Posts Tagged ‘socialists’

Reply to a Nationalist point of view

Posted by devilsapprentice on February 20, 2008

israeli flag

I came across a blog article entitled “Poor Jews are not poor at all” that:

Torn apart from all the pre-existing thought structures a Jewish person may have related to existence and:

“Jewish existence” that on one hand stated “Isolation is a means of Jewish existence”, then immediately took that verbal deception away

by saying “Anything not isolated, assimilates.” By insultingly suggesting we as Jews should live in caves, or if we do not have no back bone to be Jews.

Continuing to remind us as if in an interrogation by some twisted wording on Jewish religion:

In terminology that switched back and forth first presuming without definition that “If Jewish purpose is different from other ‘nations’ ”

It then assumes also without definition “then the Jewish life must be different.”; at which point it conjected “One cannot lead a different life while intermingling with others.” Presuming that people do not have the integrity to be individuals who they suggest or state are not up to “Judaism is a full-day occupation”:

Though we can presume they think well of themselves or their masters who ever that may be.

They spoke sounding of guilt of a divided conscience that “One cannot be a person like others (Gentiles) during the day, and remain Jewish at night in the private sphere.”

Where by the insult “Moderately religious Jews and [those whom they call] their atheist rabbis” merely by labeling them as such, shamelessly in accusation that they the “Moderately religious Jews and their atheist rabbis”:

“proclaim various “same-same but different” policies. A popular variety of such policy is economic interconnection along the ritual or demographic isolation. That won’t work.

That continues to lectures how they are so incapable and in competent stating:

People do business with trustworthy individuals. Only the predictable individuals are trustworthy. Only the individuals with readily comprehensible system of values are predictable. Throughout the history, Gentiles conducted with Jews simple business where it was enough to know of the Jews’ immediate honesty. Modern business transactions are complex and require full-fledged trust. Look at the difficulties American businessmen have doing business in China or Russia; mentality and value systems are too different for comfortable cooperation. Western (non-expatriate) investment in China remains minuscule compared to trans-Atlantic investment. A similar problem awaits the Jews if we want to be different and adhere to our own system of values. A religious Israel would be able to trade with other countries, but not engage in complex economic cooperation. No one likes odd partners.

Repeating in exaggeration what has been generally accepted that:

Religious people cannot grow rich. Affluent, possibly, but not rich. Many rich hypocrites pose as religious, but they are assimilated, atheist, lack the fear of God, and conduct religion as a set of rites rather than live a religious life.

Which is the case with all religions Christians, Buddhists, even committed principles humanists as the author internalized and projected psychologically his own insecurities.

That then departs from the unity of a people, the Jewish people, by proclaiming what they envision of hardships ahead within:

“A common objection to the second Jewish state of Judea is its limited economic capacity. That is far from certain. A theocracy built around the laws of Torah would be a laissez-faire state with very low taxes and next to no regulation. Such a state can prosper in many areas from offshore banking to jewelry to tax haven. But the big question is, would Jews accept moderate economy in return for the religious and simply Jewish life? Judging by the millions of American Jews preferring assimilation and affluence of America to limited economic opportunities and Jewishness of Israel, few Jews would move to Judea. But they will be the best Jews.”

This author was a committed “Zionist” yet he/she shared the same vision for the “Jewish people” as did a “socialist” who I had argued with only early this week both suggesting Zionists have to “move to Judea [Israel] all of which I think is bogus as the two also agree with neo-nazis who suggest it would be good to get rid of all Jews if they only all moved to Israel thereby giving up their rights, their homes, their careers their roots else where.

That is what I call an unholy alliance re-enforced by Arab nationalist attempts to isolate Israel which in fact strenthens Jewish nationalists and nationalism which they then bitch and complain about.

I responded at first reading as follows:

(note all this gets read and written when first read and written in a matters of hours so without further staff or assistance it is by nature limited)

Reply to a Nationalist point of view. Andrew Stergiou

“Poor Jews are not poor at all”

Ανδρεου Γιωργος Στεργιου Feb 20 2008

After reading as much of your bourgeois sociological rambling as I could in one sitting before retiring I comment without a desire to denigrate or belittle you questionable comments stating:

All being well and good with what you state conjecturally, without other basis it but that conjecture all good and well nationalism and that is not adding any references all the varied shades of nationalism which exists in theory equal as with one, as with another.

Jewish people have the right to self-determination and all which that means embodied in what is called Zionism but none the less as it is nationalism like any other.

Zionism is presented as nationalism with all the foibles that nationalism fosters, limited within the boundaries limited by self-interests that you admit directly, and which are implied intrinsically in what you imply.

Weither that nationalism is fostered by a Weizmann, a Herzog, a Begin, a Golda Meir, a Meir Kahane, or a Malcolm X it is limited by its own design within the paradox you so well support, but which in attempts to negate what is stated as fact:

Reveals the folly and vanity of human construction attempting to achieve what the almighty he also stated would not for why would the almighty, make a rose as a goat, if that rose was not a goat, or a goat as a rose, if that goat was not a rose?

So you struggle with the tactical vs. strategic, the logical vs. the spiritual, and the true vs. the false.

You go so far as to suggest everything in the negative where Israel will not survive even with nuclear weapons, that occupation is this, that something else is that, rambling hopelessly for something you don’t know awaiting a miracle.

A miracle which is not incumbent upon what you say, what I say, or what anyone one says or does, that rambles in your searching far and wide where maybe you have no wish but in desperation you embrace.

Embrace within the structure of your soul/mind without clear answers in economy you refuse to address, and fundamentals you ignore, so that within all your talk or this and that you embrace a form of Nihilism

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) in a philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value; generally asserting some or all of the following:

* There is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
* A “true morality” does not exist, and
* Objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

“Denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence”

(Wikipedia) that literally means “vanity of vanity, everything is vanity”.

Now if we reject you hyperbolic hypothesis and function as self-defeating then perhaps something real could be accomplished, but that would be all too easy, when then what questions would you bring and whom do you follow asking as of Moses;

“And they said unto Moses: ‘Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to bring us forth out of Egypt?”

So I ask you affirmation of what you think:

“Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast [I] taken [you] away to die in the wilderness? *** [to be] dealt thus with [having been brought] forth out of Egypt?”

This is what you state, and it is an insult which fairly you should retract for if you have no faith why do you not keep it to yourself except to bewilder and perplex the simple minded in base instincts and emotions catering to nothing higher as if we were sheep and cattle taken out of Egypt and not human or any worth, and you were Satan tempting Job waiting for us to curse the almighty.

Where contritely on one hand you claim no solution of any real answers, as if you were a beggar, then demand conversely action forethought, and resolution, which gracelessly you refuse others equally.

I will be finishing an article paper on Zionism and Nationalism which I suggest you read, that I will post and which you may look for if so interested as generally you write well though emotional and bourgeois to the detriment of what you attempt to say and accomplish by twisting emotions.

Ανδρεου Γιωργος Στεργιου

http://devilsapprentice.wordpress.com http://zito.biz https://spusa.wordpress.com


Posted in Israel, Jewish Nationalism, labor, Nationalists, Palestine, socialists | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SECTARIANISM or PROGRESS, and the use of Language

Posted by devilsapprentice on February 19, 2008

SECTARIANISM, PROGRESS, and the use of Language

Today the SPUSA exists like the First Socialist International with a membership of the many various political and philosophic views that existed then and now which led to the founding of First, Second, Third, Fourth Internationals all marching into the future; or,

Marching as if a legion of Doom into the future, to repeat errors of its past in some bizarre fictional trekkie adventure with an infinite number of factions and internationals in it future serializations.

Today the SPUSA faces many of the same issues that I myself as a gambler would have to bet against for it is difficult teaching the old dogs new tricks.
For it is to be learned weither those in the SPUSA can gain with hindsight insight the experiences to look beyond the present and past or it will face an unknown future.

The SPUSA is not at present a very big group it is an expeditionary force on the frontiers of dialogue, discussion, and sectarianism.

In discussion with the SPUSA leadership and members one will note with honesty and ability that its views are varied, that those views are expressed overtly or covertly find expression in varied forms; and for all practicality a minimal long term basis of work does not exist:

As individuals are left to their own creativity, remedies, just as one faction or another, sought to gain influence, in imposing its own vision on that party and future there is an inherent contradiction: of self-interest versus groups interest.
The arguments provoked, and encouraged on the most personal basic levels, are needless in what does not incorporate a perspective representing all socialist views, in what is allegedly internationalism but is not, nor perhaps should be but in all honesty should be reflected as such but is not.

It incorporates even those who in great insight and wisdom would allow “stands firmly and openly on the right of anyone to use [language freely] *** racist, sexist, homophobic, insulting, threatening, and otherwise abusive behavior [in] oppos[ing] any moderation whatsoever”; and those who would regulate and legislate such discussion which also I find in error.

That extreme support of free speech is very diverse but which interesting I find myself supporting though on a political level it seems to support what everyone does not, in a dialogue for a very diverse group that encourages dialogue:
But only if that dialogue can be framed with a constructive basis which it has not been always as often the views proffered are sectarian. In terms of issues not of wording but context which most often is drawn from those parties and contingents around it and which are pre-existing which I do not support.

The SPUSA exists today like the first SDS, or the first Socialist International before the split with the Second Socialist International, before its split with the Third Socialist International, before its split with the Fourth Socialist International, before its split with the Fifth Socialist International, etc ad lib, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Today what exists on the left in the world most of all is distortion, rhetoric, deceit, factionalism it does not represent the ideals of an international socialist movement in all essence to the contrary supports the reactionary mindset that surrounds them and allegedly opposes.

So the issue is forward or backward, refusing to learn from one’s errors and mistakes and languish forever in the same cesspool forever, arguing the same issues, acting in the same childish fashion or progressing forward?

As an Independent and affiliated socialist for the last forty years if anyone thinks they can impose their views on me lets just say they are more than a bit mad as they are viewed as daffy, especially in the expectations related to a socialist group that was not formed in the Leninist model and which is supposed to be at once libertarian socialist and democratic.

A party which is not protected by leadership, membership decisions, rules, policies official and unofficial, but by the actual context supporting those virtues or not which is not what can often be legislated.

The leadership can say whatever it wants but will the membership as a whole truly answer, follow and implement such decisions?

Very often not as the letter of the law is followed but not the spirit in that many acts of legislation by nature polarize alienate and are hypocritical failures pretending to support what they can not achieve!

The membership voice can be with great difficulty heard, but will the leadership truly hear the membership, or will it pay lip service to the membership’s sentiments by stating it is the function of leadership to lead and not always cater to the members immature sentiments?

Rules may be enacted but are those rules the real rules or are there policies secreted in someone’s desk drawers, and do those policies have written and unwritten components in being implemented?

Surely the discover of secrets reports, secret archives, secret conversations and the like worldwide answers that question.

I say most often yes life is risky and that one must accept risks in this day and age, but that that has limitations which are framed with a context of personal, communal, local, regional, national, and international significance.

At present I have not found the SPUSA leadership or membership up to my standards of dialogue as it is severely lacking. Perhaps I can overlook such deficiencies but in the same lights who overlooks mine where my names is attached to every GOD DAMN commentary that refers to me.

I am sick and tired of seeing my name in print but linguistically it shows how incapable humanity is to exist without the use of words or labels and that the god or socialism which exists prior to it adherents is superior to that of what comes afterwards in their speaking.

The western industrialized world’s habits of language is something which I find abhorrent the labels, the details, the mannerisms, it is all reminiscent of a corporate report detailing cost analysis of sneakers made in a dozen countries, or materials from a dozen or so sources, that refers to the most intimate clinical remarks, detailing that shirt collars took on the average 2.5 seconds to sew:
That suggests production can be increased if workers above certain ages were terminated, and profits could be increased in benefits were cut, that lunch was curtailed music was pumped in or turned off.

BUT I am not a machine sorry no turn you own god damn self on and off don’t involve me because you do so selective choosing what you hear and listen to and what you don’t merely for you to find reason to harp on some issue that you find of particular interest.

Why? Maybe you don’t really know.

With the advent of language, computerization and software what socialists of most sorts have become known for is their sectarianisms that becomes manifest in various ways but with one result disaster.

That is why I support also no rules on discussion beyond a limitation of time and space allotted through participation and that such materials should not be of an organizational character labeled as such but representing the individuals abilities to discuss in dialogue the topics issues and matters they raise, which should be discussed fully by specific mention without names except where it is posted.
Some can ask comrade so and so is acting badly it needs to be addressed, how can that be done without mentioning they name?

I ask, are we supposed to discuss issues or write police reports automatically scanned and transcribed naming names as we ourselves add in speaking such names.

Ancient Christianity has some good lessons to be learned on functioning when the environment is hostile they didn’t use overt signs and label but contextual references and it was only when they became institutionalized hundreds of years later that they were subverted by the Emperor of Rome.

As I can sign this and some may view it as signed but for which again I argue is counter productive and most probably be ignored for who of those amongst you could truly answer in satisfaction of what is required?

I say none.

Posted in labor, SDS, socialists, spusa, the vanguard party, vanguard partys | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by devilsapprentice on February 19, 2008


In the United States of America without a labor movement as there exists in other countries; and,

In the United States of America which never had a labor movement as existed in other countries, when one refers to the left one is hard pressed to delineate where that left begins and ends.

Certainly if one supports the trade union movement that can be said, or that if one was in the union movement that can be said, and also if one was a socialist albeit of what ever shade that socialism takes that also can be said.

But for the most part to know the American left of the United States of North America (for it is not really the United States of America but the United States of America north of Mexico and south o Canada) is to perceive the brutal oppression, manipulation, deceit, dishonesty and corruption; within which the American Labor movement and progressive movements were born in the United States, have been subjected, and exist:

In a long history of oppression, repression, surveillance, control, and management which successive American governments and administrations have treated as little more that an annoying nuisance contrary to what has self-servingly been proclaimed by the likes of the FBI, various Congressional committees (e.g. House Un-American Activities Committee), think tanks and other dubious subversive organizations who subvert the American People, the American working class, democratic values, and democratic society, the republic, and even mother and apple pie in that they cater to a system without loyalties to anything other than money and power.

For no where else in the world can the socialist movement internationally be found with such a motley array of counter-productive misfits who often do not serve the purpose of social change, but instead serve the forces of reactionary dysfunctionality and the ruling class.

Now one can say then: Why be a socialist? How bother yourself? Why try to change the unchangeable when there are so many other things to do, places to be, etc?

Because that is the only way they are going to change! For to be for change is to be a socialist, for to be for labor is to be a socialist, for to be for social change is to be a socialist, and to be a freedom loving person within the critical air of reality is to be a socialist it means nothing more in the universal sense because the past has been evil, void and empty; and the future is tedious numbing slavery without socialism.

Herein in writing these are the products of experiences in, on, or with the so called left in America extending for a period of time over the past forty years in which has brought contact with many individuals, parties, and organization of various stripes shades and colors.

For the most part I am just as critical of the so called left as the right, in fact I am even more so critical of the left than right because the right would not exist if it wasn’t for the ineptitudes of the left, because the ruling class would not exist if it wasn’t for the ineptitudes on the left, as everyone knows what the right is up as it publicizes itself daily in the media it owns to in an open book test called the reality where out memories are tested in what yesterday it said, it changes today for something else.


Why not it is the center of world finance in a capitalist society of a world based on capitalist economics right?

Let me begin by asking when the Left in the United States ever directly influenced government in the United States, as corresponding left parties and movements influenced their respective governments in other countries?

Let me add asking when has the Labor movement in the United States ever directly influenced government in the United States, as corresponding labor movements influenced their respective governments in other countries?

The answer is never at no time since the advent of organized labor or socialist parties in the United States has those socialist parties and labor movement ever directly influenced government in the United States, as corresponding socialist parties and labor movements influenced their respective governments in other countries!

Why is that why with all the so called progress that has alleged been made how can one say that the socialist and labor movement never directly influenced the government in the United Stated as it has in other countries?

The answer is simple because there never was a socialist or labor government in the United States, and all influence was derived not by participation in government but by acting as power brokers or kingmakers.

The American Left has been allowed to exist so as to channel the mass dissatisfaction of the American Worker into neatly constructed channels for use or destruction, and often it has existed as a means to provide cover to US Intelligence for their overseas activities where often mainstream thinking and Americans generally have been looked at with suspicion weither being comrades or not.

Many on the left have deluded themselves after decades of not centuries of dysfunctionality that they serve some useful purpose but in reality they have been serving quite conveniently the forces of opportunism or sectarian extremism.

Where today comes a point where there is relatively little appropriate discussion on the left, and even less critical examination of what occurs and is said, as the so called left has with the falling fortunes of world socialism and labor has taken on the characteristics of cults of personalities going through the motions of feigning what they once were.

Where often lies of distortion promoted by the reactionary rightists has gained acceptance unchallenged, where even the history of the left is distorted on relatively basic issues and facts, and remain unnoticed and unchallenged.

Only today I ran across one article in a purportedly left publication that mirrored an argument presented five years in a fascist (neo-nazi) publication without their readers knowing anything than what they were presented.

Currently under investigation from also on the same day is what appears to be a historical distortion presented by such divergent sources as Wikipedia and the Heritage Foundation (amongst others) that purported in allegation (undoubtedly due to the inaccuracy of their paid snitch informers) that there was a fraternal relationship between the Progressive Labor Party and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party when none had previously existed.

So to advance the left, the socialist agenda I challenge it, and they will be my main focus, for the movement for a socialist society does not mean a chicken in every pot, or a car in every garage it means independence, it means more than a shopping list agenda, and more than constituency politics it means a radical assess based upon an empirical materialist analysis, within the subjective context of human expression that has a morality beyond the bottom line of business as usual.

Posted in labor, SDS, socialists, spusa | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »