We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Echoes of the 1930s The other day I was having a congenial chat with a landlord with a portfolio of ten properties in the Czech Republic. I asked him about the local rental market and he mentioned he had just rented an apartment to a middle class Jewish family from Dublin. They had relocated to Prague permanently because “Jewish people have no future in Ireland.”
I have rarely felt so horrified by a casual remark.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The remark is true – Jewish people have no future in the Republic of Ireland, or other “Woke” places.
The Progressive narrative rests on the foundation that all inequality is unjust – that it is the result of “exploitation and oppression”, so if Jews are better off than Muslims in the Middle East it must be because the Jews are “exploiting and oppressing” Muslims – and, therefore, should be robbed and murdered. Ditto American cities.
And this includes Progressive Jews – they can say “the 2020 Presidential Election was NOT rigged – look at how Rudy Giuliani’s hair dye runs, how funny it is that he is was very ill and almost died, Ha-Ha-Ha” and their leftist “friends” will kill them just the same.
Ironically enough it is people like Rudy Giuliani who would defend them, Jews and non Jews, defend the very people who mocked him (for the crime of telling the truth – about the 2020 election and other matters) and wished him dead.
David Horowitz was one such Progressive Jew back in the 1960s – a Red Diaper baby (like K. Harris – child of Marxist parents), he got a close friend to do the accounts of the “Black Panthers” (yes – they had account books).
The lady uncovered fraud (some of the Comrades were using the money for their own personal benefit) so, of course, the Black Panthers tortured her to death.
None of David Horowitz’s Progressive “friends” were interested in the murder – including the ones in government (oh yes – even back then the Marxists had many Comrades in local, State and Federal bureaucracy – and many more “Fellow Travellers” who just did not care), indeed they told him to shut up about the murder – as his complaining about it was undermining the cause.
The media and the education system? They still present the Marxist thugs of the Black Panthers as heroes, just as they pretend the 2020 election was straight, and that Mr George Floyd was “murdered”.
Jews, or rather so called Jews – Progressives who have no belief in God, may help the left (for want of a better word) to come to power – but then will be its first victims.
Just as some people of Jewish heritage (a tiny minority of Jews) actually help bring in the vicious haters of Jews who are flooding into Europe – with the full support of the government in Dublin (those puppets of the European Union and the “International Community”).
When the “Social Justice” mobs come for you and your family they will not give a damn that you supported the forces of “Social Justice” and helped bring them to power – they will slit your throat just the same, and they will laugh as they do it.
Hollywood (and general Corporate) fools, please note.
… and there is a glowing future for Jews in the Czech Republic?
Why didn’t they just move to Israel?
Same thing happened with South African Jews when apartheid ended – some went to Australia instead of Israel. One elderly couple I know actually went back to Germany to live off their prewar pensions + reparations, while their kids came to Israel. Now the Jews are being hounded over there.
Amazing how quickly Jews lose the street smarts acquired by their parents at great cost… like Reagan’s famous remark about being one generation away from losing democracy.
Judging from one of my social media feeds, antisemitism is entrenched in the republic and Northern Ireland. I’m not sure if all the causes of this. Maybe it’s a hangover from hardline Catholicism in much of Ireland; maybe, as Paul Marks writes, a feature of the hard Left hatred of what it sees as successful groups of people, coupled with the kind of ideas that have gained currency in Western “elite” higher education.
I go to Ireland occasionally to see a friend and play golf. In general, I’ve no desire to linger there.
Prague is full of Israeli & Ukrainian flags, so yes, Jews are very much welcome in Prague.
As far as I know there never were very that many Jews in Ireland. So, this Jew-hatred is some abstract, ideological matter. Probably religion related (including the religion of wokeness or – to be explicit: neo-Marxism). I hope there were not, and won’t be, pogroms in Ireland. That is – actually murdering Jews, as was the custom in Eastern Europe.
As far as I know the Sin-Fein or Irish nationalist terrorists had very close ties to the Arab terrorist groups (in the 1970ies). Maybe that’s the source of the Jew-hatred.
Maybe it’s just the Irish have had enough of non-Irish in Ireland, regardless of what their masters in Dublin want, and the Jews are getting out while the gettin’s good.
Johnathan Pearce – in Northern Ireland Anti Semitism is very much a feature of the Sinn Fein part “Nationalist community”, some people would call them Catholics, but I would not – as the Sinn Fein supporters do not really believe in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
They are not really “Nationalists” either – as, both north and south, they support rule by the European Union (as the FAKE “Scottish Nationalists” also do).
BenDavid – I must correct you Sir, Ronald Reagan was talking about liberty, not democracy.
Unlike David Hume or F.A. Hayek, Ronald Reagan believed that liberty did not “evolve”, that it was NOT a “product of human action, but not human design” – on the contrary he believed that liberty must be understood, consciously chosen, and struggled for by every generation, or it is lost.
Ronald Reagan was correct.
Steven R – oh no Sir.
The people who hate Jews in Ireland love (love) the idea of unlimited immigration from the Third World into Ireland.
They want to wipe out Irish culture – the Irish people.
“The Great Replacement is a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory – and it is a Good Thing (TM) and can not come fast enough”.
That is the position of the international establishment – including the education system and the media.
And it is the same in America – they are not laughing at the people of Springfield Ohio (and so many other communities) because what these poor people are saying is untrue, the media know very well that it is true – and that is why they are laughing.
The message the establishment are sending to ordinary people is very simple.
“We are going to destroy you, and there is nothing you can do about it – as we control the security services and the “Justice” system – and we are going to laugh at you as you are destroyed”.
The election in November is the last chance for survival for ordinary Americans.
Even if they win they are in for hard times, very hard times indeed – as the economy is going to collapse regardless of who wins the election.
But if they LOSE the election….
Well defeat would be so bad, that it is best not to think about it to much.
Further to what Paul Marks has said, in Northern Ireland, the Republican / Catholic side sees parallels between it and Palestine and the Loyalist / Protestant side sees parallels between it and Israel.
Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein sent this tweet on October 8th 2023.
You also see this phenomenon in Scottish – specifically, Glasgow – football, with the sectarian-tinged rivalry between Celtic and Rangers. The Celtic crowd displayed a lot of Palestinian flags after October 7 2023. See this story from Sky News: Celtic face UEFA disciplinary action after Palestinian flags flown at Champions League match.
In contrast to some other commenters, I have fond memories of both Northern and Southern Ireland (from where my ancestors came). But anti-semitism has long been significant there and has much increased since October 7th. There are Irish people pushing back against this resurgence of Jew-hatred, but it doesn’t help that the Irish Establishment, led by President Michael D. Higgins, is prone to lecturing Irish Jews about alleged Israeli atrocities.
Natalie: One of the most memorable scenes in James Joyce’s Ulysses, for me, is the chapter where Leopold Bloom visits a pub where a staunch Irishman is sounding off about how terrible the Jews are, and Bloom gets fed up and sounds off: “Mendelssohn was a jew and Karl Marx and Mercadante and Spinoza. And the Saviour was a jew and his father was a jew. Your God,” ending with “Christ was a Jew like me.” And then the other people in the pub are restraining the Citizen, who wants to murder Bloom.
Modern anti-Jewishness has little to nothing to do with Catholicism.
There are two main strands to it.
1. The Left/ Woke embrace of the Palestinian “struggle” which is identical to almost every Western country and
2. A tendency among Nationalists to find common cause with “oppressed” peoples everywhere, to the point where the Shinners are more likely to wave the Palestinian flag than the Irish tricolour.
The problem is exacerbated by the deteriorating quality of our politicians. I include our execrable elected Head of State, Michael D Higgins who is, nontheless, hugely popular
Due to their immigration policies there may be no future for the Irish in Ireland.
“in Northern Ireland, the Republican / Catholic side sees parallels between it and Palestine “
It is more than “sees parallels”
They had close ties. Irish terrorist groups were trained in PLO (and Popular Front) camps, and got arms from them. (That is: the arms were supplied by the Soviet Union, via proxies). They underwent indoctrination.
I find this surprising, isn’t there enough hate in Ireland already between the two Christian factions? Maybe all that hate has settled down enough to make room for more hatred. It reminds me of that joke “In (London)Derry a gunman pulls over a car and yanks the driver out. “Are you a catholic or protestant”? He asks. Quaking the driver replies: “No, I’m Jewish”. Confounded the gunman demands “Aye, but are you a catholic jew or a protestant jew?”
But I guess it is nothing to joke about. I suppose it just illustrates why there is such a need for a place like Israel.
Another thing: It is not “echoes of the 1930s”. It is a different kind of beast. It is an Arab inspired Jew-hatred. One cannot say that “traditional” Jew-hatred (in the 1930s) in Europe was Arab inspired.
Modern anti-Jewishness in Ireland has very little to do with Catholicism.
It has 2 main strands
1. Woke/ Left ideology which has taken an extraordinary hold in Ireland. In this respect Ireland is no different from much of the Western World- it is just that there are fewer voices pushing against it than in other countries
2. Nationalists’ trying to find common cause with “fellow oppressed” peoples. At the most dangerous end of this spectrum you had the IRA training and being trained by a host of unlovelies, including the PLO, Col Ghadaffi and FARC.
“It is not ‘echoes of the 1930s’. It is a different kind of beast. It is an Arab inspired Jew-hatred.”
It is specifically Muslim antisemitism. And of course, our craven Western “leadership” will go along for the ride if it means they aren’t going to be accused of “Islamophobia” (whatever that word is supposed to mean).
Can’t alienate those Muslim voters, you know!
Perry:
I am happy to hear that.
But hopefully the rest of the country is on the same page?
In the States, on the eve of the Second World War, the loudest Jew-haters, and the most significant, were Irish Americans—Father Coughlin and Joseph Kennedy, ambassdor to the court of St.James. Italian-Americans, in the other hand, were famously philosemitic. When Meyer Lansky brought Jewish gangsters to Madison Square Garden in 1938 to beat the snot out of America’s home grown Nazis, the Italian mobsters offered their help (which was declined ). The Irish, with their traditional resentment of the Brits, viewed the war effort as the Jews and England vs that big mouth Hitler fellow, who wasn’t bothering anyone who didn’t deserve it.
Strange coalitions are always fun to watch, but with Gays for Hamas and now Irish for Palestine, you really need a scorecard.
“In the States, on the eve of the Second World War, the loudest Jew-haters, and the most significant, were Irish Americans—Father Coughlin and Joseph Kennedy, ambassador to the court of St.James.”
And rather embarrassingly for me – as a Canadian Roman Catholic of Irish extraction – Fr Coughlin was, er, a Canadian Roman Catholic of Irish extraction.
But of course, in the 1930s, virulent antisemitism was by no means the preserve of Canadian Roman Catholics of Irish extraction.
(When the KKK set up shop in Canada in the 1920s-1930s, they had a hard time finding any blacks to pester because the population here was so tiny. But, no problem! They just focussed on the other two objects of their bile: Catholics and Jews.).
Anyone who, like me, was an avid listener to RTE in the 80’s and 90’s* would be left in no doubt whatsoever of the institutional (to use one of the lefts favourite words, but with complete justification) antisemitism shown by its news and current affairs coverage.
Those were very different times pre-internet radio. AFN/AFRTS broadcasts from Frankfurt were a regular treat, that’s how I first became aware of Rush Limbaugh, while the BBC World Service was a very different creature to today’s version. Waking up early to the reassuring sound of Lilli Boleuro was a staple for many years. The ability, pretty much for the first time, to regularly hear world events reported from different locations and perspectives was exciting. There was already a hunger for such knowledge and entertainment as evidenced by the enormous audience for “Letter from America”.
In that sense RTE with its different perspective was something to savour.
Fraser Orr
The punchline I remember was ‘Aren’t I a lucky Arab?’
Perhaps designed to make it ‘cross-community’? I would add the following.
1. There is a strong strain in some Protestantism of a favourable disposition towards Jews as the Biblically ‘Chosen People’. In my Early 20th Century Irish forbears generation, in the 1970s, being fanatical Catholics and Republicans, there was a distrust of and disdain for ‘the Jews’ generally (for no reason obvious to me), seeing them as a Zionist monolith. I presume this reflected the political culture of a segment of the population, inferred from bearing grudges and Catholic chauvinism of their time, regardless of Ireland’s tiny Jewish population.
2. The Irish Army has a long history of UN missions in The Lebanon, having suffered fatalities sometimes presumably incidentally at the hands of the IDF or its proxies. I think that some doubted the neutrality of those UN missions.
Mr Ed
Long before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza RTE stood four square behind Arafat and his people in the West Bank. Same sentiments, the actual location and situation was secondary.
The favourable disposition towards Jews among Protestants which you refer to might be seen as partly due to the inherent contrariness which has plagued the country for over a century.
Uhhhhh there is not really any need/taste in blaming European anti-Semitism on Muslims or Commies.
In fact both those groups reworked existing Christian anti-Semitism for their own needs.
Despite our troubles, Israel is absorbing a steady stream of immigrants. It could also be described as a broad stream – in addition to Western Jews moved by Zionism and/or hedging their bets, it includes many whose connection to the Jewish people is tenuous (intermarried Soviets, Ethiopians who underwent forced conversion, South Americans who have uncovered their converso/marrano roots, Ugandan tribes that recently converted en masse, etc.)
In that context, the idea of going through the effort to relocate while moving someplace else in Europe instead of Israel is kinda puzzling.
I wish them well.
“The Irish Army has a long history of UN missions in The Lebanon, having suffered fatalities sometimes presumably incidentally at the hands of the IDF or its proxies. I think that some doubted the neutrality of those UN missions.”
The Irish Army has had to bear the brunt of Ireland’s unfathomable infatuation with the UN, serving in pointless missions at the behest of Dublin, including the current one in Lebanon, UNIFIL, charged to “restore international peace and security” and “assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area”.
(That second task is particularly futile, given that Hezbollah by its very presence makes Lebanon a failed state.)
Mr Ed – “Jew” does indeed seem to mean “Protestant” as far as the gangs in Northern Ireland are concerned. But Sinn Fein and co are NOT Catholics – ask them their opinion of abortion or any of the basic teachings of the Catholic Church, or Christianity generally. They are no more more Catholics than they are Elm trees.
Some sort of Marxist Jesuit “Roman Catholicism” is NOT Roman Catholic.
Natalie and Seamus – President O’Higgins says the most terrible things (for example his support of the Venezuelan regime) in a gentle tone and with a nice smile on his face – and twinkle in his eye.
George Bernard Shaw was the same – he could say that everyone who did not “justify their existence” before a Government Board should be KILLED – and most people would say “oh the Irish charm – of course he does not mean it” – he fecking well did mean it, he wanted lots of people KILLED, George Bernard Shaw was a totalitarian swine – but “he was charming with it”.
My grandfather James Power (that name should tell you his ethnicity – “James” especially) called it “smile and hit”.
If an Ulster Protestant is angry with you, you will know it – indeed the whole room will know it, as his voice will be like a war trumpet and his neck will swell and go bright red (“Red Necks” in the United States are Irish Protestants in origin), he may even have a heart attack or a stroke (one too many “Ulster Frys” – although his blood tends to clot easily anyway, one reason why such a man can survive wounds that would have most men bleed to death) before he gets around to punching you into the ground.
But if someone from the south is upset with you – they will buy you a drink, and then another drink, they will put their arm around you and say they are your friend.
Then as you come out of the bar – they and their friends will kick you to death.
I never did ask my grandfather if he had done that himself.
He did sort/of like the First World War (which my Jewish grandfather certainly did NOT) – and served in the Second World War as well – although as a mechanic in the RAF (so non combat) in that one.
Oliver Cromwell seems to have been favorably disposed towards Jews. (With qualifications: I just checked his wikipedia article.) That, by itself, might explain (not justify) Irish Catholic attitudes: they might see the friend of their enemy as their enemy. Not that that is necessarily the reason for modern Irish attitudes.
–I also checked Luther’s and Calvin’s Wikipedia pages. Neither of them seems to have been philo-semitic, but Calvin seems to have been less bad than Luther.
Also, the spirit of capitalism in later Calvinists must have fostered some feelings of brotherhood towards Jews (especially in the Netherlands).
–WRT nazism, the picture is complicated:
Hitler and Himmler were raised Catholic.
OTOH there seems to be an inverse correlation between Catholicism and nazi support in Germany, in the early 1930s. But that might have been because Catholics were/are more conservative than Protestants.
Luther specifically wrote a book called On the Jews and Their Lies , in which he pretty much advocates destroying the Jews unless they converted to Christianity (and presumably to a Christianity that was up to Luther’s standards).
This article suggests that historically there was some support amongst Irish nationalists for the Zionist movement and some of the latter were inspired by Irish rebellion against Britain when waging their own rebellion and terrorist campaigns against the British in the 1940s.My understanding is that contemporary pro-Palestine attitudes in Ireland are motivated by the similarities to general left wing and liberal support for the Arab cause since approx 1967. The provisional IRA were more influenced by international leftism than the IRA of the earlier times. It’s curious because I don’t think Britain and Israel had especially strong relations until the 1990s. Even a philosemite like Margaret Thatcher had pretty poor relations with Israel for most of her time in office due to clashes over Israeli arms sales to Argentina during the Falklands war and Israeli actions in Lebanon.
Since the OP mentioned the Czechs, I should add that if you have access to JSTOR you can read HERE about how Czechoslovakia was an early arms exporter to Israel. This was news to me until relatively recently. Although I was long aware that Stalin rapidly recognised Israel after Truman had in America, I wasn’t aware that a Soviet bloc state had provided arms.
BenDavid is baffled why Jews might prefer Prague to somewhere in Israel. I’ve been to Israel several times (my wife is Czech Jewish) & we currently spend our time flitting between London & Brno. Israel is not without it’s charms but frankly between (very Jewish friendly) Prague & Tel Aviv, Prague wins hands down on a quality of life basis, even without the security considerations.
An Irishwoman called Rachel Moiselle, who often posts on Twitter about anti-semitism in Ireland, has flagged up this astonishing tweet by Senator G. Craughwell:
Emphasis added. Hamas themselves say that around 40k Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Senator Craughwell thinks this is bigger than the Holocaust.
There is a photo of the tweet here in case it disappears.
“Since the OP mentioned the Czechs, I should add that if you have access to JSTOR you can read HERE about how Czechoslovakia was an early arms exporter to Israel.”
In on odd twist, during the 1948 war, the Israelis flew Messerschmitt 109s (albeit of Czech manufacture) against Egyptian Spitfires.
Ulster Protestants are not Lutherans – Martin Luther accepted state control of the church, which is exactly what they, Ulster Protestants, reject.
The Scottish Presbyterian Church (the Church of Scotland) accepted top down control of the church in 1712 (more than three centuries ago) – but that was rejected by Presbyterians in Ireland, who to-this-day insist that local people in each parish must control their church. Indeed there are several different Presbyterian and other Protestant Churches in Northern Ireland.
The Church of Ireland is an Anglian Church – not a Presbyterian one, so the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland (I think that was in 1869 – but I could be misremembering that) had no effect on the Ulster Presbyterians – because their church had never been an established one in the first place (indeed many of the Penal Laws of the 1700s applied to Presbyterians – – not just to Roman Catholics).
In the American War of Independence these (Irish Protestant – or “Scots Irish”) preachers took the lead – the British called them “the Black Robed Regiment” they were very different from most of the Scots-from-Scotland.
By the way – as I have explained several times, the Anti Semitic left in Ireland are NOT Roman Catholics.
You do not have to be a great theologian to work this out – just ask them their view on baby killing, they are very strongly in favour of baby killing, they are NOT Catholics.
Most people in the south are not Catholic these days (as the abortion referendum graphically showed) – indeed when the Catholic Church actually enforced discipline (including on its own priests – via the 1917 Code of Cannon Law) they would not, unless they repented, have been buried in consecrated ground – due to their support of baby killing and other things.
They would have been welcomed into a Catholic church – if they came to repent, if they had not come to repent they would have been removed from the building (if-need-be by force).
That is the laity – as for Catholic priests, the decline of discipline among them some (some) trace all the way back to the 1920s when, it is alleged, there was a covert campaign to infiltrate certain sorts of people into the priesthood (and once some are in positions of influence they can help get more in).
Certainly by the 1960s old procedures of discipline, to try and prevent such things as child abuse, were quietly dropped – as was some (some) of the old theological training, replaced by political “social justice” stuff.
Normally I condemn Hollywood – but there is quite a good film that touches on this in an American context, “Doubt” has a young Vatican II style priest who is into “Social Justice” and gets rid of the old rules on how to behave, he seems wonderful (from the Progressive point of view), but a nun starts to suspect his reasons for getting so “hands on” with young boys.
Anti Semitism in Ireland – both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, is from Marxism. Specifically from the Frankfurt School “Cultural” Marxists – although Dr Marx himself was capable of Anti Semitic rants “What is the religion of the Jew? Hucksterism! What is the God of the Jew? Money!”
The fact that Dr Karl Marx himself was from a Jewish family, as were many of the Frankfurt School (such as Herbert Marcuse), is one of the ironies of history.
If you hold that “disadvantaged and marginalised groups” are that way because of “exploitation and oppression” then you are going to start looking for the “exploiters and oppressors” – and Jews are always the likely targets of that label.
“Greedy Jews” exploiting the blacks in American cities – or the “Palestinians” (a nationality largely created in the 1960s) in the Middle East.
In the 2008 film “Doubt” (which I mentioned above) the priest gets transferred to another Parish – this is what, very often, happened in real life (with terrible results). But it is NOT what the 1917 Code of Canon Law lays down.
As with people who oppose rules on voting, showing proof that you are who you say you are – and have a right to vote (no tidal wave of mail-in ballots), people who oppose the 1917 Code of Canon Law are rather unclear as to WHY they oppose it.
If the priest is innocent – he has nothing to fear from clear and strict rules.
And if the priest is guilty he must be punished – not “treated” or “helped”.
Evil is a CHOICE – to deny this is to go into the heresy of Determinism.
That is not just a Catholic view – Spinoza was rejected by Judaism for the heresy of Determinism.
If a paedophile priest uses Determinism, “I could not stop myself” “my actions were predetermined – I did not choose to rape the boy”, as a “defence” it is not a defence at all – what he has done is add another offence to the charge sheet.
Czechoslovakia was an early arms exporter to Israel.
This was done, of course, by order of Stalin. Stalin gave substantial help to Israel’s survival in the 1948 war of Independence.
Stalin (and Lenin) hated the British so much that they thought that their enemy’s enemy must be their friend. And, indeed, many of the early settlers in Israel were of Russian origin and communist ideology.
Robert Maxwell helped arrange the Czech arms deal.
The Israeli army’s standard (main) rifle was called in Israel “Czech rifle”. It was a Mauser ’98, received from Czechia. (WW2 surplus), nobody knows whether manufactured in Czechia or Germany. It was the main rifle at least until 1967.
Same for the Messerschmidt’s 109, but these were few and only used in 1948.
(When the KKK set up shop in Canada in the 1920s-1930s, they had a hard time finding any blacks to pester because the population here was so tiny. But, no problem! They just focussed on the other two objects of their bile: Catholics and Jews.
Other than the immediate period after the Civil War when the KKK was a genuine local defence organisation, the KKK was focussed on Catholics – white, but ethnically different from the American majority – for most of its history until the post-WW2 period. The anti-black KKK is mostly a Hollywood thing. Today it is more FBI honeytrap than actual organisation, though don’t expect Hollywood or the FBI to tell you that.
Has anyone pointed out that the flag of the Northern Ireland government includes the Star of David? Just thought I’d get that one in.
From what I have read, it does appear Stalin’s early support for Israel was at least to some degree motivated by a desire to undermine Britain. In the late 1940s, Britain was a major influence still in the Middle East. Even though Jordan had been formally independent since 1946, it’s army had British officers during the 1948 war. And Britain still had significant influence in Iraq and Egypt before their monarchies were overthrown.
By the late 1950s that had largely changed. Iraq and Egypt were now republics hostile to Britain and the Jordanians had removed the British officers. And the Soviets would become increasingly anti-Israel.
In late May Ireland, Norway and Spain all recognised Palestine as a state. I can’t find it now, but I remember Alan Dershowitz saying on his podcast that Ireland and Norway were two of the most anti-Semitic countries in Europe.
Of the three it was Norway I found the most surprising. Inoffensive, polite Norway, the Scandinavian Canada? Really?
Jacob.
Some (some) Zionists were socialist – but very few were Marxists, this is because Marxism rejected Zionism. The Israeli Labour Party sometimes got close to 50% of the vote – but never actually got there (the British Labour Party did much the same here in the United Kingdom – back in the late 1940s and even as late as 1966) – and the Israeli Labour Party was not Marxist.
Philosophically one can not be a Marxist and a Zionist at the same time.
As for Jews in practice – at the peak (the peak) 5% (five percent) of Israeli Jews lived in egalitarian or semi egalitarian communities.
These days it is much less than that – these egalitarian (Plato style) communities, have been in decline since at least the 1970s – when the subsidies stopped.
Politically Israel today is much less leftist than Britain – and socially (in terms of stable families and so on) Israel is a lot more socially conservative than the United States – where the culture, society, has been in decline for at least 60 years.
but very few were Marxists, this is because Marxism rejected Zionism
False. Totally false.
Marxism (i.e. Stalin) was pro-Israel until maybe 1950.
A great many Israelis at the time ( say until 1950-52) were ardently Marxists.
Things have changed since then. Israel has absorbed millions of immigrants who were anti-Marxists. Stalin has changed Marxism’s position vs Israel. The Israeli Marxists – ardent admirers of Stalin, got disillusioned gradually and less Marxist. Stalin died…
Marxism was the dominant ideology of most veteran Israeli settlers (not all ) until the middle 1950ies.
Of course, things have changed, and what you said is correct for the 1960ies and onward.
Philosophically one can not be a Marxist and a Zionist at the same time.
Well, Marxism is (or was) what Stalin said it is. Marxism was pro-Zionist in 1948. Stalin ( and Marxism) changed his mind later.
I thought it was what Karl Marx said it is…
And do you know what Marx wrote about the Jews?
I mean – there is nothing in Marxist Ideology (say in the writings of Karl Marx or Lenin) that is anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism ( and Pro Arab) was a policy adopted later by Stalin and the other USSR leaders. A matter of policy, not Ideology, maybe we can say a matter of oil.
Maybe also a matter of Israel choosing (in the 1950ies) to be part of the West, over the USSR.
On this, i can agree.
(I especially like the bit about oil.)
But let’s wait and see what Paul has to say.
I thought it was what Karl Marx said it is… Marxism is flexible. Under Lenin it was what Lenin said. Under Stalin – the same (i.e. what Stalin said).
I don’t think Karl Marx had anything to say about Zionism which did not yet exist in his time.
Jacob – Marxism and Zionism are philosophically incompatible.
And in practical politics they were rivals – as Winston Churchill pointed out in a essay written more than 100 years ago.
Of course Marxists will back anything for tactical reasons – they backed white supremacy in South Africa till the early 1920s, some of the people executed after the failed “Rand Revolt” went to the gallows singing “The Red Flag” – does this mean that South African Afrikaner nationalism was Marxist? And then the Marxists switched to backing the black people – who they also did not really care about, any more than they had really cares about the Afrikaners.
As for Joseph “Stalin” – no he did not like Jews, and he did not really like Nationalism of any group of people, although as “Commissar for the Nationalities” (back in the early days) he has learned to pretend to like it.
Lots of folk dances, and national dress, and all that – but no REAL independence for any ethnic group.
Jacob – yes Marxism is flexible about tactics, but it is not flexible about objectives. And no, the Marxism of “Stalin”, is not really different from the Marxism of “Lenin” – not in objectives, which were set by Dr Marx himself.
“Zionism did not exist in the time of Karl Marx” – yes it did.
Even leaving aside “next year in Jerusalem” (I take it you know when that is said – and has been said for so many centuries) there were repeated efforts, over the centuries, to return to the land (normally ending in massacre by Islamic forces). As for the life time of Karl Marx – Moses Montefiore was funding settlements in the 1850s (Karl Marx did not die till 1883).
The largest ethnic group in Jerusalem (admittedly only a small town) was Jewish – even before this.
It is true that Moses Montefiore was not devout in his youth – but a visit to the Jewish community in Jerusalem in 1827 changed him.
It was then that words that he had said all his life (as all Jews said them) first seemed to have really hit him – the desire to make the words a reality, takes hold of him after 1827.
“Stalin” was deeply cynical about ethnic nationalism – of any sort.
He was happy to push the outward trappings of ethnic nationalism, of all sorts of groups, without the slightest intention of giving them any REAL independence.
As I said – folk dances, national dress, music, all fine to Stalin (indeed he would happily push all of this). But any move for any real independence – and the nationalists would get a bullet in the back of the head.
Luther’s views on Jewish people were horrific. I suspect that he’s a reason among many others for antisemitism in Germany.
The Reformation reminds a bit of modern Islamism: a more “pure” verdin of a religion that is also intensely political.
The saving grace ( excuse the pun) of it was how the Reformation, crucially, was enabled by the printing press. That eventually spawned the transmission of ideas that undermined much religious dogma and in ways that a bigot like Luther would have hated.
This is why the Whiggish calls you used to hear that ‘Islam needs a reformation’ in response to Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, Taliban etc were very misinformed.
Al Qaeda and co are the Islamic reformation.
Yes Johnathan Pearce.
Adolf Hitler was able to quote, at length and without selective editing, from Dr Luther’s writings on the Jews – to make his own case for violence against the Jews.
Dr Luther’s defenders say that he ill and in pain when he wrote these various things – I suppose I could make that excuse for some of the things I write.
Dr Luther himself would simply say that everything he wrote was predetermined – see his “Bondage of the Will” (which horrified Erasmus – and rightly so).
He, Martin Luther (human shaped object – not subject, not person, essentially soulless), was predetermined to stand in a certain place and predetermined to make certain sounds (words) at a certain time – he could “do no other”.
There is one free will being in the philosophical system of Martin Luther – God.
Thomas Hobbes, de facto (de facto – he does not formally admit it), removes God (as a free will spirit – soul) from the universe – and makes everything predetermined by materialistic process.
In short Hobbes (and those who followed him – such as Hume and Bentham) are like Martin Luther – but with the “God bit” taken out.
“It was not my choice – it was predetermined that I rape this child to death, you can not blame me as I could do no other than I did”.
Answer.
“It is not our choice to hang you – it was predetermined that we hang you, you can can not blame us, as we can do no other than we are about to do”.
“Zionism did not exist in the time of Karl Marx” – yes it did.
The Jews always hoped and prayed for a return of the old glorious days of the Kingdom of David and the restoration of the Jewish temple.
But the Zionist movement was founded by Dr. Theodor Herzl in the first Zionist congress at Basel in 1897. It declared it’s purpose to be the establishing of a Jewish state in Palestine, by actual, practical, political action. It was a plan of action – not like the millennium old prayer which was just an expression of longing.
As to Marxism and Zionism: Marxism’s slogan is “Workers of the world unite!” – Marxism was against nationalism in general (at leas theoretically). Not against Zionism.
In practice, up to this day, Marxism is against nationalism in countries that oppose it (say Ukraine) but for Nationalism in countries that support it (like Arab nationalism, or Syrian). The USSR was for Russian nationalism, but against nationalism of Eastern Europe countries that it occupied.
The idolization of holy Mother Russia was a fundamental component of Stalinist propaganda.
Marxism promoted the utopian vision that when the Communist ideal paradise is established, all will be equal, no differences between people, no nations, no borders, no religion, and therefore no need for a Jewish state. Nevertheless, Stalin established an autonomous Jewish District in Birobidzhan (Siberia), in 1931. And – Stalin was also an antisemite – no doubt about that.
It is futile to seek any consistency or logic whatsoever in Marxism in general or in Stalin.
Paul:
Not sure about Luther, but there is at least one “free will being” in the system of William of Ockham: God.
William prized logical consistency; which is why he inferred that, if God has “free will” (as understood by “metaphysical libertarians”) then Divine Command Theory has to be true.
Which is why i find it bizarre that Paul Marks adheres to the “metaphysical libertarian” view of “free will”; while at the same time rejecting Divine Command Theory.
Jacob:
No, Marxism is not flexible.
Orthodox Marxism died an early death.
Leninism and its offspring (Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc) are heresies of Marxism.
Other heresies include social democracy, (Italian) fascism, (German) nazism, and the Frankfurt School/wokeness.
Obviously, social democracy is by far the least insane.
PS:
Although not obviously, it is my opinion that wokeness is the most insane heresy of Marxism. More insane than Stalinism, Maoism, and certainly Italian fascism.
But there is room for disagreement on whether it is more insane than German nazism, or the Khmer Rouges.
Jacob – I gave an example of someone who was pushing for the land to be a Jewish state again, if you think that Sir Moses Montefiore was not an important figure – then I, respectfully, disagree with you Sir.
I was talking about the principle of Zionism – not the word.
Marxism denies both religion (it is atheist – not agnostic), and it will not accept real independent nations – ethnic nationalism is fine if it is FAKE, lots of folk dancing and national costumes – with Marxist world rule underneath, but not real ethnic nationalism, not actual independent nations. The Marxist wants their united world – as long as it is a Marxist world of course. “Socialism in one country” was always a TACTIC – “Stalin” never abandoned the long term aim of a united Marxist world (of course with some ethnic costumes and folk dancing in the various “Republics”- he did not care about that, as long as POWER was in Marxist hands). In the long term he would not tolerate “bourgeoisie nationalism” – i.e. REAL nationalism, actual independent nations following non Marxist policies.
Atheist (but not Marxist) Zionists.
There have indeed been atheist Zionists – but they have a “God shaped hole” in their argument.
How can God have given the land to the Jews – if God does not exist?
It is true that most land in the area was state owned (about 90% of it) under both the Ottomans and the British – and that private land was fairly bought, with about half of what private land that exists being Muslim owned to this day.
But there is still that “God shaped hole” in the position of atheist Zionists, which may explain why they are declining sort of person (fewer and fewer over time).
Sir Moses Montefiore helped Jews on a personal basis, everywhere in the world, in Palestine too. He never advocated for a Jewish state, so he was not a Zionist. The principle of Zionism is establishing a Jewish state in Palestine (or rather in the land of Israel).
and… Justifying a Jewish state by atheist (Marxist) Jews is easy: they refer to History, not to God. The existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel is a historical fact. (Whether God gave it or not).
Indeed, many of the early settlers in Israel (or in Palestine) were atheist, Marxist Zionists.
“Stalin” never abandoned the long term aim of a united Marxist world — sure, as long as it was led by Russia. Stalin, though not an ethnic Russian himself, was no less a Russian Nationalist than all other Bolsheviks (with the possible exception of Lenin and maybe Trotsky).
No Jacob – you are quite wrong about what Sir Moses Montefiore advocated. He did, not did not, support the land being returned to the Jews.
I have already explained why a Marxist can not be a Zionist – or any other type of real Nationalist.
No “Stalin” was not a Russian Nationalist – no Marxist could be, Bolsheviks were Marxists.
No Snorri – “Lenin”, “Stalin” and Mao did not produce “heresies” of Marxism – on the contrary they were sincere Marxists who did their level best to work how to apply Marxism in practice, something that Dr Marx himself had refused to do (somehow it was all supposed to magically work itself out).
They all wrote extensively trying to show how their practical work was consistent with the theoretical work of Marx and Engels – they (especially Stalin) produced many volumes on this subject, and there is no reason to suppose they were not sincere. Their error was to fail to see that the problem with Marxism was not that it was incomplete (did not explain what to do, in practice), but, rather, that the basic principles of Marxism were nonsense.
Trotsky may (or may not) have denounced Stalin as not a proper Marxist, and Stalin may (or may not) have said the same about Trotsky – but, in truth, their shared doctrines covered almost all the basic doctrines – they were both Orthodox Marxists (their desire to kill each other was more personal rivalry than a dramatic difference in fundamental doctrine).
The “heretic” Marxist was clearly Mussolini – who, whilst an ardent admirer of Karl Marx till his dying day (executed by Orthodox Marxists – Stalinists, who are Orthodox Marxists) eventually treated Marx as just one thinker among others – to be borrowed from, rather than “slavishly” followed.
Obviously Orthodox Marxists could not tolerate such heresy – which is why they killed him.
As for the existence of human beings….
I find it “bizarre” that you, repeatedly, deny the existence of human beings, human personhood, Snorri.
Clearly if human actions are predetermined – if we can do no other than we do, then political tyranny has no moral importance, and neither does human life. The enslavement or extermination of humans (who, according to you Snorri are NOT human beings – as moral agency, free will, does not, according to you, exist – so, according to you, humans are NOT beings) would not be a moral matter – it would be a morally indifferent matter.
After all a dam ending the “freedom” of water to gush into an area is of no moral importance as regards the water itself – as the “freedom” of the water is not about moral choice, the water has no free will and the water is, therefore, NOT a person.
Violating the “freedom” of the water to gush about is not a moral matter as the water has no free will – moral agency, personhood. It makes no real choices.
Morality, ethics, is about persons, free will beings, – if there are not, and can not be, persons, free will beings, then there is no such thing as morality/ethics. As there would be no persons to make moral choices – indeed moral choices are ruled out of existence, by the doctrine that we “can do no other than we do”.
If God did not exist, moral good and moral evil would remain the same – as they are not just a matter of what God commands and what God forbids.
Indeed an evil order by a being claiming to be God would remain an evil order – one that should be refused.
The point is to make a moral effort to overcome the passions and do what is morally right.
We are beings – we can, by moral reason, work out what is morally right, and by a moral effort, overcome our passions (all humans have evil within in us – indeed every day is a struggle against it, if only over small things) and do what is morally right.
“This is wrong – so I ought not to it”.
And.
“I must not allow my moral reason to become a slave of the passions – to become simply instrumental reason as in how-do-I-get-away-with-doing-this”.
Should be our principles.
Sadly much easier to write all this than to live it – as human beings (for we are beings – we have moral agency, free will, if we make the great effort needed) have known for thousands of years.
It may also (perhaps) be the case that the soul, moral personhood (the “I”) dies with the body – this possibility has also been understood for thousands of years, see (for example) the work of Alexander of Aphrodisias (the commentator on Aristotle) on the subject.
“And if we morally fail?”
We all fail – sometimes horribly so.
Then we must sincerely repent and ask for the forgiveness of those we have wronged – as well as of God.
Repentance that hides from just punishment is not real repentance.
This is why the Hollywood view of, for example, the Catholic Church is quite wrong – someone who commits terrible crimes and then only says some “Our Fathers” or “Hail Marys” should NOT (under the principles) be granted absolution.
The priest should (should – if the principles were followed) say “give yourself up to just punishment – I will visit you in your cell, God will be with you to the end, and beyond”.
If the man replies “I will not do that” – then the answer should be “then you have cut yourself off from the absolution granted by God – cut yourself off by your own choice”.
No amount of saying “Hail Marys” or “Our Fathers” (on its own – without real repentance, which must include surrendering to just punishment) can change this – not if the actual principles are being followed.
Paul:
On the contrary: I have repeatedly said that, by accepting the sophistry of Alexander of Aphrodysias, it is YOU who is denying the existence of real freedom of choice.
Instead of engaging with my arguments, you keep repeating the sophisms of A. of A.
>Paul Marks
“Comrades, this is not true Marxism!”
Lots of people in Soviet Union said it as they were dragged to be shot, for no avail.
As others said, in Stalin’s time Stalin decided what is “true Marxism” and what is not. Many times both theory and practice changed by 180 degrees, not only in case of Israel and Zionism.
Nevertheless, Soviet national policy was sincere. The decision was made to recognize all national groups (with often arbitrary line what constitutes “nation”) and encourage their national languages, songs and dances (often deliberately created out of nothing)
See this book
https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Empire-Nationalism-1923-1939/dp/0801486777
This was exceptional, at the time all modern countries worked hard to elliminate local languages and cultures and make everyone “French” “Italian” “German” etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha
Jews were explicitly recognized as separate nation and the plan was to make them settle in Birobidzhan (few of them were interested in this gift).
Snorri – if humans can not do other than they do (as you have repeatedly stated) then there is no choice.
By your own arguments humans are NOT beings.
And therefore, for example, the criminal law is based on a philosophical error – as the human (not human being – as, according to your arguments there are no human beings) in the dock was unable to choose to do other than they did.
The criminal law is based on the philosophical assumption that a human is a human being (a free will moral agent) and could, with moral effort, have chosen to do other than they did.
A reminder to people reading this thread – not a reminder directed to any particular person on the thread.
An orthodox Marxist is someone who holds that the workers of the world should unite – and take the means of production, distribution and exchange into collective control.
“Lenin”, “Stalin”, Mao, Castro, and so on – were all Orthodox Marxists, trying, as best they could, to put the ideas of Karl Marx into practice.
An orthodox Marxist can not, by definition, support the real independence of nations (i.e. their right to follow anti Marxist policies if they so wish) – an orthodox Marxist, by definition, can not be a real Russian Nationalist, or real Zionist, or real Nationalist of any other sort – although YES they may push Folk Dancing, National Dress, and other such things (“Stalin” as Commissar for Nationalities did indeed push these things – but fully supported the execution of real Nationalists, most certainly including Russian Nationalists).
Frankfurt School, or “Cultural”, Marxism to-some-extent replaces the Working Class with various ethnic or sexual groups.
But (importantly) Frankfurt School Marxists keep the Marxist doctrine of “exploitation and oppression” and keep the Marxist objective of a world united under Marxism.
One can not be a Frankfurt School Marxist and a real (as opposed to folk dancing and so on) Nationalist – at least not at the same time.
The attack, by the late David Hume, on the “I” (for example his attack upon the position that a thought means there must be a thinker) is precisely about undermining the concept of the human person.
Thomas Hobbes had the same objective – but his method of attack was rather crude compared to that of Mr Hume. The attack, the attack on the foundational principle of the existence of persons, of Mr Hume is subtle.
The attack by Mr Hume is presented as an effort to explain the human mind – but it is really an effort to deny the existence of the human mind, of the human person.
“Explain away” rather than “explain” – not that the human person (the soul – in either the religious or non religious sense) can really be “explained”.
To bring things up to date – the picture of what humans are, presented by F.A. Hayek in his “The Sensory Order” presents objects that are not human persons (not free will beings) and can not be considered to be of any moral importance.
The enslavement or extermination of such objects (objects – not subjects) would be a morally indifferent matter.
Hayek himself accepted that most thinkers who accepted his philosophical position (that humans are not beings – a position he took from Mr Hume) took totalitarian political conclusions from this philosophical position – but he claimed that the implications of the philosophical position were not what most thinkers of the time believed they were. Hayek was mistaken – the implications are what he said they were not.
One can not keep liberal politics if one rejects the philosophical foundations of liberalism – indeed the philosophical foundations of regarding humans as having any moral importance.
An orthodox Marxist can not, by definition, support the real independence of nations
Yet this is exactly what USSR did all the time. They supported “decolonialization” – i.e. the establishment of independent Nation States. Of course, they just used and promoted Nationalist feeling in those nations (like Arab nationalism) to promote their political agenda of world dominance (by the Russian Nation).
Maybe all those Soviet leaders during the USSR’s 72 years of existence were not “True Marxists” (according to Paul’s definition or to Marx’s writings).
It is a murky topic. There are substantial differences between “true” Marxism – as it was defined in utopian literature of the 19th century and real Marxism as it existed in the real world.
“True Marxism” is also very liberal, and advocates freedom and equality for all. The exact opposite of what happened in the real Marxist countries. This is just an example of the inner inconsistencies of Marxism. I find it futile to debate what “True Marxism” is – it’s rather nonsense. It is more interesting to observe actual practices performed under the label of Marxism.
What is “true Marxism”? If we go by original intent of the two big beards, then the whole Soviet Union episode had nothing in common with Marxism.
According to M&E, socialist revolution was supposed to happen in the most advanced capitalist countries, trying to build communism in backward place like Russia would be futile and doomed. If Lenin was “true Marxist” he would never dare to try.
And as for the national question, Marx’s vision was diametrically opposed to any “nation building” and “national liberation”. For progress of all mankind, backward nations were supposed to vanish, the sooner the better.
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
Marx would definitely not approve of Soviet national politics, of giving Ukrainians, Belarussian, Kalmyks, Baskhirs etc. their own land, alphabet, schools, books, songs and dances in their languages.
Paul: doubling down on your sophistry isn’t getting you anywhere. Why don’t you engage with the arguments, instead?
As for this:
Criminal law might well be based on a philosophical error, but it does the job of keeping criminals off the streets AND to deter some other potential criminals.
These potential criminals CHOOSE whether or not to commit crimes by weighing the risk of ending up in jail against the benefit from the crimes they contemplate.
If the risk is small enough, then the criminal NECESSARILY CHOOSES to commit the crime.
It is not that they could not DO otherwise: they could not CHOOSE otherwise.
If the risk is high enough, then (s)he NECESSARILY CHOOSES not to commit the crime.
Every normal person considers these to be free choices; which is why I cannot consider A. of A. a normal person, but a sophist and a crank.
There are borderline cases, of course. I would argue that, in borderline cases, the choice is actually LESS FREE.
Right on!
Further, orthodox Marxism predicts/prescribes the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of intellectuals (or pseudo-intellectuals) like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
I got the idea of the heresies of Marxism from a quote by Richard Pipes, btw … and also by looking at the tables of contents of A. James Gregor’s books.
@Paul Marks
And therefore, for example, the criminal law is based on a philosophical error – as the human … in the dock was unable to choose to do other than they did.
What exactly do you mean by “choose”? People certainly make choices by mechanisms built into their brains, beautiful and sophisticated machines. So if that is what you mean by “choose” then they certainly can choose. But if you mean there is some extra corporeal force that influences the machinery of their brain, I’d simply ask — what is it? What evidence do you have it is there?
I think I’ve asked you this several times, and don’t think you have really answered. If you did and I missed it or I forgot, my apologies, but I’d appreciate it if you told me again.
You cannot argue for a proposition being false simply because the consequences of it not being true are undesirable. The fact that humans are mortal has a LOT of undesirable consequences, but that cannot be used to argue that humans are not mortal. So similarly you cannot say “there must be an extra corporeal influence on decisions because if there isn’t, the consequences to the legal system would be terrible.”
Fraser Orr.
If choices are predetermined they are not real choices.
Choice is not predetermined by “mechanisms built into the brain” or by anything else – and nor is choice random.
Choice is choice – it is itself, not some other thing. Humans are beings – moral agents (we have moral agency – free will).
However, your position does make politics simpler.
If moral agency (choice – free will) does not exist, as you seem to be claiming, then it can be violated by tyranny – as something that does not exist can not be violated.
If your philosophical position is correct, then there is no point in opposing tyranny – as tyranny would not be violating the free will of human beings, as, according to your position, there is no free will – there are no human BEINGS (moral agents).
I have already explained what Marxism is – so there is no great need for me to explain the matter again. Although I will say the idea that Karl Marx took orders from industrial workers is utterly absurd – on the contrary, in every organisation he set up he, and his friend Frederick Engels, had absolute power.
And I have already explained why, whilst Marxists may, tactically, use supposed support for national independence (“National Liberation Fronts” and the like) one can NOT be a Marxist (either orthodox or Frankfurt School) and a sincere Nationalist – at the same time.
Still – yet again.
A Marxist is someone who believes that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be under collective control – on a world wide scale (hence “workers of the world unite” – and so on). But Dr Marx never explained how that collective control would work in practice, so “Lenin” and the others had to try and work this out. And, no, Karl Marx did not support worker cooperatives or sydicalism – “society” was to “organise production”.
A Frankfurt School Marxist keeps-this-objective (tyranny – on a world wide scale) – but stresses ethnic or sexual groups rather than the “working class”.
I may be getting a bit cynical, but I strongly suspect that the people on this thread already know about these matters – both moral agency (free will), and what Marxism is – and why it is not compatible with real independence (national independence must include the right to follow ANTI Marxist policies).
As you already know all his (without me) the question arises of why I should type the same things over-and-over again, for people who already know. Indeed knew before I typed anything.
My apologies Frasor Orr – I meant to type that if free will (moral agency) does not exist it can NOT be violated by tyranny (as something that does not exist – can not be violated), I missed out one of the “nots”.
Again – sorry about that.
The point, as you know, is that if Determinism or “Compatibilism” (which is just determinism dressed up in a poor disguise – even Kant and William James understood that, and, correctly, denounced “Compatibilism”) are correct – humans are not beings (do not have free will – moral agencies) and so totalitarianism would be a morally indifferent matter.
Just as “violating” the freedom of water by building a dam, or the freedom of a clockwork mouse by smashing it with a hammer, are morally indifferent matters – as far as the water and the clockwork mouse are concerned.
Neither the water or the clockwork mouse have free will – and one can not violate what does not exist.
Basic object rather than subject distinction.
The freedom of subjects (free will beings) morally matters – the “freedom” of objects does not morally matter.
Again, as you already know, if people can not choose to do other than they do (if it all predetermined by “structures in the brain” or whatever) then actions in the 1930s, or early 1940s can not be condemned – as the people could not have chosen NOT to do what they did.
@Paul Marks
Again – sorry about that.
np, thanks for the correction.
The point, as you know, is that if Determinism or “Compatibilism”
I try to avoid terms like that because they come with all sorts of baggage, and for sure, as I have said before, the universe is definitely not deterministic. Rather what I’d rather say is what I said before, our decisions come from the mechanisms of the gray matter in our craniums only, not some non material component.
And this I suppose is what I’d like to try to get some clarification of from you. If you say that choice is partly influenced by something outside of that amazing neural machine, what is that influence? What, besides neurons and axons, leads to you to decide to take a particular action?
A clever question, Fraser.
It does show that you are unfamiliar with Paul’s “philosophy”.
(I still think that a better term is ‘sophistry’.)
But let’s wait and see what Paul has to say.
(Apologies to Perry for having to wade through all this off-topic verbiage.)
Expanding on the above:
And yet, “generative AI” does not make choices, other than random choices. (Please correct me if i am wrong.)
And yet, you advocate generative AI as a model of intelligence.
Am i to conclude that, for you, intelligence does not imply making real (non-random) choices?
— a relatively minor point:
This is where you show that you do not grasp Paul’s “”philosophy””.
@Snorri Godhi
And yet, “generative AI” does not make choices, other than random choices.
I’ll ask you the same question — what do you mean by choose? AI does not make random choices, it makes logical conclusions based on data. Do bacteria make choices? How about fleas or spiders?
And yet, you advocate generative AI as a model of intelligence.
Again, it all depends on the meaning of the words involved. If by “intelligent” you mean the ability to process data (which, for example, is the basis of IQ tests) then it plainly is intelligent. If you mean something else you’d have to be more specific. The problem with these discussions is that we don’t have clean definitions of the words, and especially so when we are applying words like “intelligence” that are so heavily tied to the substrate (the human mind) to which they have historically applied.
I have said many times, probably several times on this blog, we can agree on the answer to the question “do I have free will” as soon as we can all agree on the meaning of the words “I”, “have”, “free” and “will”.
Which is why I wanted to be so specific with Paul on this matter which has sharp clean edges: what non-corporeal influence does he think exists that affect our decisions? Until we do that we are just talking past each other because we aren’t using words to mean the same thing.
If the consequences of a theory are absurd (not “unpleasant” – absurd) the theory is clearly false.
Claiming, as Determinism and “Compatibilism” (the latter being a hollow fraud) do, that people can not choose to do other than they do (that “choices” are predetermined) is absurd – because it leads to absurd conclusions such as the conclusion that the people responsible for the mass murder in the Soviet Union in the 1930s could not have chosen to do other than they did.
However, for people who refuse to accept to accept that absurd conclusions mean that a theory that leads to them is absurd….
The central fact that each of us have is our own existence – our consciousness, the “I” (that Descartes said this does NOT make it wrong – and many people had pointed it out before him) – this is a fact that we can be sure, our own existence – we are free will beings, we have moral responsibility for our actions because we can, with moral effort, choose to do other than we do (we can, with moral effort, defeat the passions – at least some of the time).
The “I” (the free will being) is what we know, indeed it is what we are – and anything (most certainly including “the science” – sadly much of this has become irrational) that is claimed to contradict this central fact (the fact of our own self knowledge) is false.
Efforts to pretend that we do not have free will, that we can not choose to do other than we do (that our “choices” are predetermined) – are classic “Bad Faith”, they are excuses for terrible crimes.
As for Marxism.
When someone has explained, several times, what Marxism is, and how it is not compatible with any REAL Nationalism (as if a nation is independent it must be allowed to follow an ANTI Marxist policy – if that is what most people in the nation want). Then there comes a point where repeating the same thing again and again becomes pointless.
Again when it becomes clear that the people one is conversing with are guilty of “Bad Faith” further conversation is pointless.
“Lenin” and co were not Russian Nationalists (no Marxist can be a real Nationalist of any sort – see above for WHY, although they may push folk dancing, national costumes, terrorist “National Liberation Fronts” and so on, for TACTICAL reasons) , and they, including Stalin, did their best (or worst) to try and put the vague ideas of Karl Marx that “society will organise production” (The German Ideology – 1845) into practice.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were not about Worker Cooperatives or Syndicalism.
I apologise for typing “to accept” twice, rather than once – but no one, of Good Faith, will claim to be confused by the typing mistake, so there is no point in typing the whole comment again.
Fraser:
(1) GENERATIVE “ai” does make random choices, which is why it does not always give the same answer to the same question.
(1b) GENERATIVE “AI” does not follow logic, in fact some of the answers it gives are blatantly self-contradictory: it just knows statistical associations.
(2) Making choices implies having at least 2 options in short-term memory, AND the ability to assign a figure-of-merit to every option. (There is also the ability to choose the best option, which seems trivial but, according to incompatibilists like A. of A., Spinoza, and Paul Marks, it destroys freedom.)
The knee-jerk reflex might be the logical consequence of stretching the patellar tendon, but it is not a choice. A chess move is a choice.
(3) I see no way for bacteria to store options in short-term memory, let alone to compute figures of merit. Don’t know about fleas or spiders, but fish definitely can make choices. Although they are not real choices according to Paul Marks, because fish choose the best option.
@Paul Marks
If the consequences of a theory are absurd (not “unpleasant” – absurd) the theory is clearly false.
That’s a strange argument. I think it is absurd that we live and grow and learn and accumulate all the wisdom of life and then suddenly we die and all that effort rots in the ground. I think it is absurd that if you look at a proton it sometimes has three quarks and sometimes five, when no external impact has caused the change.
The world is full of absurd things that are true. In logic there is a rule that a self contradictory thing cannot be true, but there is nothing self contradictory about it.
I read the rest of your comment and I don’t think you answered my question. What is this extra corporeal force that is influencing my decisions beyond my simple brain matter? Until we answer that we can’t really discuss whether it exists or not.
Fraser:
Please don’t take it personally if i savagely attack your positions.
🙂
— First, i note that you are not addressing my points (1) and (1b) in my comment above; which strongly suggests to me that you do not understand how ChatGPT works.
— Second: your usage of the term “absurd” sounds alien to me. I understand that you grew up in Scotland, but it seems that you are very Americanized. I am very Americanized myself, but am trying hard to purge what i see as bad American influences from my mind.
— Third: You ask Paul:
Paul does not claim that there is anything “extra corporeal” that is influencing our decisions.
That is just your (fantastizing) interpretation of what he writes.
Paul just approves of anybody who uses the kind of sophistry that he likes (including materialists such as Ayn Rand).
And he feels angry, and lashes out, when somebody points out the logical inconsistencies.
@Snorri Godhi
Please don’t take it personally if i savagely attack your positions.
I’d rather you politely disagreed presenting your reasons, but if savagely presenting your reasons is what you want then go ahead. I’m a big boy. I used to cross swords with Kirk who was a really nasty character. But he seems to have faded from the commentariat. You I find interesting and fairly earnest and honest in your arguing — something that Kirk was not.
— First, i note that you are not addressing my points (1) and (1b) in my comment above; which strongly suggests to me that you do not understand how ChatGPT works.
I didn’t fail to address it, I just didn’t get around to it. My response was to Paul not you. ChatGPT does not have a random component, there might be other LLMs that do, but, certainly from my understanding and some searching that is not true. The reason you get different answers to the same prompt is that the prompt is not the only influence on the answer. The context (and many other things also affect it.) Let me ask you, if you asked your wife or girlfriend the same question twice in a row, would you get the same answer? Probably not. Because part of her environment for answering is that you already asked.
As to logic, I was using the word logic a bit carelessly. I’m not suggesting any logic based on the semantics of the text, I just mean that it is a mathematical, predictable transform process. But, to be clear, so are our brains. Though truthfully our brains actually do have a real random component associated with them since they are probabilistic based on the random movement of certain enzymes in our brains. Computer models are not so messy as biology.
— Second: your usage of the term “absurd” sounds alien to me.
That wasn’t my word, it was Paul’s word. I suggest you go back and read the argument I was rebutting.
Paul does not claim that there is anything “extra corporeal” that is influencing our decisions.
Well he claims that decisions we make are made based on something beyond the molecules of our mind. If that is the case that influence is by definition extra corpereal. He didn’t use that word, but that is what he is saying nonetheless. But I can’t speak for him. I am waiting for him to give a clear answer on this.
I have a clear disagreement with Paul. I’m honestly not at all clear where I disagree with you on this matter, in fact my initial comment was in support of your critique of Paul.
However, I guess this post is like ten behind current, so it is probably just you and me here, and maybe Paul. Not sure. So perhaps it is time to move on. I’m sure this subject will come up again. In fairness though I’ll let you have the final whack at the piñata.
Maybe if one reads “absurd” as “incoherent” or “internally inconsistent”? As in a logical impossibility?
@bobby b
Maybe if one reads “absurd” as “incoherent” or “internally inconsistent”? As in a logical impossibility?
Well if that is what he meant it is a different argument. “Absurd” is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. “Internally inconsistent” isn’t. However, it is also a claim requiring some back up, which is to say a demonstration of a logical inconsistency. But saying “lack of moral agency would have really bad consequences” is a statement of a bad result not a logical inconsistency.
And FWIW, I don’t think I claimed that there was no such thing as moral agency, just that it is not something external to the molecules of our mind. It is simply an emergent system.
The problem with discussing this is largely one of vocabulary. Words that a designed to apply to one domain being used to discuss another where they don’t quite fit. “I must be able to make a different choice.” Obviously your mind can make a different choice if the inputs influencing it are different. The problem is with the word “I”. What does one mean by “I” here? There is a subtle implication that “I” is something beyond the molecules of the mind. That my different decision is made by something other than the particular neural and chemical configuration of my brain. But to me “I” is just an emergent system from the massively complex molecular interactions of the brain.
And that is true irrespective of what the consequences might be. In fact, it is a framework for us to better judge what the consequences are and how to react to them.
But there you go, I was going to bail on this thread and up you pop BobbyB. Just when I think I’m out they drag me back in.
Did they drag you back in? Or did the workings of your intellect, combined with the overlays of your own assembled-over-time moral structure and personal curiosity trigger you to choose, freely, to come back in? 😉
(Sorry, this whole discussion is so far out of my wheelhouse that I can only nibble at the vocab edges. In my untrained naivete, I see philosophy-as-a-discipline mostly as vocabulary tension. Of course, I see law the same way, but at least legal studies have a (practical) point. 😉 )
@bobby b
Did they drag you back in?
LOL.
I see philosophy-as-a-discipline mostly as vocabulary tension.
I think that is absolutely true. Most of philosophy is people talking past each other because they have completely different meanings for words. And a lot of moral philosophy even more so because not only are they talking past each other with the meanings of words but also because they have fundamentally different core moral axioms.
But I don’t think it is without practical effect. All of us use some sort of Rube Goldberg cobbled together philosophy to let us know right from wrong, and to give us meaning and purpose to our lives. And that is definitely worth something.
If you mean that philosophical arguments arise from different definitions of words, that is sometimes (not always) correct.
In fact, my disagreements with Paul and Fraser basically fall into this category. By “free choice”, Paul means a choice that is free from determinism — and note that he does not give any specific example of a free choice, as i did when i wrote about potential criminals. If he did, his entire philosophy would collapse.
(2 other examples that i like are choosing from a restaurant menu, and choosing a chess move.)
Fraser, by contrast, seems to ask what Paul or i mean by “choice”, not because he wants to know what we mean, but as a rhetorical question, to dismiss the distinction between choices and other complex physical processes. (And to be sure, Hobbes and Hume make the same mistake.) Again, he fails to give specific examples of human choice.
— Another verbal disagreement is over the meaning of “absurd”. I apologize for castigating Fraser for his Americanized usage. What he should have been castigated for, is failing to see what Paul meant when he wrote:
The above statement is true if by ‘absurd’ Paul meant ‘self-contradictory’, and i see no other sensible interpretation of it; therefore, that is the way i interpret it until i see evidence to the contrary in Paul’s writings.
It IS possible that, by ‘absurd’, Paul meant anything that seems wrong to him; but then the statement would not be true.
— BTW i think that Fraser is wrong in saying that ChatGPT is a deterministic algorithm, but i am going to look it up.
(Of course, without input from some quantum device, eg a Geiger counter, every computer program can be at most pseudo-random, not truly random; but that is a distinction without a practical difference.)