The Left, Hamas, and Socialism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- The Last Marxist Chris Cutrone discusses the situation in Israel and Gaza, explains his own controversial understanding of what's necessary for the emancipation of the Palestinians, and discusses what he calls "reformism with bombs."
Cutrone's Book The Death of the Millennial Left
www.sublationm...
Support Sublation Media
/ dietsoap
These split videos are awkward because the 2nd half in Patreon Parrot Room is where I say that as a socialist of course I oppose Israeli military retaliation against Hamas let alone Gaza as a whole.
Maybe ask Doug to help you out lol.
I find the modern method of funding Left activity weird - and in need of critical analysis!
It's fucked up that given everything we've said about this, this will still be an accusation.
Why is it fucked up that you have to clarify? This whole video starts from the premise that leftists are useful idiots for Hamas, and nothing said in it this video proves it
@ccutrone what do you read for your daily news intake, esp on international politics wrt the Middle East?
My two cents as an Israeli leftist. I think Cutrone hits the nail on the head when he identifies the war as “aggressive negotiations”. That explains probably the lunacy with which it is now debated in Israel how Hamas can be defeated without being destroyed. Because a dominant Hamas (as opposed to a weakened PLO) plays a crucial role in the Netanyahu policy of ‘divide and rule the Palestinians’. Hamas and Netanyahu symbiotically depend on each other, as both profit politically from the prolongation of the violent conflict. Both Netanyahu and Hamas worked tirelessly (one through demagoguery and incitement, the other through suicide bombings) to sabotage the 1990s peace process, each for different yet somehow similar reasons (and succeeded). A remark about Zionism: the meaning of this concept, along with the concept of the “Jewish state” is nowhere more contested than in Israel and was at the core of the collapse of the Israeli political system in the past few years. Zionism, as a bourgeois ideology, is self-contradictory, perhaps even dialectical (in the Adorno-Horkheimer sense) covering a broad, ostensibly irreconcilable spectrum, from the messianic Judeo-fascist “activism” of the West Bank settlers to the democratic-socialist utopianism of the Kibbutzim (which, tragically, suffered most in this massacre) and so I find it not helpful simply branding it as either inherently fascist or simply a colonialist project. What is clear to me is that, as I think Cutrone shows, this conflict is devoid of any meaning for a Marxist left because both sides are wholly integrated into capitalist politics and none shows the slightest potential for emancipatory politics and, most importantly, is the direct result of the failure of the left in the 20th century. Thank you for the discussion.
Agreed although I'm not sure the profits are political alone if it's to be beleived that many in Hamas' leadership are millionaires and billionaires, and the financial rewards for Israeli politicians and their settler supporters are clear for all to see
That zionism as an ideology is broad and contradictory does not make it any less fascistic and colonial in practice. Colonial projects have always been bourgeois endeavors of capitalist expansion in search for resources, territory, markets, capital reproduction basically. They have always been justified and romanticized as valiant efforts to escape oppression and achieve a full and free chance at true emancipation
Iran and Saudi have reconciled thanks to China. They are both members of BRICS now. The shia/suni conflict that is so beneficial to western capital seems to be ending. I don't think Chris can predict who Palestinian resistance will be judged. I don't think Israel is reformable, it will have to fall eventually like SA did. That means Palestinian resistance will be retroactively seen as justified and liberatory (it already is by large swathes of the left).
Well, as a "colonialist project" it's an utter failure - in an area without natural resources and in temporary borders it itself cannot defend. There is an element of irrationality to the occupation which you cannot explain in plain economic analysis. That's why the capitalist and upper middle classes of Israel have always traditionally voted for parties supporting the two-state solution and the peace process as an Israeli self-interest, both economic and strategic. That's why in 2005 Israel disengaged from Gaza in the first place. It is argued that the Hamas attack was possible only because so much of the Israeli military was deflected to the West Bank.
@@TheMichaelMi but your error is pretending a two state solution is materially different from the current apartheid and occupation. That is the true irrationality, to think of that as a "resolution" to the conflict instead of its continuation.
There's some interesting context here. But beneath a few vague appeals to supporting a Palestinian workers' movement, most of this video really has a pro-Israeli -- and by extension, pro-American -- orientation. This is true with respect with a number of points: Cutrone's description of Hamas as "terrorists", even though they are not designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council (or even the BBC); the claim that the U.S. does not support the settlements, which is true technically but ignores that they de facto support them by providing billions in military aid and using the Security Council to veto critical resolutions; his claim that killing Soleimani was not a terrorist act but a military one, whereas virtually all international legal experts rejected the U.S.'s "imminent attack" line; and his valorization of the Trump Peace Plan, which offered the Palestinians no meaningful rights to Jerusalem, no right of return for refugees, and no right to an independent military. And of course the comparison between Israel and France is silly--whatever its history, France does not define those of Celtic descent in Brittany as "native aliens" and relegate them to second-class status legally. Anyway, I'd be interested in seeing guests on this channel who have a less narrow/biased perspective on this issue.
My reading was; Terrorist was not a moral, nor a strictly legal judgement here, but a political one. Hamas does not lead an even mostly fully fledged state. The attack on the Iranian General was a state action, regardless of whether it was legal or justified.
The US doesn't support the settlements meant not they never do, or don't make them possible/likely, but was underlining that they are ambivalent rather than proactively for whatever Israel is focused on - it's Israel's policy. The US is not seeing Israeli policy as 1 to 1 with their interest, commanding Israel in all it does or vice versa.
I didn't hear the part about Trump's plan, no comment there, but... the point about France I think wasn't about France but about nation states being blood and soil and France was perhaps a bad example.
But the point is till a strong one in my view. Korea and Japan are both seen as national homes for the Koreans and Japanese, and it counts legally. Americans with Portugese or Irish grandparents can get a passport, etc. Many countries have state religions as well. This is common throughout the world proving ethnicity, religion, language, ancestry and the state's claim to a right of prejudice concerning who can immigrate in what numbers and who can be PM etc, around this. I understand your mention of Brittany is meant to highlight that the Palestinians are not immigrants, but I am not sure it lands, at least with me. When I think of Israeli policy, their stance has always been partition, in various iterations, even being willing to uproot and resettle some of their own jewish citizens within greater palestine in service of that. They simply have asked for more and more of a chunk as their leverage increased, until finally ceasing to make even bad offers.
@conradhamilton At the moment US interests, as divided as they are, are a moderating force in the conflict. Afterall, the US is seeking to normalize relations in the region and is running a proxy war in Ukraine and does not want the Middle East to be a theatre for a broader war. Israel, on the other hand, wants to destroy Hamas and would be glad for US support in that effort. The US does, by the way, consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, and the recent attack seems to have been an act of terrorism aimed at creating a broader war.
Cutrone was not valorizing the Trump Peace plan, but trying to evaluate the basis for capitalist negotiation and "deal making." Notice how we discussed the difference between cutting a deal with the Mullahs and Hamas. One has a productive base in a functional nation and can participate in the global economy and the other does not. The conversation was not about judging who the bad guys are but trying to get a realistic understanding of the factors involved in the conflict. The discussion wasnot about the Palestinian struggle as if it exists in a vaccuum on its own, but was trying to trace the interests at work in the region.
@@sublationmedia Hi Doug, thanks for this clarification. I didn't say the U.S. considers Hamas terrorists; in fact, most governments in the West do. I said the UN Security Council doesn't -- but in any case the use of the word throughout the video is off-putting, since it suggests a Western lexicon by default. As regards the peace plan, Cutrone's insinuation was that Abbas isn't serious about negotiating, because he's part of a political class that profits from interminable conflict. But this explanation is not needed, since the peace plan was so bad anyone with a brain would've refused it within minutes (it makes Israel the sole arbiter of Palestinian security, among other things). And this kind of gets us to the point: war is, due to the lack of a serious peace offer, the only shot the Palestinians have of improving their material situation. To describe the U.S. as a "moderating force" in this context I don't see as accurate, because the support they give Israel -- both military and diplomatic -- has in large part facilitated their reckless disregard for Palestinian demands. And, in turn, paved the way for the current outbreak of violence.
@@conradhamilton9122I'll clarify. The US is a moderating force because it is the main actor that might apply the breaks to the Israeli reaction right now. Again, the aim is not to judge who we should side with or who we should oppose, but to describe the facts. Does the US give Israel military and diplomatic support, absolutely. Could Israel have maintained the apartheid state without the US support. Probably not. Is the US the most likely moderating force right now. Yes. Now, the question is whether the left should even want such moderation. If we are to back Hamas as a truly liberatory force that could potentially change the Palestinians material conditions for the better then we should ask, do we want the US to bomb Iran? Or if not that, do we want Israel to kill as many Palestinians as possible in order to exacerbate tensions and lead Iran to intervene? The answer to this question might hinge upon what we would expect to be the likely outcome from such an expansion of the war. I can imagine some pro-China Western leftists to quite like the idea that the US would get diverted into a major conflict in Israel and become too weak to respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Socialists might imagine a pluthera of gains could be accomplished if both Israel and the United States were defeated on multiple fronts.
This is when the character of Hamas as a political project becomes significant. When we break out of the question: "Who is the resonsible party and what would be just?" We start to be able to think about what we actually want.
Your objection to the use of the word terrorism is a case in point. Obviously the attack was an act of terrorism meant to inspire a massive reaction from Israel. The current attacks on Gaza are as much a part of Hamas' plan as the original attack on Israel was.
When you bring up how the UN Security council doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist organizaton you are either pretending that international law actually matters in this moment, or you are trying to point to how international opinion is split and therefor the US and Israel can't rely upon uniform support if they choose to extend the conflict. If you are pretending that international law matters, then I would just point out that the attacks by Hamas and the retaliation by Israel are both acts of terrorism.
"Terrorists acts are criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”" That's the UN definition. Let's all just admit that by this definition the US, Israel, Hamas, and probably even Canada are terrorist.
@@sublationmediaIs the US a moderating force? I mean literally the entire United Nations votes on ending the occupation the pre-67 borders... Almost annually. I think it's officially called motion for a just peace in Palestine or something. Every single vote it's something like 175 in favor (everyone, including all four other members of the security council) and five opposed (The US, Israel And if you've dependency islands like Micronesia) with a few abstentions, mostly Australia Canada...
We're just three or four years removed from a sitting US president naming Jerusalem the official capital of Israel.
Not only would I say the United States is not a moderating force but basically been solely responsible for enabling the most radical elements of the Israeli policy to be normalized.
I'm trying to think of any example of the US applying pressure on Israel to moderate its actions in recent years.
I find this conversation so frustrating, partly because I agree with most of what's being said. What I can't do is square the circle between the absolute need to keep proleterian-led class war centered, while addressing the ethnic cleansing and day to day apartheid that will exist when the bombs stop falling. From what I understand, Gaza barely ever had a working class. They're a lumpen population fixated on survival.
Who knows how many genocides will happen and how many Nations will be lost to history until the world proletarian revolution is made. Countries and peoples will rise and fall but that suffering doesn't mean anything for socialist revolution right now. There's no world party to make anything of these problems. Its just armchair leftists giving their opinion about events they watch on TV. Cutrone is right that the left is dead. If it was alive it could organize across national lines for socialism in the entire mid east and connect that to the world. That would be the task at the absolute minimum. Otherwise what the fuck is this even about.
Do you cry for the plantation of european countries with alien peoples to serve capital?
Is there any evidence for cutting throats and raping women Infront of their family? There were rumors about cutting the head of babies which were proven to be lies. If you have evidence show it, if don't have the decency to apologize for spreading lies.
The thing is Gazan’s don’t have much options besides Hamas, and the blockade in many ways has entrenched them and also denied the possibility of them deescalating.
And Israel deliberately eliminates the moderates
Especially on this topic there seems to be no mental space for thinking but just either/or black-or-white responses of a deeply conformist authoritarian character.
So if you tuned in to hear my “position” or which “side” I’m taking, you will be sorely disappointed.
You want my “hot take” to affirm you? No, that’s not going to happen.
I should have started with the usual pseudo-“Leftist” banalities and expected shibboleths and ritual gestures of piety.
I am here to raise things to think about, not to provide ready-made conclusions and rationales for them.
Those who don’t want to think further will just find the slightest excuse to dismiss me and whatever I’m saying.
The haters will scour for anything they can take out of context and twist its meaning to character-assassinate me and impugn my motives.
C’est la vie! - Que sera, sera!
I'm not a hater. I like to listen to your pronouncements! I don't understand most of it because, as my husband says, I'm a crypto-philistine. Don't sweat the haters. Even though I am totally confused most of the time, I love that there are brave people like you trying to make sense of the chaos. Plus ptosis brother!
Cutrone’s positions remind me of the bizarre obscurantist “communism” proffered in the pages of the SWP’s Militant.
In any case this dialogue is completely removed from the current material conditions of Gaza.
It is completely removed from those conditions because those conditions aren't going to be overcome on the current basis of capitalist politics.
‘The bourgeois nationalism of every oppressed nation’, Lenin argued, ‘has a general democratic content which is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we support unconditionally, while strictly distinguishing it from the tendency towards national exceptionalism, while fighting against the tendency of the Polish bourgeoisie to oppress the Jews, etc., etc’. Lenin carefully worked out the formula for this unconditional support. If the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation ‘fights against the oppressing one’, then the Social Democrats would support them wholeheartedly. If, however, ‘the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism’, then the Social Democrats stand opposed to them. ‘We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressing nation, but we do not condone the strivings for the privileges on the part of the oppressed nation’.(20)
Wouldn’t this complicate Chris’ argument on Hamas a bit?
Lenin would not support Hamas - there is a big difference between Hamas as a capitalist political party and the “bourgeois nationalism” of Palestinians: support for the latter in no way means supporting the former; Lenin’s entire point is to be able to oppose e.g. Hamas for betraying the real national oppression and freedom of the Palestinians (as is the case for the Marxist opposition to Zionism as the betrayal of the Israelis).
@@ccutrone appreciate the clarification, Chris.
A whole lot actually
Crickets
@@williamgordon-wright6453 He did have a reply written at one point.
That was great, probably the best discussion of this mess i've heard so far.
@sublationmedia - I thought this was a good discussion for sure. One thing I have noticed is that the Hamas sympathy seems to derive from the Settler-Colonial/Indigenous framing of the Israel-Palestine situation. From my view, it appears that almost every person who identifies as being on the political Left has adopted this framework without questioning its basic premises or even have a basic understanding of it. I don't think most people who identify with the political Left have even stopped to consider where this framing came from, let alone why they are using it. Seems like a good topic for a future video would be an in-depth analysis of Settler-Colonialism Studies (and related social sciences) and its relationship to Marxism (assuming that there is one at all). What do you think?
Yes. This is a good idea.
@@PinkoCommie, your comment literally proves my point. I’m not going to argue the finer points, but I’ll just say that, even if this framework is a “historical reality” as you put it, does that mean it isn’t a topic worthy of analysis? Since this framework is not problematic at all, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about by having someone look into it, right?
@@PinkoCommie, maybe it’s just me, but it seems that saying that its a “historical reality” and there is “nothing problematic or necessarily controversial about this framing” implies that it is not worth analyzing with a critical eye. Maybe I read too much into your statement; I’m willing to accept that. That said, I still think your comment is a good example of the point I was getting at in my original post/comment.
Tardigrade: What are you implying? Are you saying: Palestine is not occupied and colonized?
great comment.
I feelblike, dispelling myths about hamas and empathy for what they are doing, is taken by some ibtellectuals on the left as support for them entirely. These are not the same thing.
Exactly
How is empathy for Hamas not just as appalling as support for them?
@@codenameicarus because i am completely incapable of making a moral judgement against the behavior of captives whose land is being stolen, and whose children are being killed with no political power for recourse.
terrorism being "petite bourgeois stuff" resonates with me. that is what Stanley Kubrick's rendition of 'A Clockwork Orange' with Malcolm McDowell was about.
On Cultrone's point about Hamas fighters being on drugs he could as well have comparitevely cited the Nazis and amphetemines than randomly musing on African civil wars... oh and child soldiers, another feautre of late WW2
Of course. - It’s not “racial.”
@@ccutrone Perhaps, perhaps not. But it certainly had the whiff of the dismissive and unserious. Let's call it 'trope like'' or perhaps 'trope lite'.
I'm kind of curious to see what happens when Cutrone realises that Lain isn't tactically trolling like him and is actually on this trajectory.
Possibly - probably - but hopefully not! - As a teacher I never give up hope!
I don't know what trajectory you think I'm on? Becoming a liberal reformist?
@@sublationmediayeah, I’m curious to know too.
@@Chris-cq5pwwhat trajectory do you think I'm on?
@@sublationmedia I don’t know, but you do seem to be more sympathetic to the views of the “left” as it currently exists, than does Chris Cutrone. For instance you had to interject that you both support Palestinian liberation (something that would not have been at all clear to me from the rest of the conversation, so I’m glad you said it). That to me is the kind of position that signals to some (usually those ideologically aligned with the right) that you’re on a trajectory toward…woke-ism? Liberal reformism? Ultra-leftism? The things that Cutrone is constantly railing against. It strikes me as a bit silly, in the same way that many on the actual right decry Biden for being a communist because he maybe kind of wants to protect social security.
It's a minor point, but Cutrone's US chauvinism does get a bit annoying at times. It's not true that no other country has a non-nationalistic identity similar to (what he claims for) the US. Canada is actually much more non-nationalistic in that regard, for instance.
Astounded that a Marxist can say such bullshit. Of course post colonial settler colonies have very distinct national identities based on the dominant settler culture
Canada gained its independence in 1982 and is still a constitutional monarchy.
@@sublationmedia Exactly.
@@gregsimmons3323 Okay. So England has official church and the King is at the head of that church. Canada still recognizes the King of England as the Sovereign. That means that Canada is still formally under the rule of the Defender of the Faith King Charles. This makes Canada a formally ethnoreligious country. In fact, that ethnicreligious foundation is a difficulty for Canada given the French population and the desire for a different ethnostate in Quebec.
The US constitution, however, very clearly separates the Church and the State, there is no official or formal ethnoreligious basis for the claim to sovereignty.
@@sublationmedia Yes, but that's true of Canada only in the most formalistic of formal senses -- certainly not in a lived practical reality. (But I can't find the point in the video where it's mentioned to review the actual context lol)
By far the least educational and interesting video of chris so far... whatever... I guess I'm making chris's point here but I think it would've been interesting to mention that it seems that hamas's assymetric warfare also affected civil rights in Europe; governments have been very fast to ban solidarity with the Palestinians
The USA turned down the Taliban's offer to turn in Osama Bin Laden. The USA instead demanded entry for troops, not police investigators. Taliban reps were in the White House months prior to 9/11 to negotiate pipeline investments.
I was expecting level-headed analysis and a fair critique of Leftist cheerleaders... but Chris Cutrone was all over the place and sloppy with many of his assertions so we unfortunately got neither.
I did point out that the Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin laden. I agree that 9/11 should have been treated as a crime and not as a military threate.
On Doug’s point about changing the conditions of Palestinians and work, resulting in a change of the character of Hamas. We would see that. The problem might be the hurdles and bumps in getting there. For one, since it would not be an immediate change, any terror on the way there would disrupt that whole process.
I don't even know whether this is actually a disagreement, but I do want to point this out:
There are socialist parties (not insignificant ones at that) that are belligerents in the conflict... they know more than anyone else that Hamas is a reactionary force, but it would be unthinkable to tell them to stand down because of that!
If you mean the PFLP they are Stalinists, meaning not really proletarian socialists at all but petit bourgeois radicals who tail after and “support” Hamas et al on an entirely marginal and subordinate basis. They give “Left” ideological cover for utterly reactionary capitalist elements. Especially for credulous naive Western “Leftists.”
Precisely. No mention of this whatsoever, which belies ignorance or a wilful obscurantism.
Problem as I see it is two ultranationalist, hyper religious, racists regimes (Netanyahu and Hamas) have pushed to the sidelines the many moderate Israeli and Palestinian voices seeking peace. We also know that Netanyahu encouraged strengthening Hamas relative to moderate Palestinians, precisely in order to advance his supremacists state. One can reject and condemn the atrocities of Hamas and reject and condemn the brutality and atrocities of the occupation, including rejecting the racist, settler-colonial core principle of Netanyahu’s government: “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel - in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria.”
💯
Idf supporting hamas well predates Bibi even, it was how they dismantled the PLO and RAKAH
Clear eyed and sober. The only open question is whether the Israeli defences were left so weak and porous by accident or design. Net net people are being asked to choose between supporting the fascist gangsters to the left, or the fascist gangsters to the right. No thanks to either
The Settler-colonial core principle did not start with Netanyahu’s government, that is a gross misread of history...just read Ilan Pappé...
@@Pmor75 of course you are correct. I wasn’t suggesting such.
I think with Palestine your trying to achieve a base level of freedom, then you can think about the bigger picture.
That’s my take too. Not that the current political economy of Palestine doesn’t matter, but you can’t do much but try to survive and liberate yourself when you’re under siege and a relentless bombing campaign.
@@Chris-cq5pwNever gonna get that with Hamas inviting the Israeli military to attack. Even if Hamas drives Israel into the sea, Hamas doesn't seek base level freedom or economic development. They are religious fascists.
your so lucky you got ads on this video. I’m proud of you 😅
What is the music played during the showing of the US legal definitions of terrorism around the 48:00 mark? It's awesome.
Cutrone lost me on this one
The Taliban and Hamas believe the same thing. 😂
Both the Taliban and Hamas are Sunni Muslim. Both Hamas and the Taliban are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both organizations derive from what is called Radical Islam, an ideology that emerged in the 20th century, an ideology that presumed that both liberal capitalist democracies and socialism had failed.
Great discussion!
But I am sure knowing two "post leftists" were willing to risk downvotes to consider their moral peril will warm their hearts. ❤
We are not "post-leftist" but rather the political world, especially in the United States, is post-left. As for the rest of your comment it makes no sense or is, in other words, nonsense.
@@user-ig4dl4iv1j The first step is to help people remember what it was and clear away the false left and its ideology.
this has been the least sympathetic take to the desperation of the palestinian people i have seen. Very dissapointed.
There's desperate peoples in every direction in every place - probably not far from your front door. We're often invited to focus on the ones we can do the least about. To the Palestinians, your disappointment is exactly as useful as their lack of sympathy.
@@RoesingApethe bombs falling over their heads are paid for with your taxes, and produced by your capitalists and workers. Don't you dare wash your hands off this conflict
As someone emotionally broken over the devastation russians, ukrainians, and palestinians face - let me say that sober analysis dealing with how the world works is more useful. If it makes you feel better nobody talks about the congo or papua every 3 months since the 70s
@@emilianosintarias7337 @emilianosintarias7337 no i dont care about oppression olympics. I care about the ongoing genocide happenint before our vey eyes in which we are directly complicit. So I dont appreciate when we gatekeep a national liberation movement based on some marxist or socialist litmus test because the urgency is ending Paelstinian genocide
My two favorite marxists.
While there is some good stuff in here, Chris seems pretty ignorant about the politics and history of Israel-Palestine.
Cutrone comes across incredibly smug ("right?" after every statement) but makes a lot of silly points. As though, for one, everything Israel says about October the 7th is necessarily true. Also that the people involved are part of some huge plan, rather than reacting to their dire life conditions. It's as though terrorism of this type is a conscious choice. This ignores the fact that firstly, they have attempted peaceful resistance (great march of return), and are also denied a proper army which could meet the IDF on the battlefield. He gives off the impression that he's forming reality around how he understands the world, rather than how it is
Cutrone isn't the last, or even a good, Marxist. He's a common cynic, which means a crypto-Bourgeois academic. Certainly not a revolutionary, and Marx without the latter is just philosophy, a malady I share but have wrestled myself beyond, kind of.
You have done a poor job of getting rid of you petite bourgeois character as you opted to simply assert a characterization from your presumed position of authority rather than make any sort of substantive comment.
@@sublationmedia The last Marxist is a tankie hunter and an apartheid apologist, we're all doomed.
@@sublationmedia I would have thought it obvious, sorry. Secondly, though, is your comment meant posit a necessary connection between a petit bourgeois 'character' and the mere making of assertions? (Although my assertions were not, as it were, mere.) I thought, as a Marxist, a (petit) bourgeois character would be to make an assertion that unconsciously presumes a bourgeois general outlook. As for Cutrone, he wouldn't be the first academic Marxist to lack a revolutionary outlook. It's the ennui that gives it away. Good scholar, though.
@@eupraxis1 Yes, I think there is a connection between having a petite bourgeois character and making mere assertions, especially given the petite bourgeois have largely been absorbed into the administrative state through various professions (including especially academia) and thereby no longer meet their interests through independent thought but more by rote memorization and a sort of impressionistic interpretation of the instructions from and needs of power. An actual bourgeois character presuming property rights, including the rights of labor, would not stand on a broad characterization but would first attempt to address arguments and facts. So, rather than asserting a reified identity for Cutrone (he's a cynic) you would start by pointing to something he's argued that strikes you as cynical. This would require engaging critical reason rather than giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down to Curtone's brand.
Just what constitutes a "revolutionary outlook"? Is such an outlook something more than reflexively taking up the correct line from the contemporary sentimental and self-deluded left?
To object that Marxism without a revolutionary party is merely philosophy is, in this context, to suggest that thinking itself must wait for some sponataneous change in political conditions. Hardly a revolutionary outlook?
Just because you talk a lot doesn’t mean you’ve said much.
Finklestein is not saying the terrorist attack was exactly like the Nat Turner Rebellion. Aaron Mate pressed him on this and he explained carefully that analogies are never exact, but that he used the NT rebellion to arrive at a moral stance he could live with. He described the Hamas attack as an orgy of revenge (like the NT Rebellion) in the sense that pent up hatred was the natural result of being viciously oppressed and having no life. He described the participants (separate from the leadership) as almost a category of zombie. This enactment of their hate and their own eventual deaths was the only "living" they have known. This isn't to be admired, just understood on some level. Should the left condemn this orgy of violence without admitting that these types of attacks are part and parcel of existing conditions? I admire Finklestein for admitting is was hard for him to grapple with this attack and come to a moral position. Most of us don't stay awake all night for weeks worrying about these things, so I admire him for that. For myself, the thought that I could possibly understand in any all around, deep sense why the NT Rebellion happened doesn't seem possible. Wagging my finger strikes me as obscene. My visceral reaction to terror is disgust, but who am I to condemn people who essentially have no lives and merely exist as targets of torture. I don't have the imagination for that. In a way, our horror and disgust serves as a way to distance ourselves from reality. We walk around shell shocked and useless. Of course, it is correct to criticize and look closely at events, but maybe some humility is also required. That was my take on Norm's grappling with events. He was brave to do so, because he exposes himself to attacks from all sides.
If a man is choking your child, and you stand and watch, is that an acceptable form of violence? Just trying to figure out who can do the "good" kinds of violence. You may nkt like Hamas, or agree with their actions, but to say that they are not entitled to violence is entirely upside down. When a person has no food, no home, no family, and no community, and LOTS of violence, it appears in fact that violence is the ONLY thing they were entitled to.
Your question is not addressed to anything discussed. The question of self-defense for individuals is handled by domestic law. The question of what constitutes war crimes and acts of terrorism is a fuzzier territory, but there are laws and international laws that define that and could help people interpret the question if they were inclined to go through the motions and wanted to spend time speculating about abstractions that will have no effect on the world except in so much as it serves as propaganda for actual political actors.
What we were discussing was what socialism is aimed at and how that should inform our political response to the attacks by Hamas. Adjudicating whether the attacks were justified morally is not something we were attempting to do.
@@sublationmedia there are laws? Are there? Would you care to showcase how those "laws" work? Were those the laws that turned theor home into an open air prison? Lets people steal their homes and murder them? Those laws?
@@sublationmedia mabne the laws are just a little slow? Perhaps they should just wait another 60 years? You talk "academically" about the real, and manufacture absurdisms. Might want to check out the real world occasionally and see what the use-case for all these words you use are.
There are laws and there are politics and there is vengeance. We weren't discussing laws nor were we discussing vengeance. I know this is hard to understand, but the world isn't a morality play and "justice" is not the concept that the left should aim at realizing.
In the real world calls from Western leftists to support Hamas will have a political effect, but only on the Western left. The American left can't help Hamas realize a Sunni Palestine. Should we want to?
The two essays on the Iranian revolution were some of the best in The Death of the Millennial Left, everyone should find copies and read them. The paranoiacs in the comments really don’t understand how much of a self-inflicted disaster this was and is for emancipatory politics. Just yesterday I was speaking to a zoomer on my street. Apolitical, lower middle-class, underemployed British ethnic minority. He’s convinced he needs to travel to the West Bank to ‘defend’ Al-Aqsa mosque - whatever that means. A tale as old as I am. His animus is indistinguishable from the garbage I’ve seen from the left in the past 20 years. This is a perverse reality on the domestic front.
I don’t know how people have confused Chris explaining the gangster nature of bourgeois politics with the endorsement of it. In the same way that IR realism is not an endorsement but an understanding. It just is what it is. This isn’t a question of morals. Rather the geopolitical landscape is shifting and it's not the left’s job to line-up behind one side or the other. The fundamental task of socialism, independent of this sordid process, hasn’t changed and you shouldn’t be whiplashed into opportunism by the news cycle.
I’ve seen people draw comparisons between Hamas and Nat Turner, Zionism and slavery, Marx’s support for the union in the US civil war and the left’s pro-Hamas orientation and all you can say is: what the f? Marx supported the north because he viewed abolishing slavery as a task for the working-class in its pursuit of power. What relevance does that have at all with butchering Jewish civilians?
Finally, Doug, what do you make of the claim about Lenin possibly being a German agent? I haven’t looked into it too much because honestly who cares? Even if he was, the tools of the bourgeoisie were clearly being used against themselves. Like Chris says, who was using who?
Lenin wasn't a German agent, he was a mushroom! Ленин гриб!
I had the first editions of schoolbook Istoriya Rossii (История России) and of the History of the Soviet People from the early 80's but I'm not sure about the name of the Soviet history schoolbook. I lost these books recently but I remember a few things in them, the USSR books denied a real collaboration of Lenin with Germany's authorities, claiming he was offered money or gold and safe passage to Finland, he accepted safe passage through Germany and Sweden but refused the money. The trip was risky and possibly a trap, but the heroic intellect of Vladimir Illich prevailed against all odds.
The Russian book said he refused money once and refused again the same proposal at a later date, when asked a third time (after the Czar had abdicate) he was the one to propose to be lifted away from Zurich, the Russian school book didn't mention if he ultimately accepted the money with that.
So he was a naive intellectual with a heart of gold before and became a greedy bstrd between the 80's and the 90's. The saying "cunning as a Jew" is still common and considered inoffensive, it's not a problematic sterotype in Russia, like "Shaka people (from Yakutia) smile and are submissive".
@@PinkoCommie There’s nothing more cynical and dishonest than instrumentalising Palestinian people to “express” your outrage.
Can you explain how this is going to stop the “genocidal machine”?
@@PinkoCommie I see that you couldn’t answer my simple question.
I realised that all of my sympathy is just narcissism if I didn’t get my act together and take seriously the monumental scale of the task that lies before me. There have been injustices and atrocities in the past and there will be more to come in the future. Geopolitics functions quite independently of leftists attitudes towards it. My estimation is that only proletarian internationalism can positively intervene and shape international events. Maybe you’re right and socialism is just a mirage. But if I didn’t believe it, I probably would have joined an islamist organisation a long time ago instead of stalking and abusing people on youtube comment sections.
FYI: RUclips automatically hides comments that contains what they consider to be offensive language.
@@PinkoCommie Lord, we know what we are but know not what we may be.
You truly are an obtuse little fellow.
My question is how the fuck does chris know all this shit
the war in yemen is not “saudi versus iran”, as cutrone claims
the role of iran in that conflict has for years been exaggerated by media and politicians in order to justify the war against the people of yemen
cutrone also reduces the war in syria to “saudi versus iran” but that’s neither true.
yes the saudis were very involved in that conflict but so were many others, like turkey, the EU, jordan and of course the USA, the CIA directly trained and armed rebels, “Timber Sycamore”, the most expensive CIA program in history
Great conversation.
Now, with the ongoing shitshow of capital relations re-negotiated - shifting accumulation regimes, balance of power, possible revision (restauration?) of the Wilson/Lenin-post war order (for the worse?) - what is to be done?
“I am Lenin” Chris Cutrone. Delusional much 😂
I’m just playing. We love us some Cutrone.
Looking at Marx’s writings into the civil war might have insight to extrapolate to this subject.
Any source for the claim that Hamas and Israel have back channel communications? I'm not saying I wouldn't believe it but it seems like a pretty bold assertion.
A quick google search reveals that the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange was negotiated through a back channel between Mossad and Hamas.
@@sublationmedia okay. I guess my quick Google search was less fruitful
@@StephenCarvlinyeah, but I would think such channels are maintained?
There are multiple reports that Qatar is negotiating with Hamas for the release of Israeli hostages. So their back-channel is Qatar (at the least).
@@chrrrles9363Quatar is also the channel which Hamas receives funding from Netenyahu’s gov’t.
I think Doug needs to be exposed to some Maoism. The class struggle is very clearly not the primary contradiction in Gaza. Organizing trade unions or putting together a worker’s party while another country controls every aspect of economic life is patently absurd. 50% of Gazans are unemployed. Obviously Hamas terrorism is terrible, but they took power for a reason.
For my part, I really wish there was more attention here put to the morally significant question...of what is to be done. Which immediately brings up the question...who has the power to do something to change this situation. (clearly Israel)
I listened carefully to the whole RUclips Exchange, and I honestly do not know what you might suggest or be in favor of.
These split videos are awkward because the 2nd half in Patreon Parrot Room is where I say that as a socialist of course I oppose Israeli military retaliation against Hamas let alone Gaza as a whole.
In the 2nd half Patreon Parrot Room I say that the task is for diaspora Palestinians and Jews to become socialists and not fund or support Hamas or Israeli policy politically.
You don't support Houthi pirates, but you celebrate Columbus interesting.
I hope your next video on this comments on Norman Finkelstein's blogpost
So it's not like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising because the Allies won? Sorry but what does that mean? Agree or disagree with Finkelstein, this is a non sequitur. "Because the Allies won" is semantically indistinguishable from "because I smell burnt toast," and about as politically insightful
I think Cutrone's point is not so simple as this. He isn't making an argument trying to define what uprisings should be supported and what should not. So in this case he's granting that the socialist left might be able to use Hamas for its own purposes, and assuming socialists have the aim of liberating the Palestinian people (something Hamas does not aim at). What he's pointing out is that if the socialists lose then not only will the attack by Hamas not be transformed into a project for liberation, but it will not be understood in liberatory terms in the future either.
@@sublationmedia No serious-minded person, Finkelstein included, is reducing it to a mere yea or nay. Certainly there is a strain of superficial and bloody-minded pseudo-radical posturing which conflates opposition to any of the US' regional allies with actual anti-imperialism. But fixating on these vulgarizations of anti-imperialism is going after low-hanging fruit.
The substance of my objection is this: making sense of why the attacks happened is not the same as "celebrating" them. Given the whole crisis of the 20th century, the consolidation and betrayals of Stalinism, the blind alleys of bourgeois nationalism and all the rest, we're at a historical juncture where the Palestinian resistance to occupation and blockade is in the hands by venal, pro-capitalist leaderships, and so the masses enter into struggle with the crude implements available to them. Celebrating violent excesses does not follow from sympathy for the struggle of Palestinian masses, I hope that's a distinction you appreciate.
I agree Hamas is not a proxy for any actual socialist force, nor could it ever be. Hence the examples of the Warsaw Uprising, Nat Turner rebellion, or arguably a better historical analogy, the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny. That these struggles couldn't offer a direct path to a progressive and emancipatory political project shouldn't distract from where true culpability for barbarism lies:
"However infamous the conduct of the Sepoys, it is only the reflex, in a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India, not only during the epoch of the foundation of her Eastern Empire, but even during the last ten years of a long-settled rule. To characterize that rule, it suffices to say that torture formed an organic institution of its financial policy. There is something in human history like retribution: and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself."
Chris Cutrone fucking just stating the facts and making sense.
also I think I have that same shirt he’s wearing lol
This is the only intelligent conversation on this issue that I've found. You guys are the only real left wingers out here, unfortunately. The virtue signaling left is revolting. They would never protest poverty or homelessness in the US, but have found a way to express outrage that doesn't put them at odds with power. Thank you Doug and Chris for having backbone and clear vision.
You guys lost the plot here
How so?
what is the bigger picture?
Cutrone's " antiIslamism" reminds me of Christopher Hitchens' own " antiIslamism" which lead Hitchens to support the Iraq war and ally himself with proUS figures, many funded by the state department like Haneen Ghaddar, his description of Hamas as " gangsters" is just an example of that, Hitchens also used similar terms to describe Hizbullah.
Both Hamas and Hizbullah were both created primarily as social organizations to help their societies in times of crisis, occupation and war, Hamas was accreditedc at the time of going after drug dealers and gangsters,in Gaza ater the 2 groups did become militant and were focused on resisting Israel, the social aspect of their work was very important to their success and popularity in the community, so both were good candidates to replace the corrupt powers ruling areas that have suffered from occupation.
Also, Hamas has the political command and the military command, the political command provides diomatic cover and advocates for the cause,however the military command decisions are mostly independent of the political commands, this is something that was missing in this discussion
I would suggest that maybe Assad AbuKhalil and Cutrone should " debate " this subject, since honestly Cutrone seems to be hindered by his " antiIslamism "
Seems an entirely unfair comparison given that Cutrone did not advocate Israel's murderous tactics in Gaza but only cautioned against embracing Hamas.
Really dumb and disingenuous argument. Cutrone's criticism of Hamas as an islamist organization is not at all analogous or even similar to Hitchens' criticism of Islam as a whole.
Chris Cutrone is my ptosis bro.
Ha! I too have ptosis and love that he 'Represents!"
At last!
I will just say regarding “assassination” that Sulemani was an Iranian military commander killed in the field - in Iraq where he was conducting attacks on U.S. soldiers. Assassination is killing of civilian political or other figures not in an active military action or role.
On 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq while he was on his way to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi.
@@sublationmediaAnd what was the U.S. responding to in that moment? Iraq paramilitary militia attacks on U.S. soldiers and civilians in Iraq supported by Sulemani’s IRGC.
The assassination was pre-emptive, reportedly responding to intelligence that Soleimani was planning an assault. He was not killed in a battlefield. He was killed inside a country that the US was not at war with. If the US believed that Soleimani was responsible for terrorist attacks on Iraqi bases, which is the claim, then the Iranian state should have been consulted and Soleimani might have stood trial. If Iraq believed that the Iranian attacks constituted an act of war then the US would have had to decide if the US wanted to join Iraq in a war with Iran. This was a way to attack Iran without declaring war. It was an assassination and it was meant to terrorize the Iranian state.
@@ccutrone The attack some in US intelligence blamed Soleimani for had occurred a few weeks earlier and just who was responsible remains unclear. While some claim Iran was responsible. Iraqi intelligence did not blame Soleimani but ISIL, an Iraqi terrorist group. Given that the rocket attack originated from Sunni controlled territory that seems like a real possibility.
If we grant that Iran was responsible we still have to contend with the fact that, while US civilians and military personnel were amongst the victims, it was an attack from within Iraq on Iraq. It would then be the responsibility of the Iraqi state to determine the response wouldn't it?
The entire situation speaks to the failure of US policy in the region. Perhaps the assassination was a useful deterrent and helped to avoid a US/Iran war. Perhaps it was a dangerous escalation and we are just lucky.
It was certainly illegal and an act of terrorism, either way.
@@ccutronesoleimani was a busy man with a lot of enemies, and was advising the battle against ISIS, taking care of counter-intelligence against Israel, and working to bolster the Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq, as well as operations against US forces. Is there any confirmation that he was actively engaged in plotting against US forces at the time? Or are we just extrapolating because Iran was a US opponent at the time? And should we trust US intelligence on this any more than we trust the IRGC? Sure, the IRGC is not a good-faith actor, but neither is the CIA, Trump, the USAF, etc
9:55 who is this in reference to? Most of the response on the left has been measured and clearly anti-hamas and anti-Israel.
Read Cosmonaut
@@sublationmedia so this is in response to the editorial team's statement?
@@lyleevans5921It is a response to the overall "socialist" milieu that Cosmonaut's statement echoes.
I have NOT seen the "Left" be anti-hamas, mostly I've seen people either balk that they should have to even enter into a conversation about hamas, or use islamicist rhetoric outright (our martyrs, images of paragliders) or say something along the lines of, they are all we've got/they've got, so tacit approval.
Chris, Hamas' primary concern is not US domestic politics. It's probably not even the Saudi-Israel politics. I don't think you can reasonably come to another conclusion than the idea that they actually do want a larger regional war with Israel.
And, if you actually do care about bourgeois liberalism or whatever, maybe the fact that Israel currently appears to be engaging in a war of extermination in Gaza should be an exceptional historical horror. What do you think is going to happen when Israel uses the tactics of Fallujah, Mosul and Raqqa in Gaza but without allowing people to leave???
If Hamas wants a larger war with Israel then they must consequently be concerned with Saudi-Israeli politics. The point about US domestic politics is not about Hamas but about the US and European's left reaction to Hamas.
@@sublationmedia Chris specifically said Hamas was thinking about the squad
My point is the goal is not disrupting a treaty, the goal is a fundamental alteration of the strategic situation regarding, very directly, Israel/Palestine.
Hamas cannot “fundamentally alter the strategic situation” other than geopolitically and politically in terms of domestic Israeli and Palestinian politics.
Theory is all well and good but sometimes the house is on fire. I don’t take this stance in the sense of vote for the dems to stop Trump, but things are pretty dire for Palestine. In this sense trying to end the blockade and ensure the two state solution is highly desirable . Not being on this page may alienate you from many ordinary people.
@stuartshadwell The attack from Hamas did not create conditions that will help to end the blockade but rather the political possibilities have been narrowed by the attack. At the moment the "left" is aiming at warding off a US led attack on Iran. The hope is that the US, rather than launching into war, will constrain the Israeli reaction to the attack. This is in US interests as the US has ties to many Islamic states in the region and wants to normalize relations. If the aim is to end the blockade the most likely path toward that end would be the destruction of Hamas as a political force, but that would involve a level of bloodshed that would compromise US interests and destabilize the region. The moderate and humane position is aiming at returning to "normal." My suggestion in this conversation was that Israel should start lifting the blockade and allow Palestinians to seek employment in Israel with fewer restrictions and overall help to faciliate trade and normalized relations in Gaza. In a previous stream I pointed out that the Troubles in Northern Ireland were presaged by economic growth. However, my view is more than counter intuitive. And even if it weren't counterintuitive the aim of creating an integrated Palestinian/Israeli state with both civil rights and political representation for all is more likely to lead to a resolution than a two state solution I think. It is worth debating, however.
In many ways the blockade empowers Hamas though and exacerbates their radicalism. Ending the blockade could give the Palestinians options other than Hamas and or options for hamas to deescalate. I don’t think Hamas is good, but while they may have their cynical expressions the Palestinians are not offered many options besides Hamas and some kind of violent insurrection, that or lay down and die as Finklestein put it. So the attack may have one meaning for Hamas and another for the Palestinian people.
Thinking about Marx and Engels on the civil war, they sided with the union against slavery. I’d argue in its current configuration zionism is much like the institution of slavery; something that minimizes the freedom of humans. Its just hard to be neutral on this. I don’t think this means I side with hamas.
Do think Hamas does not want an end to the blockade in order to stay in and advance power?
Israel does not seem interested remotely in ending the blockade or allowing Palestinian employment for Gazans.
‘Now I am going to say something for internal consumption only (this is perhaps a “closeted” position): At this point, the only hope that the Palestinians have is in and through Israel, precisely as a “settler colonial state,” not independent of, let alone opposed to it. Just as the only hope for Native Americans has been through integration into the U.S. Of course the degree to which the U.S. was racist it failed as bourgeois society - as is true of Israel today. Now, precisely the problem is that Israel doesn’t “want” the Palestinians.
So the Palestinians are indeed quite vulnerable. But the rational kernel of such racism is that “they are not like us,” i.e., the recognition and rejection of non-bourgeois forms of life. We must defend this rational kernel of bourgeois subjectivity obscure to itself, rather than the Ben Lewis et al.’s perspective of assuming everyone is always already bourgeois, anthropologically. They’re not. Bourgeois society is a fragile achievement, not natural. It is a society, not an individual matter. And it is the only possible basis for progress in freedom.
It is necessary to think (but not necessarily to come out and say) such things now in ways not necessary for Marx, Lenin or Trotsky. But we must emphasize the necessary basis for bourgeois emancipation, even as it disappears from under our feet. This is what the “Left” cannot abide, and hence why it is “dead.”
The 20th century, the century of struggles for “national self-determination,” failed miserably, and utterly, and produced a world much worse than before: Israel-Palestine is a prime example of this on-going failure.’ -Chris Cutrone
And?
@@comradetrashpanda8777Absolutely incoherent.
@@Drewsel elaborate because it doesn't seem at all incoherent to me. How much of Cutrone's work have you engaged with?
I mean the main issue here is that I've already lost the arguement. I've compromised my morals and engaged with a racist. The greatest crime of all is responding to and granting a platform to insanity.
@Drewsel Engaged with a racist? I'm not following. Is the issue with the use of the term "rational kernel"? If so, have you read Adorno?
Boring