectual Constanza Michelson distinguishes between "taking sides" and "taking a position".
"To take a side" is like joining a team which you root for, right or wrong, while "to take a position" is to think through the issues and commit oneself to a certain point of view and is a sign of a more "mature" personality (not the words she uses exactly, but you get the point, I hope).
The Boston Review article is useful.
ReplyDeleteCorbyn's constant pleas for "peace" in inapt situations is tiresome. When the folks doing war have other interests and goals this "peace" isn't happening. The folks in Gaza had one vote one time and Netanyahu (and the Israeli far right) thought they could triangulate with face-eating leopards and here we are.
There again speaks the hard-bitten realist. So everyone calling for peace--and thereby perhaps helping to change the mindset of others committed to or oblivious to murderous war--should just shut up and let the empowered go their unchallenged way, for when is it ever apt to challenge them and their ways? Cleon vs. Diodatus all over again. But the Mytilineans did benefit from the words of the latter.
ReplyDelete