Genuine Marxists are being excluded from left-wing movements in and around Your Party, to defend perpetrators and inspirers of Zionist genocide, while those responsible make spurious allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ to justify censorship of Marxist criticism. This is a classic behaviour of capitulators to Zionism, and is a hugely damaging blow to the left.
Our comrade Ian Donovan was excluded from ALDA’s discussion list on 25th May for supposed ‘anti-Semitism’ (the entire transcript of the WhatsApp debate that triggered this is included as an Appendix below). He was then excluded from the Member’s Charter/Socialist Federation pre-conference on 31st May simply because of his views. Both exclusions took place without any form of hearing. Yet those who excluded him cannot point to any hostility or discriminatory behaviour against Jews by him at all. Anti-Semitism has a pretty straightforward meaning in the dictionary – a characteristic definition is the one in the Cambridge Dictionary:
“Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”
No such hostility or discrimination can be substantiated against him. The sole reason for his exclusion was that he characterised, in a manner that is provably factually accurate, Zionist Jews within the imperialist bourgeoisie of the Western powers, the US and Western Europe primarily, as the driving force of systematic racism and genocide against Palestinians in West Asia, and as working together with the Israeli ruling class internationally on the basis of common reactionary, national-bourgeois, class interests to implement this programme. His opponents were actually forced to concede that he had got his facts correct, but this led to them becoming more virulent in their attacks, and desperately seeking to stop debate and discussion on the supposed grounds that he had an ‘anti-Semitic’ worldview and therefore should not be debated with or allowed to argue. But their definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ does not conform to the definition above. This was completely fraudulent, and signified that they knew that they were already losing this debate, and were desperate to stop it and hide their defeat.
If real hostility, racialised caricatures of Jews for example, or any kind of discrimination, are encountered, they should be challenged. This conforms with the dictionary definition of anti-Semitism cited above. Hostility against Jewish people for being Jewish, and discrimination against them for that, are anti-Semitic. Any allegation of anti-Semitism against any comrade for beliefs and activities that do not fit that definition, is by definition a lie. In the context of today’s genocide and sustained attempts to supress discussion of Zionism’s crimes by precisely these means, any such allegation that does not fit that definition is a racist crime. This is a serious matter – those who falsely accuse others of discrimination and bigoted hostility to Jews to protect genociders should be punished just as severely as someone who abuses or victimises a Jewish person simply for being Jewish.
The behaviour of those who attempted to smear him were subtle forms of racism, both against him, for being non-Jewish and daring to criticise racist Jewish bourgeois, and much more importantly by association, as the racism he was originally criticising was not against him, but against the Palestinian people who are the prime victims of those racist bourgeois Zionist Jews. His accusers’ behaviour was racist either in the primary, or the secondary, vicarious sense, depending obviously on the origin of the person carrying out the abuse. We don’t know the origin of everyone involved, but either variant is reprehensible.
He was smeared by people who do not believe that any non-Jew has the right to an opinion on some important questions of fact. These facts are directly relevant to the oppression and genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, which is now being extended to the West Bank, and the mechanism by which democratic rights of Palestinians and Palestine supporters are being attacked in countries like Britain, France and the United States.
In virtually all cases. Palestinians are also not Jewish. Therefore, if his being non-Jewish means he has no right to acknowledge these clearly factual points, and draw conclusions about their impact, logically Palestinians have no such right either. But Palestinians are savagely oppressed by Israel, which defines itself as a state for Jews only. Since October 2023 Palestinians have been victims of a genocide, carried out and planned by the same exclusivist Jewish state with mass support from the Israeli-Jewish population, aimed at exterminating them as a people. So according to this kind of thinking, Palestinians also have no right to an opinion on key aspects of the social forces that are attempting their extermination. This is a very reactionary, chauvinist position, and those who hold these views are Jewish chauvinists or even racists, or vicariously so (depending on who is promulgating such smears).
The Marxist Views of the LCFI
The factual points concerned are the following, and relate to the agreed positions of the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International (LCFI), the Marxist trend whose politics we support. These are simply orthodox Marxism, Leninism-Trotskyism. This is from the Draft Programme of the LCFI, written in 2021:
“One other crucial post World War II development is the creation of Israel, a new transplanted imperialist formation in the Middle East, that expropriated the Palestinian Arab people of their homeland and through mass expulsion and sporadic massacres, turned around three quarters of them into stateless refugees. The reactionary role of Zionism today is completely at odds with the progressive, vanguard role that Jewish intellectuals and militants played in revolutionary and democratic movements against feudalism in Europe, and in the early socialist and communist movements, which was itself a product of the universal ethos of the Jews as a qualitatively more internationalised population than any of their contemporaries in the period of bourgeois revolutions and the early period of the workers movement. This progressive history was negated by the extermination of many of the progressive, anti-Zionist and revolutionary Jews by Nazi anti-Semitism in WWII, which allowed Zionism, as a reactionary, imperialist solution to the historical oppression of the Jews, to become dominant. The Palestinian Arab question is one of the most explosive and crucial national questions on the planet. The slow-motion Zionist genocide of the Palestinians, which could easily escalate, is symbolised by the repeated butchery of the people of Gaza and the ongoing annexation of the West Bank. Paradoxically, this has much in common with the persecution of the Jews by anti-Semites in Europe that the Zionists exploited and made use of many desperate European Jews as cannon fodder for their racist colonial endeavour at the time of Israel’s foundation. The demand for the full right to return of the Palestinian Arabs and the replacement of Israel with a multi-ethnic workers state of Palestine ruled by the Arab majority is a basic democratic demand and the concrete expression of the Permanent Revolution. It can only be achieved with the revolutionary aid of the Arab, Persian, Turkish and other working classes of the whole Middle Eastern region.
“Israel has a unique relationship with the traditional imperialist powers particularly in North America and Europe, by virtue of the Jewish-Zionist caste within the bourgeoisies of those countries. The overrepresentation of Jews among the bourgeoisie in the diaspora imperialist countries, a product of their long pre-capitalist role as a commodity- and money-trading people-class under the natural, non-commodity based economy of feudalism, gave birth through a convulsive and contradictory process in the 20th Century, to powerful Zionist factions of the imperialist bourgeoisie in those countries that regard Israel as their own imperialist state, just as much as the state of the countries in which they reside. This is a unique, though fragile and unwieldy, imperialist formation that gives Israel much more clout than its size and population relative to its imperialist allies, such as the US, would seem to indicate. This has produced an additional complexity in the politics of the Middle East, and because of its relationships with imperialism in general, to the struggle against imperialism itself. This has particularly become important since the collapse of Stalinism, though perhaps its importance was not fully appreciated prior to that.
“Zionism also has played a deeply reactionary role in attacking the workers movement in the old imperialist countries. A case in point is the Zionist-led campaign in Britain to bring down the left Labour leadership of Jeremy Corbyn between 2015 and 2019 with a massive McCarthy style media-based witchhunt based on phoney accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’, which the weak Corbyn leadership capitulated to. It is a matter of basic self-defence of the workers movement that Marxists should fight for the exclusion of supporters of political Zionism from all working-class organisations. The labour movement should be educated to regard political Zionists as fundamentally similar to Neo-Nazis.” (https://www.consistent-democrats.org/lcfi-draft-programme/)
The paragraph highlighted is the most relevant one, where it talks about the overrepresentation of Jews in the ruling classes of North America and Europe. This is explored in more depth in an article in Red Partisan no 1, which relates the following facts:
“Jews have an unusual, top-heavy social structure. On a world scale, in 2025 there were 3038 billionaires in the world according to the Fortune 5001 whereas the number of Jewish billionaires in the world, according to Forbes Israel, in 2025 was 2762. This means that, taking 2025 (last year) as the time of analysis, over 9% of billionaires in the world are Jewish, 9.055% to be more precise. Yet the number of Jews in the world is 15.8 million, which is 0.2% of the world’s population. This is approximately 45 times overrepresentation. The overwhelming majority of those Jewish billionaires live in the United States (163), Israel (39) and other imperialist countries of Western Europe, Canada and Australia (35) and a smattering elsewhere, including Russia, where a relatively lower number live (21). They are overwhelmingly concentrated in the imperialist West.
The overwhelmingly dominant ideology among bourgeois Jews is Political Zionism, an exilic ideology centred on Israel as a supposed refuge. Israel’s racist citizenship law, which gives those born Jewish anywhere in the world the right to citizenship, has the effect of creating a partially internationalised imperialist bourgeoisie loyal to Israel, who are massively and disproportionately represented in the US and West European ruling classes. The 2025 Forbes list puts the number of US billionaires in that year as 9023. As stated earlier, the number of US Jewish billionaires in 2025 was 163. Which means that 18% of billionaires in the US are Jewish, as compared to the proportion of Jewish people in the US population, which is 2%. But that is not all – because as you go up the rankings of billionaires by wealth, the disproportionate representation of Jews increases dramatically. Of the top 10 billionaires by wealth in the US, 6 of them are Jewish – Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Ballmer and Michael Dell. The other four – non-Jewish – are Elon Musk (the wealthiest), Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Jensen Huang. This can be determined by comparison of Forbes Israel with mundane US sources on billionaire wealth that do not distinguish ethnicity.
For Marxists, who understand that power in capitalist society, exercised from above, stems from capitalist wealth, this is the basis of the disproportionate power of Israel and Zionism in the US. The law of return gives Jewish bourgeois a direct interest through citizenship – in bourgeois terms a form of ownership — any bourgeois state is the de facto collective property of its bourgeois citizens – in the Israeli bourgeois state. There is no mystery about where this power comes from. No ‘conspiracy theory’ is needed to explain this, only Marxism – historical materialism – applied to today’s circumstances.
[….]
Zionists vilify anyone who makes these points as ‘anti-Semitic’. Quite a number of leftists who claim to be opposed to Zionism echo them and even join in the vilification, claiming that it is racist to even mention facts about this that are solidly based, and that a couple of hours of research using primary sources can easily unearth and prove. But Marxism is founded on fact; as John Adams once said, and Marxism echoes, “facts are stubborn things”. If some trend, even of those that claim to be Marxist, denounce other Marxist trends for not ignoring important material facts, that is a clear sign that their views are not really Marxist.
The facts here are quite clear. And it is obvious that the reason why supporters of Israel have the power to dictate to capitalist-imperialist governments in countries that are quite distant from Israel, like Britain and the US, where Jews are a tiny percentage of the population, is that wealthy billionaire Jews, who are in nearly all cases politically supporters of Israel and Zionism, are much more proportionately numerous and powerful in the ruling classes of those countries because of their wealth.
In the early 20th Century, long before Israel was created and thus before the Israel lobby existed, it was widely known that Jews had an unusual social structure that had proportionately many more businessman than workers. The Labour Zionist Ber Borochov was the early mentor of Abram Leon, before he was won to Trotskyism. Leon’s major work The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation (1942), is a seminal work of classical Marxism that we critically endorse and regard as a stepping stone to our own analysis. Ber Borochov made some relevant observations on the class structure of the Jewish population at that time, which Leon built on and modified. These were addressed in an introductory essay about Leon’s life by Ernest Mandel to the 2nd Edition of Leon’s work:
“Borochov maintained that the Jewish question was rooted in the fact that the Jews, and above all the Jewish workers, played no important role in the vital sectors of the economy (heavy industry, metallurgy, coal and so on) but instead occupied important positions solely in the peripheral spheres of economic life. The social position of other peoples resembled a pyramid having as its base hundreds of thousands of miners, metal workers, railroad workers, etc., topped off by ever thinner strata of businessmen, industrialists, and bankers. But the social composition of the Jewish people resembled an ‘inverted pyramid’ in which large handicraft strata rested on narrow layers of workers – who were moreover engaged in nonvital sectors of industry – and had to bear the full weight of an enormous mass of businessmen.” (A Biographical Sketch of Abram Leon, by Ernest Mandel, in The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon, Second Edition, 15th printing [2012], Pathfinder Press).
This alone is enough to establish that the question of the social structure of the Jews, and its implications for politics, in whatever period in history, is a completely normal field for political enquiry and analysis.
The fact that in the pre-WWII period racist demagogues, Nazis, made use of this feature of the Jewish population for sinister and reactionary purposes, ultimately as part of an agitation that led to genocide, does not negate historical materialism. Social being determines social consciousness, and material facts determine the nature of any given society; the relations between classes and even factions or fragments of classes are determined by material factors. This is true in the current reality just as much as in the past. The whole point of Marxists studying historical questions like this is not history for its own sake, but to understand the present, in order to act politically in a way that is effective and takes account of social reality.
Anti-Marxist Ziophiles excoriate … the facts!
One pathetic example of the slurs from left-wing Ziophiles that have been thrown at our political trend in the past, was an attack on comrade Ian in the Weekly Worker in 2014, when he first produced his Draft Theses on the Jews and Modern Imperialism. Incredibly, for self-proclaimed Marxists, they tried to pretend that facts don’t matter and concern for factual accuracy on this is ‘anti-Semitic’:
“[Quoting Ian’s 2014 Theses] “Of all the advanced capitalist/imperialist countries today, Israel is second only to the United States in the threat it poses to the future of humanity.” But the huge ruling class support Israel receives in the west has “a material basis”, over and above imperialism’s own interests. It is “explained by one salient fact: Jewish overrepresentation in the US and other ruling classes”. For example, in the US, “informed Jewish sources” claim that “between 40% and 48%” of billionaires are Jews.
“In my opinion, such ‘statistics’ say far more about the person quoting them than the people they claim to study. Even if we accept that those figures are accurate (a big ‘if’), then why would anyone consider them to be pertinent?” (https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1026/no-place-for-anti-semitism/)
This has to be competition for the most stupid statement ever made by anyone pretending to be any sort of Marxist, ever! ‘Who cares about the facts?’ it says, ‘Anyone who cares about these facts, that get in the way of my Ziophile prejudices, must be an anti-Semite’. How is it “pertinent”, either way whether these facts are true or false?
One thing is obvious – the author of those lines doesn’t care two hoots about the oppression of the Palestinians, who if the hypothesis in the 2014 Theses were shown to be correct, face a much more powerful, directly communal enemy than if it were shown to be incorrect. The author of those lines, Peter Manson, thus exposed himself as a complacent Jewish chauvinist who doesn’t give a damn about the oppression, and potentially the extermination, of the Palestinians. He does not care why Israel is able to procure attacks on the democratic rights of those who defend Palestinians in more powerful countries like the US and Britain that arm their direct, communal oppressors to the teeth. But why should Manson care about that? He is not facing Israeli firepower. He is a pseudo-Marxist whose ‘Marxism’ is mixed with Ziophilia – that is, deep-seated political prejudice in favour of Zionism that completely contradicts his pretence of Marxism and anti-Zionism.
The same is true of those in the witchhunt in the ALDA WhatsApp group on 25th May, that prompted Ian’s removal from that discussion group for ‘anti-Semitism’. They didn’t like these facts either. Yet they went further than Peter Manson in conceding that these facts were correct. When Ian pointed out that in 2025, six out of the ten wealthiest billionaires in the United States were Jewish and Zionist, even his most hostile denouncer, Simon Hannah of Anti-Capitalist Resistance, had to concede that:
“The fact isn’t disputed – it’s what you politically imply about it which no one agrees on.”
Likewise, Ruth Appleton, who was backing up Hannah, said it was:
“Twisted factual. What is your point?”
But Ian had already explained his point, which is simply:
“…in a capitalist society, disproportionate capitalist wealth brings disproportionate social power.”
This is clearly the explanation for the extraordinary power of Zionists in the ruling class of the United States, and to a lesser extent, other older imperialist powers, such as Britain and France. That capitalist social power is derived from bourgeois property and can be wielded against any opponent, even other bourgeois (e.g., in intra-bourgeois factional conflicts), is not a ‘conspiracy theory’, as was repeatedly said by ignorant social democrats in this discussion. Or if it is so deemed, then historical materialism and Marxism itself is being deemed a ‘conspiracy theory’.
The term “Ziophilia” requires some explanation. Many of those leftists who it applies to are not formally Zionists, and would be upset, and vehemently deny it, if they were called Zionists. They do not defend the Nakba – the ethnic cleansing of Palestine – and would be shocked if someone were to accuse them of this as it would be a terrible smear and calumny. Yet they are replete with liberal prejudices (if they are not Jewish) or communal prejudices (if they are Jewish) in favour of Jews against non-Jews, and consider Jews’ victimisation under the Nazis and earlier anti-Semites has somehow sanctified Jews generally.
As Marxists, we oppose notions of collective guilt of entire peoples. We do not hold all Germans, let alone all non-Jews, responsible for the Nazi holocaust. Nor do we hold all Jews responsible for the crimes of Zionism. But many on the left hold that Jews’ history as victims of genocide, combined with the progressive role that many Jews have historically played in the workers movement, have rendered Jews as a progressive population, who are collectively innocent of any real crimes, and that to say that any Jews have real agency in the crimes of Zionism, or that Zionism is in any way Jewish, is ‘anti-Semitic’. This does carry the implication that all non-Jews bear some responsibility for the past persecution of Jews and therefore should be restricted or even condemned if they criticise any Jews today as racist, even when they clearly are. These are deep-seated, liberal-Zionist prejudices that are built into the Western body politic that are simply reactionary, that Marxists should utterly reject.
For example, you get the ridiculous assertion, that repeatedly surfaces on the left, that to say that Zionism is in any way Jewish, amounts to ‘anti-Semitism’. It is ridiculous, as political Zionism is the movement for an exclusivist Jewish state. No one has the right to Israeli citizenship if they are not Jewish. Some non-Jews may be granted citizenship through family connections with Jews, but only in numbers that do not threaten the Jewish character of the state. Palestinians who were victims of ethnic cleansing do not have the right to Israeli citizenship because they are not Jewish, even though the territory on which Israel exists is clearly their homeland. There are a minority of “Israeli Arabs” in Israel, Palestinians who avoided the Nakba expulsion, who have a kind of Israeli citizenship that is second class and insecure. There is a central population register that holds details of every citizen as either Jew, Arab, Druze or ‘other’ and both the original Israeli Basic Law, which defined Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, and the more recent Nation State law, which says Israel is the “Nation-State of the Jewish People” clearly mean Israel belongs to the Jewish population, which are therefore primary.
To deny that political Zionism is in any way Jewish is thus a flat denial of reality. Saying that political Zionism is Jewish does not imply that it is the only Jewish trend. There are many Jewish trends. Nor does it imply thus that all Jews are Zionist. Those on the left who smear anyone who refuses to say that Zionism is simply, flatly non-Jewish are therefore enacting pro-Zionist prejudices, even if they are not conscious of this.
This is deeply embedded in British social democracy, as can be easily illustrated by a telling episode from the history of the Labour Party. In the period of Clement Attlee’s Labour leadership, even before the National Health Service was created with the ‘cradle-to-grave’ welfare state, and the nationalisations of steel, coal and other important industries, the Labour Party passed an international resolution that anticipated the Nakba about Palestine calling for “…transfer of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in.” (https://electronicintifada.net/content/when-israels-friends-labour-advocated-genocide/21176). The Labour Party was thus calling for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine four years before it happened!
Even the most left-wing figures in the Labour Party, for much of the post-war period, were ‘Friends of Israel’ including such revered figures as Tony Benn. That only seriously began to change after 1982 with Israel’s brutal invasion of Lebanon. Zionism is thus deeply in the bloodstream of British social democracy. And most of the British left is saturated with pro-Zionist prejudice to the extent that even those who claim to be anti-Zionists are weak, pusillanimous and when Zionists say “jump”, the British left say “how high”. This weakness is so all-encompassing that it even affects some West Asian leftists who have been assimilated into British social-democratic mores. There are examples of this that are worth highlighting here. Examples of political cowardice in those involved in seeking to stop this debate and those attempting to police it and limit what can be said to criticise bourgeois Jewish-Zionist racism.
Political Cowardice
So, Simon Hannah commented “This kind of language is wrecking the left”
And Syrian YP comrade Maher echoed that with “This kind of stuff is why we get questioned”
They were attacking references to Jewish supremacism and holding super-rich Zionist Jews in the West who support Israeli crimes, responsible for those crimes. What is actually wrecking the left is moral and political cowardice in the face of Zionist witchhunting.
Other examples of such moral cowardice were James Kulmer saying:
“We all clearly agree that the system of oppression and genocide in Israel, and the ideology that legitimises it – Zionism -is pernicious and to be totally opposed. The problems here are derived from ambiguity around the term ‘Jewish’. In my view, given how ambiguous it is, it should be done away with.”
The word “Jewish” should be “done away with” when describing the racist supremacism of super-rich Jewish capitalists in supporting a state that describes itself as a “Jewish and democratic state” and “the nation-state of the Jewish people”! Why? Because it is objectively wrong? Obviously not. Because of the political cowardice of those, like James Kulmer, with social-democratic politics who react with pathological fear of the bourgeois-Zionist inquisition and their ‘left’ tails, and won’t fight them ideologically.
This is why Kulmer visibly capitulated on the question of democracy in this discussion. At one point towards the end, he said that:
“I would recommend we instead share some long form content that exposes our views, rebuking them in that format if needed, and if necessary we ought to schedule a debate on the topic in person, if anyone wants to. I don’t want to stifle a conversation as its happening, but I’m not certain this one is going anywhere productive, comrades.”
So, we should have a debate on the subject, he says. A good, principled idea. But then the various USFI sympathisers played the “Ian has an anti-Semitic worldview” card, without actually demonstrating what that was. They were unprepared for this nonsense to be debated – simply because they were already losing the debate! When these people started howling, he capitulated on the question of democracy:
“This conversation has to cease now. | am going to put a pause to this channel to allow the organising committee to review the conversation and collectively decide how to proceed.”
And then, when Ian pointed out that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations were defamatory and quoted actual definitions in a dictionary that have legal force, he stated:
“I have not had a chance to review all of the messages in this chat, but as there are now accusations of both antisemitism and defamatory statements I think it’s in everyone’s interest that we take a pause here to assess the way forwards. Thank you all for understanding.”
And so, he closed down the discussion, after an outcry from people who libellously stated that Ian has an “anti-Semitic worldview” in order to stop the debate, because they couldn’t think of any other reply. He bureaucratically shut down the debate to “assess” it. And then he wrote to Ian on behalf of the AOC saying:
“We believe that whatever your intentions, opinions or feelings, your repeated claim that Jews are ‘overrepresented’ in the ruling class is by definition antisemitic. We cannot tolerate racism in our online community”
The AOC evidently have their own definition of anti-Semitism which says that acknowledging material facts that even Ian’s opponents in this discussion acknowledge are correct – is “anti-Semitic”. If Jews are only 2% of the US population, but taking 2025 as the base point, 18% of US billionaires, then Jews are statistically overrepresented among billionaires 9 times over. Likewise, 6 of the 10 wealthiest billionaires in the US are Jewish. I.e., in this particular wealth-bracket, the most powerful and influential people in the most powerful imperialist country, 60% are Jewish. That means they are 30 times overrepresented vis-à-vis the 2% of Jews generally. These are neither “intentions”, “opinions” nor “feelings” but statistical, mathematical facts. Simon Hannah and Ruth Appleton accepted that these are facts, as quoted, and their partners in crime ‘Susan’ and “benwwk” have not contradicted their co-thinkers’ acceptance of this being accurate. This is thus solidly demonstrated material fact, not a ‘claim’. The AOC’s position seems to be that anyone who does not deny mathematically proven facts is ‘anti-Semitic’. By that logic, Simon Hannah, Ruth Appleton, ‘Susan’ and “benwwk’ who acknowledged explicitly or implicitly that Ian’s facts were correct and that therefore Jews indeed are overrepresented in the ruling class, are ‘anti-Semitic’ also.
This anti-Science nonsense is as absurd as the Catholic Church trying to force Galileo to recant his discovery that Earth orbits the Sun. It has nothing in common with the dictionary definition of anti-Semitism quoted above. These people have their own pseudo-definition that is not in the dictionary, and certainly has no legal authority or status.
Of course, what they really mean is that we draw conclusions from those facts that they don’t like, but they don’t even have the courage to say that, so cowardly are they, so desperately afraid of being drawn into any debate about the implications of these facts. ‘Susan’ and ‘benwwk’ are among the most pathetic of the anti-Marxists in this discussion, as confronted with a coherent theoretical understanding of the social role of the overrepresented Jewish-Zionist layer in the imperialist bourgeoisies of the older imperialist countries, that it acts as a specialised caste within those ruling classes with a material, quasi-property interest in the Israeli state by means of its racist extra-territorial citizenship law, they feebly raised as a counter-argument the greater number of (less wealthy) Christian Zionist bourgeois in the US. But they lost their tempers when it was pointed out that Christian Zionist bourgeois do not have hereditary citizenship rights in Israel, and therefore that quasi-property relationship with the Israeli bourgeois state does not exist. Rather than formulate a counter-argument in Marxist terms – they were incapable of doing so because really there isn’t one – they declared that this is an ‘anti-Semitic worldview’ that no one should be allowed to argue.
But they cannot substantiate such a contention either – they cannot find a way to argue, for instance, that accepting the facts about the social weight of the Jewish-Zionist caste within the imperialist bourgeoises of Western countries constitutes ‘hostility or discrimination’ directed against Jews. That contention is simply absurd, anti-materialist and hence anti-communist Ziophilia – lying to excuse the genocidal Jewish-Zionist bourgeois caste and protect it from Marxist criticism and analysis.
The Bund as a Source of Ziophilia
But what threw considerable light on what they mean by an “anti-Semitic worldview”, i.e., on their intellectual bankruptcy and anti-Marxism, was the contribution from Matt Goldbaum, a Jewish leftist who appears sympathetic to the same approach. The USFI has a long history of substituting capitulation to various kinds of identity politics for Marxist analysis and criticism of all types of oppression, in the model of Lenin’s call for the working-class movement to champion the oppressed:
“…the Social-Democrat’s ideal should not be the trade union secretary, but the tribune of the people, who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to generalise all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm)
Despite themselves, the USFI’s capitulation to identity politics can, at times, lead to approximately correct positions in the context of a correct struggle of the rights of an oppressed group, such as the ACR’s correct defence of LGBTQ rights, one of the few parts of their politics for which they should be commended.
But Goldbaum objected very strongly to the contention of the LCFI that Zionist strategy has, as a reactionary ‘solution’ to the oppression of Jews, led to the ascent of Jews as a people from the ranks of the oppressed, to that of the oppressor peoples, as defined by Lenin in his famous analysis of this distinction in his discussion of imperialism and colonialism after the Russian revolution. This exchange is worth quoting:
“Matt GoldB. (Walthamstow) quotes Ian D
“He was mainly talking about European Jews. I am talking about the reason why Jews have a very top heavy class structure, which is elaborated in the link I posted earlier. Obviously in a capitalist society, disproportionate capitalist wealth brings disproportionate social power. Leon’s work in lar…”
So please let me get this argument, | am a European Jew, UK citizen by birth, and retired worker, and by virtue of the racist law of a foreign country | have a material interest in upholding that same foreign country? Whether I like it or not. Before the creation of this foreign country in 1948, classic Jew hatred could only claim this as ‘World wide conspiracy’ but now itis an actual fact that all Jews have these interests. in maintaining and supporting this foreign power! To me completely classically Jew hatred in 2026 writ large. I have absolutely no interest in this foreign country and will always stand with the oppressed and NEVER with the oppressor.
To which Ian replied:
“Er no. Unless you are a capitalist.
You do understand that the capitalist state is effectively the property of the capitalist class, don’t you? That is the Marxist understanding of the state.
And which capitalist state such bourgeois ‘own’ is determined by their bourgeois citizenship.
Why are you identifying yourself with part of the capitalist class? | made no such equation of you as a socialist with any part of the capitalist class. In fact, I said the opposite. I defined my argument in class terms, about the bourgeoisie.
You made that identification with your question. I’m making such basic class distinctions. Your question completely buries those distinctions. And it’s spontaneous and automatic.
That’s the unconscious influence of Zionism on the left. It’s similar to what Kaiser Bill said in 1914: “I see no parties or classes – I see only Germans”.
Everything I said was qualified in class terms. If you “always stand with the oppressed and not with the oppressor” that is fine.
But if that is the case you should also point out, name and condemn the imperialist bourgeois caste whose existence is easy to demonstrate, which is the prime mover of Zionism’s crimes, and which is now actively seeking to destroy the Palestinian movement in the West.
The Israeli Law of Return is DESIGNED to create this identification. It appears to create an identification of all Jews with that ‘foreign’ bourgeois state. But in fact, it creates such a material interest for overseas-born Jewish CAPITALISTS. It’s the usual bourgeois con trick, but given an extra-territorial twist. The same one that works on the idiots putting flags on lampposts here.
No, you don’t have such an interest. That’s the whole point! But the Jewish bourgeoisie (by birth, overseas), DOES!
And if you look at the statistics, that layer is proportionately massively greater than the proportion of Jews in the general population. In the US, six of the 10 wealthiest billionaires last year were/are Jewish bourgeois. I can name them.
You don’t have their power. If you criticise them, even implicitly, for this they’ll treat you like they treat Zack Polanski.
So why the high dudgeon about them being criticised and pointed out as the bearers of Greater Israel? Surely for socialists of Jewish origin they are your enemies, because you stand with the oppressed, as you say.
The contradiction is in your head, not mine.”
He came back with the following:
“Dress this argument up as much as you like with “Marxist” verbiage, | asked a simple question about me as a working class Jew, and you patronised me, with your version of Jew hatred, essentially repeating that Jews are disproportionately rich and have a vested interest in maintaining capitalism in general and foreign country in particular.”
To which Ian responded:
“You are simply choosing to ignore everything I said. I did answer the question. My answer was clearly “no”.
In fact “no” was the second word in my reply. That no means …. ‘no’. The rest is explanation of that “no”.
What this exchange reveals is that the USFI’s accommodation to identity politics, in this case the left, Bundist-type version of Jewish identity politics, leads to reactionary, anti-communist conclusions. The key phrase in Goldbaum’s argument is that he “will always stand with the oppressed and NEVER with the oppressor”. What is key to understanding this is that this is not the same as Lenin’s call for the workers movement to be the tribune of the oppressed. Rather it comes from the Jewish Bund, it is a paraphrase of the well-known phrase of Marek Edelman, one of the leading activists and resistance leaders of the Jewish Bund in Poland before and during WWII, incluiding in the herioc Warsaw Ghetto uprising. His political watchword was “To be a Jew means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors.” (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/933351)
Although it appears superficially similar to Lenin’s “tribune of the oppressed”, it does not say that the working-class movement is the tribune of the oppressed, but the “Jew”. It is not universal therefore, but a quasi-national concept. This is why Goldbaum regards our Marxist analysis of the Jewish-Zionist bourgeois caste as anathema – he cannot accept that Jews, any Jews, of whatever class, can be ‘real’ oppressors. Marek’s remark, which he paraphrases, applies to Jews of all classes. This is precisely why Lenin, as is well known, was harshly critical of the ideology of the Bund for dividing the working class along national lines, and leading logically to class collaboration among Jews. Goldbaum’s contention that Ian was attacking ‘Jewish workers’ was entirely disingenuous as he clearly made no such attack. He was really objecting to Ian’s characterisation of the Jewish-Zionist bourgeois caste as an oppressor formation. For he adheres to an ideology that sees “Jews”, not the working-class movement, as the tribune of the oppressed. This is bourgeois nationalism, not socialism, and itself akin to Zionism, as Lenin noted:
“That is precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to: assimilation or isolation?—and the idea of a Jewish “nationality” is definitely reactionary not only when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the ideas of Social-Democracy (the Bundists). The idea of a Jewish nationality runs counter to the interests of the Jewish proletariat, for it fosters among them, directly or indirectly, a spirit hostile to assimilation, the spirit of the ‘ghetto’” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1903/oct/22a.htm)
Goldbaum thus here provides the key to the bourgeois ideology being espoused by ‘Susan’ and ‘benwwk’ when they say that Ian has an ‘anti-Semitic worldview’. They don’t mean a worldview that is in any way related to the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the dictionary, quoted earlier, but one that contradicts the view of the Bund leader Edelman, that “To be a Jew means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors.” According to this, no Jew can ever be an oppressor. This is clearly not a Marxist view, as it encompasses Jews of all classes, including the wealthiest bourgeois. Parenthetically, the other version of this idea is when the adherents of this argue that such oppressors are not “real” Jews. But in any case, it is clear from this exploration that the worldview of these people, who try to condemn our ‘worldview’ as ‘anti-Semitic’ without making the slightest effort to demonstrate how that assertion is compatible with the definition in the dictionary, is not socialist at all, but a form of bourgeois nationalism. Matt Goldbaum let the cat out of the bag when he evoked Edelman, who stated that the “Jew” irrespective of class, and not the working class, is the tribune of the oppressed.
Underrepresentation and overrepresentation
The pretence that such facts about the overrepresentation of Zionist Jews in the ruling class, and fact-based analyses based on that, are of no relevance, is insulting to the intelligence of the public and the membership, so the AOC’s letter is intended to imply the facts are not true, but not to say so explicitly. And to therefore forbid discussion of these facts. The idea that these rather startling facts have no significance is not sustainable for anyone who pretends to be a Marxist. The real-world effect of denial of these facts is to cover up for racism, not to fight it, shorn of liberal guilt-trips and social-democratic obscurantism.
This can easily be demonstrated by looking at the converse case, underrepresentation of oppressed populations in the ruling class of the US. This is a classic sign of the fact that such populations are oppressed, and excluded from the benefits of the society they inhabit. US blacks are approximately 14% of the US population. In 2025 there were 14 US black billionaires, out of 902, approximately 1.5%. That out of a black population that makes up 14% of the total US population. But among those billionaires, seven of them are entertainers or sports performers, and are certainly not among the commanders of the US economy therefore. Such entertainers are very minor among the bourgeoisie – they are not owners of substantial capital – their income derives from performance revenue, not surplus value. With half of them being in his category, it is correct to say that the real representation of the US black population in the ruling class is just under 0.8%. They certainly do not intrude into the domain of the real, dominant forces in US capitalism. So black people are underrepresented by a factor of more than 15 in the US ruling class.
Similar things are true elsewhere but the US case is simpler to investigate because there is no complicating question of immigration involved with US blacks, whose existence in the US is as long standing as the white population. This signifies that black Americans are an oppressed population that is at the bottom of a racial hierarchy that is characteristic of imperialist capitalism in the US at least. It is also clear that the question of representation in the ruling class is intimately linked to questions involving ethnic/racial inequality in such societies. Seeking to forbid discussion of this is seeking to forbid discussion of oppression vs. privilege, which is itself racist.
This underrepresentation of black people – by a factor of 15 – in the US ruling class logically and mathematically means that white people are considerably overrepresented in the same ruling class. This is elementary arithmetic. This is an indication that white supremacy is not just a phrase, but a material reality. Logically therefore, the AOC should accuse anyone who acknowledges these facts of ‘anti-white racism’. But consistency is not the strong point of social-democrats and liberal leftists when their prejudices are in play. The same applies, necessarily, to questions involving Jewish overrepresentation, which is likewise completely factual. It does not really matter how this state of affairs came into being, the effect is the same for Palestinians and their supporters in the United States, and other places where Zionist Jews are materially overrepresented in the ruling class. Palestinians and their supporters are correspondingly massively underrepresented in the ruling class. The fact that this Jewish overrepresentation is the product of a long history that we as Marxists have sought to address by the Marxist method, by incorporating and extending the seminal Marxist work on the Jewish Question, does not make this Jewish-Zionist material advantage one iota less severe for Palestinians and their supporters.
Hannah’s degenerate abuse of Marxists to Defend Genociders
In this context, it is clear that Simon Hannah’s repeated Nazi-baiting – attempting to smear as Nazis anyone who dares to speak of ‘Jewish supremacism’ – is a form of anti-Palestinian racist abuse by proxy. There are several examples of this:
“What is this obsession with “Jewish supremacy”?
“Zionism exists as a form of Jewish nationalism which by the fact of its colonialism of historic Palestine is genocidal.
“But the framing of it constantly as “Jewish supremacy” smacks of a sly form of anti-semitism”
This was his preamble, directed against David Miller. Apparently, it is ‘anti-Semitic’ to refer to Zionism’s “colonialism of historic Palestine” which he admits is “genocidal” as “Jewish supremacy” or “Jewish supremacism”. He then denounces Miller, without context, for making “constant” references to ”genocidal, bloodthirsty Jewish supremacists”.
But the context is simple – in October 2023, Israel began a genocide, the mass extermination of the people of Gaza. There is nothing more bloodthirsty and supremacist than genocide and the extermination that has been practiced by Netanyahu’s troops since October 2023. If anything, these remarks are too mild. Why? Because ANY mere verbal remarks must necessarily be too mild compared to the real-world extermination of hundreds of thousands that has happened. The massive torture, the rapes, the barbarism that has ensured cannot be adequately captured in words, just as is also true of the Warsaw Ghetto massacre, or other Nazi crimes. Any form of condemnation would therefore not be enough. By these standards, Miller’s quoted words are mild indeed.
Then we have Simon Hannah as the soft racist, Ziophile caricature of Andrei Vyshinsky, the prosecutor of the Moscow Trials in the 1930s, who branded Trotskyists as fascists because of their opposition to Stalin. Hannah tries this on David Miller, but he reveals his own softness on Zionism when he asks:
“Who said the British state has been ‘totally captured by genocidal Jewish supremacists’
A) David Miller
B) Britain First”
The correct answer to that is “Who cares – is it true?”. Why are Britain First worse than the kind of people who are persecuting Palestine Action for opposing the genocide that the four main bourgeois parties, Labour, Tories, Reform and Lib Dems, all support? Such supremacists have indeed, by whatever means, taken over British politics, and the recent Filton 6 fraudulent retrial and Palestine Action appeal show that they control much of the judiciary also. Their control of the police is shown by the activities of Mark Rowley in London, and their forcing out of the West Midlands chief constable for stopping genocidal Tel Aviv Maccabees fans from coming to Birmingham for a pogrom against Aston’s mixed-ethnicity population last November.
So how are these monsters worse than the neo-Nazi Britain First? By his posing of the question, he really does show that he thinks Netanyahu’s racist murderers are not so bad. Without that concept in mind, he would not ask that question in the first place! What that question really means is that he thinks Zionist genocide is preferable to Nazi genocide and that anyone who does not agree is anti-Semitic. That clearly indicates that Simon Hannah has racist, Ziophile, supremacist views even if he has not fully thought through the logic of them.
He repeats the point when he says:
“I just think that socialists should stay away from being anti-Semitic and constantly talking about “Jews” and “Jewish supremacy” – Sounds quite fascist.”
This just reveals that he thinks Jewish Supremacy and Zionist genocide are not ‘fascist’, and that ‘fascism’ is something far worse. But it isn’t. What is happening in Gaza is a holocaust, hidden by banning of media and the large-scale murder of journalists who try to cover the Nazi-like crimes of Israel.
And then we have Hannah’s Nazi-baiting Ian for correcting a factual error about the ethnic origin and ethnic politics of Mark Zuckerberg, the multi-billionaire owner of Meta. The factual error in this discussion was made by Laurence, the delegate from Bromley, who Ian describes as “a pleasant but naïve left social democrat”, who said, in response to the point in the Red Partisan article that laid out the facts, that 6 out of the 10 wealthiest billionaires in the US are Jewish and purveyors of Zionist ethnic politics:
“Laurence
On the numbers, Jensen Huang, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are not Jewish.
So that’s at least 5 who aren’t
Ian D
Zuckerberg certainly is
Laurence
Larry Page and Zuckerberg are both atheist
I think this entire narrative is silly. Its drawing lines where they don’t exist.
Ian D
So were Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky. [i.e., atheists]”
Then further down, we get:
“Simon H quotes Ian D
“Zuckerberg certainly is”
Are we playing “spot the Jew” now? I don’t think this is good or right”
Correcting a factual error about the communal identity of Mark Zuckerberg is supposedly anti-Semitic, fascist or Nazi-like, according to Simon Hannah. This is racist Ziophilia – another manifestation of an attempt to defend Zionist criminality through fake innuendo that the person correctly stating the facts about who they are, is stating facts for ‘anti-Semitic’ reasons. It amounts to the same innuendo: someone who insists on correct facts on this is some kind of racist. It’s insulting to the intelligence of any normal person. As Zuckerberg is clearly deeply supportive of, and involved in Israel’s genocide.
When Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, recently proposed the creation of a database of British citizens who had fought for the IDF, the Zionist Daily Telegraph published an article by infamous Jewish Chronicle racist Stephen Pollard headlined “Zack Polanski wants a Jew register. What could be more sinister than that?” It then went on “The Green leader’s demand for a database of British-Israeli citizens who have fought for Israel is breathtakingly blatant”. The innuendo of ‘anti-Semitism” in this is identical to Hannah’s smear that to correct a mistake about who Zuckerberg is, means playing “spot the Jew”. Both are in defence of criminals of the current genocide. Those British citizens who fight for in the IDF will almost certainly also have Israeli citizenship, and they will virtually always be Jewish. So what? They are racist criminals who willingly left to fight in a genocidal army! (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/05/zack-polanski-jew-register-more-sinister/)
Zuckerberg is also a criminal. He is probably the most powerful social media baron in the world, the head of Meta which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and also WhatsApp, the most used mobile messenger app in the world. According to Drop Site News, in April 2025:
“A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News. The data show that Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel since October 7, 2023. Israel is the biggest originator of takedown requests globally by far, and Meta has followed suit—widening the net of posts it automatically removes, and creating what can be called the largest mass censorship operation in modern history. (https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/leaked-data-israeli-censorship-meta)
That tells you all you need to know about Mark Zuckerberg. He is a primary member of the Jewish-Zionist bourgeois caste – Israel’s international dimension. Indeed, Drop Site News makes this clear when it writes:
“Government requests for takedowns generally focus on posts made by citizens inside that government’s borders, Meta insiders said. What makes Israel’s campaign unique is its success in censoring speech in many countries outside of Israel. What’s more, Israel’s censorship project will echo well into the future, insiders said, as the AI program Meta is currently training how to moderate content will base future decisions on the successful takedown of content critical of Israel’s genocide.” (ibid)
This is truly sinister. Under Zuckerberg, Meta has complied with 94% of requests for censorship from the state perpetrating the genocide – that is, trying to cover up for this genocide like a latter-day David Irving on acid. At least Irving wrote his awful apologias years after Hitler was dead and the Nazi holocaust was over. Whereas the genocide in Gaza is still going on, and is being extended to the West Bank, Lebanon, and to a degree even Iran – and every act of censorship and suppression of news about these events makes it easier for Israel to continue its mass-murdering.
Another example of Zuckerberg’s censorship of the internet has been the banning of Track AIPAC, an initiative on the fringe of the US Democrats that aimed to monitor and counter AIPAC interference in US elections. AIPAC’s interference aims to force out anyone sympathetic to the Palestinians in any party. Zuckerberg is thus directly involved in trying to suppress opposition to genocide in US politics (see https://thedemlabs.org/2026/02/12/why-meta-banned-track-aipac-joel-kaplan/)
By any objective standard, all these make Mark Zuckerberg’s current activities far worse than Irving’s literary denial of the Nazi holocaust years after it was over. Irving’s work had no impact on the course of the actual Nazi holocaust either way, but Zuckerberg’s genocide-denying censorship means he is not merely a genocide denier, but a genocide accomplice and indirect perpetrator in the current, ongoing genocide. And that’s not even touching on any military role that Meta’s many software arms are likely to be playing in this genocide.
So, when Simon Hannah accuses Ian of playing ‘spot the Jew’ for correcting a factual error about Zuckerberg’s Jewish origin to note that he is part of the 60% of the 10 richest US billionaires who are part of the Jewish-Zionist caste, he is race-baiting Ian for not being Jewish, in order to defend a genocide denier/perpetrator who is demonstrably much worse than the Nazi genocide denier, David Irving. This is a pretty disgusting level for a self-proclaimed ‘socialist’ to sink to. Similar to Stephen Pollard. No one with integrity would engage in this kind of disgusting behaviour.
Hannah’s argument: ‘Zionist Genocide is less bad than Nazi Genocide – Anyone who disagrees is anti-Semitic’. Also, Bad Faith and Ignorance regarding Abram Leon’s work.
It is a reflection of a huge contradiction in Hannah’s politics, and that of the USFI. He professes to believe that “Zionism exists as a form of Jewish nationalism which by the fact of its colonialism of historic Palestine is genocidal.” He said that Zionism is genocidal Jewish nationalism. One would think that nothing could be worse than being genocidal. But naming the diaspora super-rich perpetrators of that foul form of “Jewish nationalism” is apparently worse than “genocidal”. He holds that anyone who names such bourgeois adherents of this genocidal ethnic nationalism should be excluded from party and working-class democracy. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that his professed antipathy to “genocidal” Zionism is insincere, and he prefers said genocidal Zionism to meaningful left-wing criticism of it. Hannah is therefore a fraud; his anti-Zionism is not sincere. He is anti-Zionist in words, Zionist in deeds, anti-racist in words, racist in deeds.
His antics, and that of the ACR, around the work of Abram Leon, evidence lack of education and contempt for Leon’s work, while attempting to pay lip service to it. Hannah’s comrade Jessica M was not aware of Leon’s people-class understanding of Jewish history at all, or that Leon, as well as being a martyr in Auschwitz, was a close associate of Ernest Mandel, the historic leader of the USFI until his death in 1995.. But Hannah feebly distorted Leon’s views as part of his smear, and revealed his own ignorance also.
There was an extended exchange on Abram Leon’s book where Simon Hannah tried to make out that this work was akin to a bourgeois, Zionist tract arguing (as such people do) that Jews have always been oppressed throughout history. And that any dissent from this is akin to the Protocols of Zion:
“Ian D quotes Simon H
“Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as bankers”
Yes indeed. But he never lived to see the creation of Israel as a transplanted imperialist oppressor state. Some of the things that he analysed made that possible.
Israel is not Liberia or Sierra Leone.
[…]
Ian D quotes Simon H
“Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as ban
Actually Leon’s position was that Jews became oppressed when the people-class was rendered obsolete by the beginnings of capitalism, as feudalism declined. He did NOT say that the people-class came into existence because of some prior oppression of Jews. In the early period of feudalism – he talked about Charlemagne – the Jews were a privileged, intermediary layer. The view that you are echoing here, that Jews were always oppressed, is a liberal or even liberal-Zionist view, not a Marxist one.
There is a passage in that work where Leon explicitly attacks the notion that the people-class was created by a prior oppression of the Jews.
Simon H
So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?
Ian D
No, Jews today are not a class. They are a multi-class population with a top-heavy social structure that is partly a product of their earlier role before capitalism, and accentuated by the genocide in Hitler’s day when the more working class, radical Jews were disproportionately wiped out. With the collaboration of the Zionists in some notorious instances – like Hungary
Ian D quoting Simon H
“So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?”
And the Jewish-Zionist bourgeois layer | am talking about is not a class either. It’s a distinct caste within the imperialist bourgeoisie with a material interest in Israel through the racist Law of Return.
A caste is PART of a class with a special interest or purpose. The caste I am talking about has some similarities with labour bureaucracies within the working class movement. A layer within our class movement with it’s own special interests that are not those of the rest of the class.
That bourgeois caste/layer is trying to suppress the Palestine movement in the West. There is nothing racist about pointing this out. The caste being criticised though is genocidal in its racism.
Ian D quoting Simon H
“So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?”
And there is no global trans-national bourgeoisie in any case. The bourgeoisie can not abolish the nation state. The only layer within the bourgeoisie that PARTLY transcends that, is the Jewish-Zionist caste I am talking about. But only partly – they may exist in an organised way across some borders but their real loyalty is to Israel. So they are not fully transnational either.
Only the international proletariat, objectively, has no country. That is orthodox Marxism.
This obvious hackery caused him to be criticised by the other Simon for not arguing in good faith and distorting Ian’s views:
“Simon (not Simon H)
@Simon H | think there are some wrong things in lan’s argumentation. But | think it’s better to have good faith debates. Your last response there was quite bad. May I suggest that you try to prove your argument better? You can’t just keep repeating the charge and then try twist his words.”
Though Simon (not Simon H)’s limitations are shown by his remark that Jewish supremacism could only exist in Israel, “NOT IN BRITAIN”, which exposes his own liberal/social-democratic social conditioning and bias in favour of excepting Jewish-Zionist racist bourgeois in the West from Marxist criticism for their material interest in Israel, racism and supremacism. Despite such prejudice, Simon (not Simon H) evidenced a flash of recognition of Simon Hannah’s mendacity and arguing in bad faith.
What is incredible is Simon Hannah’s assertion that in citing Leon’s own views on the origin of the people-class in the early medieval period, Ian was echoing ‘anti-Semitic tropes:
“Ian D quotes Simon H
‘Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as bankers”
Actually Leon’s position was that Jews became oppressed when the people-class was rendered obsolete by the beginnings of capitalism, as feudalism declined. He did NOT say that the people-class came into existence because of some prior oppression of Jews. In the early period of feudalism – he talked about Charlemagne – the Jews were a privileged, intermediary layer. The view that you are echoing here, that Jews were always oppressed, is a liberal or even liberal-Zionist view, not a Marxist one.
There is a passage in that work where Leon explicitly attacks the notion that the people-class was created by a prior oppression of the Jews.
Simon H
So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?
The logic of this exchange is that Simon Hannah considers that Abram Leon’s work itself was anti-Semitic. Because Ian was correctly relating Leon’s views about the medieval period, even as late as the 11th and 12th Century, i.e., considerably after Charlemagne, who lived in the 8th/9th Century. Two passages quoted below:
“This false conception of Jewish historians finds its counterpart in the proposition according to which the Jews has to abandon their ‘agricultural profession’ because of legal bans. It is incorrect ‘to assert that the Jews were forbidden to own land. Wherever we find Jews doing business in the medieval cities, they are likewise the owners of their own houses. Moreover they often possessed larger pieces of land in the territory of the city. Truthfully speaking, it does not appear that they cultivated these lands anywhere. As soon as land came into their hands as security, they tried to sell it. It was not because they were forbidden to keep it but simply because they had no desire to do so. We often find in the records, however, that vineyards, orchards, flax fields, etc., belonged to Jews. The products of these lands could easily be sold.’ Cunow, Allgemeine Wirtschaftgeschichte, vol 3, p 112.” (Leon op cit, footnote 13, p 140)
And then:
“As it is infantile to see the economic position of Judaism as the result of the ‘predispositions of the Jews’ just so it is puerile to consider it as the fruit of persecutions and of legal bans against exercising other professions than commerce or usury. ‘In numerous writings on the economic life of the Jews in the Middle Ages, it is stated that they were excluded, from the beginning, from artisanry, from traffic in goods, and that they were prohibited from possessing land property. This is only a fable. In fact, in the twelfth century and in the thirteenth century, living in practically all of the great cities of Western Germany, they dwelt among the Christians and enjoyed the same civil rights as the latter… at Cologne, during an entire period, the Jews even possessed the right to compel a Christian, who had a claim to make against a Jew, to appear before Jewish judges in order to have the matter judged according to Hebraic law… it is just as false to assert that Jews could not be admitted into the artisan guilds. True, several guilds did not admit what were termed ‘Jewish children’ as apprentices but this was not the case for all the guilds. The existence of Jewish goldsmiths and silversmiths, even in the period when the guild rules became far more severe, is sufficient proof of this. There were certainly few Jewish blacksmiths, masons and carpenters among the artisans of the Middle Ages, but Jewish parents who gave their children into apprenticeship in these trades were very rare. Even the guilds which excluded the Jews did not do so out of religious animosity or racial hatred but because the trades of usury and peddling were reputedly ‘dishonest’…. The guilds excluded the children of Jewish businesspeople engaged in usury or peddling, in the same way that they did not accept the sons of simple labourers, carters and boatsmen, barbers and weavers of linen into their ranks.’)” (Leon op cit, p142-143)
You can agree with this, or disagree with it. But to attack Ian as ‘anti-Semitic’ for referring to it in this discussion implies that Leon’s own work was ‘anti-Semitic’. Quite a leap for supporters of the USFI.
The USFI – A Stinking Corpse
The USFI is not a Marxist or Trotskyist organisation, but an indicator of how the Trotskyist movement has been destroyed and degraded since the real Fourth International, the revolutionary international party founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938, collapsed and splintered into fragments in the early 1950s. The USFI emerged by the early 1960s as the largest fragment but went from cheerleaders for ‘radical’ Stalinism – Castro and Ho Chi Minh in the 1960 and 1970s to cheerleaders for capitalist restoration in the guise of ‘democracy’ in the 1980 and 1990s, to cheerleaders for imperialist “colour revolutions” and aggression like the 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine, Obama and Cameron’s 2011 invasion of Libya in 2011, NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine today, and the US/Israeli attempt at a Maidan type ‘uprising’ at the beginning of 2026 in Iran, which was an integral part of the preparation for the US/Israeli attack on Iran on 28th February. In Britain, ‘Anti-Capitalist Resistance’ is the latest name for the USFI’s British section, earlier it was called ‘Socialist Resistance’, which acquired the nickname “Resisting Socialism” by more revolutionary-minded elements on the British left. They really are hardly better than the openly Zionist Alliance for Workers Liberty, who defend the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the IHRA Pseudo-Definition of ‘Anti-Semitism’, and have maintained a decades-long smear campaign saying that anyone on the left who does not accept the Nakba outcome, and Israel’s existence through ethnic cleansing, is ‘anti-Semitic’.
The AWL is the Trojan Horse within the broad ‘Your Party’ movement that would be the source of a ‘Friends of Israel’ faction, which would be the kiss of death to such a party. The USFI/ACR are their barely ‘left’ protectors. They are not the Fourth International; they are nothing like the international party that the left needs. They are a small-scale version of what Rosa Luxemburg said about German Social Democracy after its historic betrayal in 1914 – a social-imperialist, poisonous, stinking corpse. They are a right-wing sectarian threat to genuinely left-wing, revolutionary trends within the Your Party milieu. And while organisational unity of left trends is vital, without programmatic struggle, including and especially against Zionist influence, the party project would be sabotaged.
It is no accident either that this witchhunt kicked off shortly after our comrades, supporters of the Consistent Democrats, British Section of the Liaison Committee for the Fourth International, put a motion to the Members Charter conference on party democracy that proposed the proscription of Zionist trends. The USFI would be bound to react in a hostile manner to this proposal, as they are the left-wing of the genocide machine, as shown by Hannah’s outrageous defence of the Zionist genocidaire oligarch Zuckerberg against being identified as part of the genocidal Jewish-Zionist caste.
Those who witchhunt and abuse genuine socialists for their anti-Zionist views should be aware that anti-Zionist views are now a protected characteristic of philosophical belief in British law, and it opens them to legal claims. Working class militants should be prepared to defend their democratic rights by legal means, including against elements in the workers movement who overstep the bounds of bourgeois legality to attack the democratic rights of others on the left. There is nothing in Ian’s views that imply any attack on anyone for their Jewish origin, and the implication otherwise is simply a lie, and potentially actionable also.
Appendix: Transcript of a witchhunt – laid out in full, in flagrante…
Forwarded (comment by Simon – not Simon H)
David Miller can do some good journalism. But the real problems with him are his politics. His critique of Zionism is not socialist.
Ian D Quotes Simon
“David Miller can do some good journalism. But the real problems with him are his politics. His critique of Zionism is not socialist.”
He clearly does regard himself as a Marist and thereby a socialist in that interview, and criticises much of the left for adopting liberalism and the approach of Karl Popper. Whether or not he is correct on every detail, he is basing himself on facts, and that interview is crammed with facts.
Facts may be disturbing, but the Zionist movement is disturbing. Indeed, there is plenty about the Zionist movement that is even more disturbing than some of those things. Like Netanyahu’s threatened lawsuit against the NYT for reporting on Israel’s use of dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. This is so well-known in Israel that ‘comedians’ make ‘jokes’ about it on TV.
Then there is the $32 million that AIPAC and other opponents just spent outing the dissenting GOP representative Thomas Massie, in Kentucky, who has moved to have AIPAC treated as a foreign agent, and was one of the authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
1 don’t see David Miller equating Zionism with all Jews. What he seems to be critical of is that much on the left regards a focus on those facts as being so damning that anyone doing so must be in some way anti-Semitic.
The Zionist movement has considerable power in the world. Whether it is powerful enough to create a Jewish empire is seriously doubtful. Simply because the population base it would have to base that on is far too small. I see Zionism being the project of an ethnic caste within the bourgeoisie that has made Israel a unique imperialist power that punches way above what ought to be its weight internationally. I don’t see them as creating a worldwide Empire so much as overextending themselves and heading for a fall. Le hubris, heading for nemesis. But these are legitimate questions to debate. Strong stuff, but Zionist conduct and crimes are even stronger stuff.
Carlos quotes Ian D:
“He clearly does regard himself as a Marist and thereby a socialist in that interview, and criticises much of the left for adopting liberalism and the approach of Karl Popper. Whether or not he is correct on every detail, he is basing himself on facts, and that interview is crammed with facts….”
That is very well said and written
Simon quotes Ian D
“He clearly does regard himself as a Marxist and thereby a socialist in that interview, and criticises much of the left for adopting liberalism and the approach of Karl Popper. Whether or not he is correct on every detail, he is basing himself on facts, and that interview is crammed with facts…”
He does not outline his theoretical framework in this interview.
Ian D quotes Simon
“He does not outline his theoretical framework in this interview.”
True. He’s more of a journalist and activist than a theorist. It would be better if he did.
Simon
He believes in ‘jewish surpremacy’ as in the liberal ‘white surpremacy’ theory which is popular in the US. | was trying to find this one polemic against him. but its not coming up right now
Ian D
White supremacy certainly exists as a programme and ideology. Jewish supremacy appears likewise to be a major trend. They are forms of racist ideology. I don‘t see anything wrong with saying that exists and plays an important role today.
Simon
They treat it more as a material fact, rather than the ideological conviction.
Carlos quotes Ian D
“True. He’s more of a journalist and activist than a theorist. It would be better if he did.”
He is an academic foremost. Turned activist and then journalist due to change in circumstances. Most well known for making anti-Zionism a protected characteristic
Ian D
Surely its both in some situations
Simon quotes Ian D
“Surely its both in some situations”
Yes, in Palestine and Israel.
NOT IN BRITAIN
Carlos quotes Ian D
“White supremacy certainly exists as a programme and ideology. Jewish supremacy appears likewise to be a major trend. They are forms of racist ideology. I don’t see anything wrong with saying that exists and plays an important role today.”
Jewish supremacy is at the core of the apartheid system in Israel. This is undeniable. Arguably Jewish exeptionalism is more of an issue in the West given the numbers needed to really make any type of supremacy work effectively IMO
Ian D provides link to article headlined “US Hegemony Drains Away Through Israeli Achilles Heel – Consistent Democrats – LCFI” “Trump and Netanyahu’s war-escapade is burying US world hegemony. it has backfired and they haven’t got a clue how to defeat Iran.” www consistent democrats org
Well, the repression against the Palestine movement outside Israel makes no sense without elements of that likewise outside Israel. Some ideas on that here:
Simon
Its imperialism
Ian D
Indeed it is. And relations within imperialism can be complex
Floyd Codlin
If Miller is a “Marxist” then fts bastardisation is complete.
Maher
Miller is nowhere near a socialist, let alone a Marxist. He fully supports Iran and Hezbollah, he’s absolutely pathetic.
Floyd Codlin quotes Maher
“Miller is nowhere near a socialist, let alone a Marist. He fully supports Iran and Hezbollah, he’s absolutely pathetic”
If he said he supported the resistance than I’d be ok with that, as the resistance also includes Doctors, teachers, nurses, fathers, mothers, sibling, ambulance workers, historians, bakers, neighbours, etc. Hamas and Iran/Yemen are but part of the resistance who get the main focus because of their armed responses to the US/Isreal/regional powers. In tun this makes it more difficult for democracy and civil society to develop as fighting the war is the demand made that supersedes all
Carlos quotes Maher
“Miller is nowhere near a socialist, let alone a Marxist. He fully supports Iran and Hezbollah, he’s absolutely pathetic”
Are you a Pahlavist Maher?
Ian D quotes Floyd Codlin
“If he said he supported the resistance than I’d be ok with that, as the resistance also includes Doctors, teachers, nurses, fathers, mothers, sibling, ambulance workers, historians, bakers, neighbours, etc. Hamas and Iran/ Yemen are but part of the resistance who get the main focus because o…”
Well, there is support and support. These societies are being targeted by genocidal wars where entire populations are the target. More like the Eastern front in WW2 than the Western Front. That tends to undermine much political space and render nuances less relevant. It’s correct to back popular resistance toward a genocidal war almost irrespective of the dominant banner. Its a comprehensible thing
Simon H quotes Ian D
“White supremacy certainly exists as a programme and ideology. Jewish supremacy appears likewise to be a major trend. They are forms of racist ideology. | don’t see anything wrong with saying that exists and plays an important role today.”
What is this obsession with “Jewish supremacy”?
Zionism exists as a form of Jewish nationalism which by the fact of its colonialism of historic Palestine is genocidal.
But the framing of it constantly as “Jewish supremacy” smacks of a sly form of anti semtism
It reminds me of certain people who talk about a “Jewish subculture” – the kind of comment that fascists might make about insidious forces “corroding * a society from within which is a classic anti semetic trope.
If David Miller used Zionism to refer to the political project of Israeli nationalism that is one thing but his constant reference to “genocidal, bloodthirsty Jewish supremacists” and so on reveals a man who is obsessed with the image of The Jew in a way that any anti semite would be.
Who said it the British star has been “totally captured by genocidal Jewish supremacists”
A) David Miller
B) Britain First
Ian D
The Daily Mail supported Hitler in his day and now supports Zionism with equal ferocity. Both Zionism and Hitlerism have similar elements of bloodthirsty supremacism.
This is why Zionists get the plaudits that used to be given to Nazis. A minority of the far right adhere to the old version, but the bulk of them support Zionism.
The latest Zionist patter is that to accuse Israel of genocide is ‘anti-Semitic’. The repression currently carried out in the West against the Palestine movement is not rational from the standpoint of those imperialist countries where it is happening.
That method of argument has a bad history if you remember the Moscow trials. But a Zionist genocidal state did not exist then. This potentially makes for worse variants of that.
Simon H
Yeah that’s all a load of Whataboutery though.
David Miller fixates not on Zionism but on Jews and Jewish supremacy because he is fixated on Jewish people as a problem and some people on the left support him because they can’t tell the difference between anti Zionism and anti semitism
Ian D quotes Simon H
“Yeah that’s all a load of Whataboutery though”
I don’t see any evidence he is driven by anything other than rage at Zionist crimes.
Simon H
Yes but ian, weren’t you expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for anti semitism? Was that to do with your view that there is some kind of global Jewish trans national bourgeoisie?
hitps://www.palestinecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/Membership-Appeal-2021.pdf
Carlos quotes Simon H
“What is this obsession with “Jewish supremacy”?”
Zionism goes beyond nationalism. Apartheid cannot exist without some sort of supremacy at its core. The UN Human Rights Council has concluded that Israel’s control over the Palestinian territories is tantamount to apartheid. So are many of the laws governing Palestinians inside ‘Israel’ including the latest execution law. You can call it what you wish, but supremacy it certainly is as far as the evidence shows.
Ian D
It’s not ‘whataboutery’ It’s about the same subject matter. Whataboutery is when Zionists start talking about Xinjiang.
Simon H
I just thing that socialists should stay away from being anti semitic and constantly talking about “Jews” and “Jewish supremecy” – Sounds quite fascist.
Ian D quoting Simon H
“Yes but ian, weren’t you expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign for anti semitism? Was that to do with your view that there is some kind of global Jewish trans national bourgeoisie?”
My views are very well known on this. I was also cleared of this smear by Left Unity.
1 suggest you read the Red Partisan article | linked to above and try to demonstrate that any of its factually untrue.
Is it not true that your political trend support the NATO/Nazi Maidan proxy war against Russia in the Donbass, and also supported the imperialist attack on Libya in 2011
Ian D quoting Simon H
“I just think that socialists should stay away from being anti semitic and constantly talking about “Jews” and “Jewish supremecy” – Sounds quite fascist.”
Those who do are attacking racial supremacism, not Jews. Just as those who attack white supremacism are attacking … racial supremacism, not white people generally. This is liberalism, not Marxism.
Simon H
Do you still believe in a “pan-national Jewish bourgeoisie”?
Ian D
Is that a quote?
I referred to a pan-imperialist Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie, in the US and much of Western Europe. Which has a material interest in Israel through Israel’s racist citizenship laws. It’s an extension of the Israeli ruling class. Today itis trying to crush the Palestine movement in the West
Do you deny your support for Nazi terrorists in Ukraine
Carlos quoting Simon H
“I just thing that socialists should stay away from being anti semitic and constantly talking about “Jews and “Jewish supremecy” – Sounds quite fascist.”
No one here has been talking about “Jews” and painting a whole group of people with the same brush. Of course we oppose anti-semitism in all its forms and racism towards all semites. Would you be happy to label the apartheid system in Israel Zionist supremacy’?
Ian D
It is a caste within the bourgeoisie with a special interest in Israel. Somewhat analogous to the labour bureaucracy in the workers movement that has a special interest in class collaboration with employers.
Simon H quoting Carlos
“No one here has been talking about “Jews” and painting a whole group of people with the same brush. Of course we oppose anti-semitism in all its forms and racism towards all semites. Would you be happy to label the apartheid system in Israel Zionist supremacy?”
This is what David Miller does. That’s why I wanted to challenge this support for him as some kind of anti Zionist champion
Carlos quoting Simon H
“This is what David Miler does. That’s why I wanted to challenge this support for him as some kind of anti Zionist champion”
Who here has shown this kind of support? Why are you so obsessed with him anyway? This conversation was about TCFS and its presenter.
Simon H quoting Ian D
“It is a caste within the bourgeoisie with a special interest in Israel. Somewhat analogous to the labour bureaucracy in the workers movement that has a special interest in class collaboration with employers.”
And the Jews are the main part of it? Why say Jewish if you just mean Zionist? Do you think the Jewish trans national bourgeise (?) are some kind of vanguard for reaction?
How is this any different to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Simon H quoting Carlos
“Who here has shown this kind of support? Why are you so obsessed with him anyway? This conversation was about TCFS and its presenter…”
Scroll up and read the comments from lan supporting him and then you chiming in with the “Jewish supremecy” stuff
Carlos quoting Simon H
“And the Jews are the main part of it? Why say Jewish if you just mean Zionist? Do you think the Jewish trans national bourgeoise (2) are some kind of vanguard for reaction?”
Do you have the same problem when people use the label Christian Zionist” or ‘Islamic supremacist’. Do you spend the same amount of time telling people not to use these terms? –
Simon H
This kind of language is wrecking the left.
We need clear anti Zionism that doesn’t equivocate into this fixation on Jewish people. End of story.
Carlos quoting Simon H
“This kind of language is wrecking the left”
Sorry, but the only one ‘fixated’ here seems to be you!
Simon H quoting Carlos
“Do you have the same problem when people use the label ‘Christian Zionist” or ‘Islamic supremacist’. Do you spend the same amount of time telling people not to use these terms?”
Because Christianity and Islam are religions but Jewish people are – in large part – an ethnic group, not primarily a religion so I hope you can appreciate the difference.
Ian D quoting Simon H
“And the Jews are the main part of it? Why say Jewish if you just mean Zionist? Do you think the Jewish trans national bourgeoise (2) are some kind of vanguard for reaction?”
Er.. because the project of Zionism is, and always has been, that of an exclusivist Jewish state. Zionism is the dominant Jewish trend.
It’s far from the only Jewish trend but it is the dominant bourgeois Jewish trend.
Pretending to oppose Zionism without attacking Jewish racial supremacism is like pretending to oppose the Ku Klux Klan while refusing to attack white supremacism.
Carlos quoting Simon H
“Because Christianity and Islam are religions but Jewish people are – in large part – an ethnic group, not primarily a religion so | hope you can appreciate the difference.”
Don’t go there….there are Jews of many and varied ethnicities. Black, Arab, Chinese, you name it..this is not what this chat is about
Philip quoting Ian D
“I referred to a pan-imperialist Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie, in the US and much of Western Europe. Which has a material interest in Israel through Israel’s racist citizenship laws. It is an extension of the Israeli ruling class. Today itis trying to crush the Palestine movement in the West”
Who ARE you? I mean ‘My views on this are well known. Get you. What a sense of your own importance. & I ‘suggest you read the Red Partisan article’ too. JHC. What is a Red Partisan? Is it some sort of lettuce you saw in Waitrose? And then ‘Do you deny your supportfor Nazi terrorists in Ukraine? That’s NOT a question or a chess move. It’s a line from a self-satisfied smart arse.
Either all of the above or you’re one of those awful people who are paid to cause havoc in nascent socialist movements by starting rows and causing dissension.
My views on that sort of thing are not as well known as your views it seems (lets me and you …contact a mathematician, we could have come up with a way of dividing 0…that would have some utility) but if you are as it seems to me a deliberate state sanctioned low level security operative go and fill in a report saying you and your ilk would be much better spending their time ‘thwarting the greedy rich power hungry pigs who have fucked this country (eg your bosses) than pissing about with people who just want to improve the world – most of us.
Or Do you deny your obvious support for the ruling class of this country?”
See, what a dick I sound?
That’s you that is
Maher quotes Carlos
“Are you a Pahlavist Maher?”
No, I’m someone who supports the Iranian people like Anahita does. We want democracy and secular rule.
Ian D quotes Simon H
“Because Christianity and Islam are religions but Jewish people are – in large part – an ethnic group, not primarily a religion so I hope you can appreciate the difference.”
Jews are in a way an ethnoreligious group but they are also the descendants … or remnants … of a pre-capitalist commodity trading class. As described at length by Abram Leon, the Trotskyist leader murdered by the Nazis in WW2. Which is even more crucial for a Marxist to explain what is happening now.
Maher
Yeah, you lot are doing way too much here.
Ian quotes Philip
Who ARE you? I mean ‘My views on this are well known. Get you. What a sense of your own importance. & I suggest you read the Red Partisan article’ too. JHC. What is a Red Partisan? Is it some sort of lettuce you saw in Waitrose? And then ‘Do you deny your support for Nazi terrorists i…”
This is a space for political debate.
Jessica quotes Ian D
“Jews are in a way an ethnoreligious group but they are also the descendants .. or remnants … of a pre-capitalist commodity trading class. As described at length by Abram Leon, the Trotskyist leader murdered by the Nazis in WW2. Which is even more crucial for a Marxist to explain wha…”
I’m sorry Ian, | know I’ve worked with you productively, but you think pre-WW2 Jews were a “pre-capitalist commodity trading class”..??? Unto themselves? Pretty sure my ancestors were peasants and farm labourers lol
Carlos quoting Maher
“No, I’m someone who supports the Iranian people like Anahita does. We want democracy and secular rule.”
Glad to hear that
Simon H quotes Carlos
“Don’t go there… there are Jews of many and varied ethnicities. Black, Arab, Chinese, you name it…this is not what this chat is about”
We all know what is meant when some people talk about Jewish people. Anti Semites like to make sweeping comments about Jewish supremacy and then when you push back they rush to appeared “nuanced”
Carlos quotes Simon H
We all know what is meant when some people talk about Jewish people. Anti Semites like to make sweeping comments about Jewish supremacy and then when you push back they rush to appeared “nuanced”
Why are you clearly trying to stir something up in this chat that was never there in the first place?
Ian D quotes Jessisca
“Im sorry lan, | know I’ve worked with you productively, but you think pre-WW2 Jews were a “pre-capitalist commodity trading class”. ??? Unto themselves? Pretty sure my ancestors were peasants and farm labourers lol”
Not pre-WW2. Pre-capitalist. That doesn’t come from me but from Abram Leon. The martyred Jewish Trotskyist leader (in Auschwitz) who was an associate of Ernest Mandel.
I’m surprised ACR comrades don’t know about his work: “The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation” written around 1942. He was murdered in 1944. My work has always been based on his understanding.
And I’ve been witchhunted for it. That’s the lot of those who defend Marxist ideas which are often not popular.
James Kulmer
Comrades, lets not start levelling personal accusations at one another. Vehemently disagreeing with a viewpoint is fine, but levelling accusations is not.
On the subject matter at hand, the majority of the bad blood in this argument is through poor terminology. We all clearly agree that the system of oppression and genocide in Israel, and the ideology that legitimises it – Zionism -is pernicious and to be totally opposed. The problems here are derived from ambiguity around the term “Jewish’. In my view, given how ambiguous it is, it should be done away with. Be specific. Referring to “Jewish supremacy” is going to be interpreted negatively, regardless of whether the intended meaning was ‘the supremacy of the Jewish ethnicity by proponents of Zionism as practiced within the apartheid state of Israel”. Just be specific.
Ian D
https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/leon/Abram_Leon_The_Jewish_Question.pdf
Simon H quotes Ian D
“https://www.marists.org/ebooks/leon/Abram_Leon_The_Jewish_Question pdf”
Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as bankers
Philip quotes Maher
“No, I’m someone who supports the Iranian people like Anahita does. We want democracy and secular rule.”
@Carlos Maher also shut someone up when challenged about what he actually knew about the problems of capitalism in Britain when he replied, “Look mate I’m living in it”
I think @Maher was supposed to say, Ooh, no. Not really. Please tell me what | should be thinking and I’l take notes.
Carlos quotes James Kulmer
“Comrades, lets not start levelling personal accusations at one another. Vehemently disagreeing with a viewpoint is fine, but levelling accusations is not.”
“the supremacy of the Jewish ethnicity by proponents of Zionism as practiced within the apartheid state of Israel glad someone gets it unequivocally, though I can’t see it as a very catchy, easy to remember term
Ian D quotes Simon H
“Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as bankers”
Yes indeed. But he never lived to see the creation of Israel as a transplanted imperialist oppressor state. Some of the things that he analysed made that possible.
Israel is not Liberia or Sierra Leone.
James Kulmer quotes Carlos
“the supremacy of the Jewish ethnicity by proponents of Zionism as practiced within the apartheid state of Israel” glad someone gets it unequivocally, though | can’t see it as a very catchy, easy to remember term”
Indeed – if only inventing new words and phrases were so easy.
Ian D quotes Simon H
“Leon’s entire argument is that Jews were OPPRESSED in pre capitalist societies and forced into certain economic positions. If you extrapolate from that Jewish people now form a PRIVILEGED position then you’re just repeating anti semitic tropes about Jews as bankers”
Actually Leon’s position was that Jews became oppressed when the people-class was rendered obsolete by the beginnings of capitalism, as feudalism declined. He did NOT say that the people-class came into existence because of some prior oppression of Jews. In the early period of feudalism – he talked about Charlemagne – the Jews were a privileged, intermediary layer. The view that you are echoing here, that Jews were always oppressed, is a liberal or even liberal-Zionist view, not a Marxist one.
There is a passage in that work where Leon explicitly attacks the notion that the people-class was created by a prior oppression of the Jews.
Simon H
So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?
Ian D
No, Jews today are not a class. They are a multi-class population with a top-heavy social structure that is partly a product of their earlier role before capitalism, and accentuated by the genocide in Hitler’s day when the more working class, radical Jews were disproportionately wiped out. With the collaboration of the Zionists in some notorious instances – like Hungary
Ian D quoting Simon H
“So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?”
And the Jewish-Zionist bourgeois layer I am talking about is not a class either. It’s a distinct caste within the imperialist bourgeoisie with a material interest in Israel through the racist Law of Return.
A caste is PART of a class with a special interest or purpose. The caste I am talking about has some similarities with labour bureaucracies within the working class movement. A layer within our class movement with it’s own special interests that are not those of the rest of the class.
That bourgeois caste/layer is trying to suppress the Palestine movement in the West. There is nothing racist about pointing this out. The caste being criticised though is genocidal in its racism.
Ian D quoting Simon H
“So Jews do form a separate class of people who are integrated into the global trans national bourgeoisie? I see. So yeah the protocols of the elders of Zion then?”
And there is no global trans-national bourgeoisie in any case. The bourgeoisie can not abolish the nation state. The only layer within the bourgeoisie that PARTLY transcends that, is the Jewish-Zionist caste I am talking about. But only partly – they may exist in an organised way across some borders but their real loyalty is to Israel. So they are not fully transnational either.
Only the international proletariat, objectively, has no country. That is orthodox Marxism.
Simon (not Simon H)
@Simon H | think there are some wrong things in lan’s argumentation. But | think it’s better to have good faith debates. Your last response there was quite bad. May I suggest that you try to proof your argument better? You can’ just keep repeating the charge and then try twist his words.
@Ian D I don’t understand what point you are trying to stress with the Abraham Leon quotes. Is this character what Leon describes to be attributed to Jewish people or a certain sub group of Jewish people today in 2026?
Ian D
He was mainly talking about European Jews. I am talking about the reason why Jews have a very top heavy class structure, which is elaborated in the link I posted earlier. Obviously in a capitalist society, disproportionate capitalist wealth brings disproportionate social power. Leon’s work in large measure explains that. But he never lived to see Israel created – he died in Auschwitz.
But his theories do explain this if you study them and understand the history properly. I have written about this in some detail:
hitps://www.consistent-democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/socialistfightpamphletno1.pdf
Matt GoldB. (Walthamstow) quotes Ian D
“He was mainly talking about European Jews. I am talking about the reason why Jews have a very top heavy class structure, which is elaborated in the link I posted earlier. Obviously in a capitalist society, disproportionate capitalist wealth brings disproportionate social power. Leon’s work in lar…”
So please let me get this argument, I am a European Jew, UK citizen by birth, and retired worker, and by virtue of the racist law of a foreign country I have a material interest in upholding that same foreign country? Whether I like it or not. Before the creation of this foreign country in 1948, classic Jew hatred could only claim this as ‘World wide conspiracy’ but now itis an actual fact that all Jews have these interests. in maintaining and supporting this foreign power! To me completely classically Jew hatred in 2026 writ large. I have absolutely no interest in this foreign country and wil always stand with the oppressed and NEVER with the oppressor.
Ian D
Er no. Unless you are a capitalist.
You do understand that the capitalist state is effectively the property of the capitalist class, don’t you? That is the Marxist understanding of the state.
And which capitalist state such bourgeois ‘own’ is determined by their bourgeois citizenship.
Why are you identifying yourself with part of the capitalist class? | made no such equation of you as a socialist with any part of the capitalist class. In fact, I said the opposite. I defined my argument in class terms, about the bourgeoisie.
You made that identification with your question. I’m making such basic class distinctions. Your question completely buries those distinctions. And it’s spontaneous and automatic.
That’s the unconscious influence of Zionism on the left. It’s similar to what Kaiser Bill said in 1914: “I see no parties or classes – I see only Germans”.
Everything I said was qualified in class terms. If you “always stand with the oppressed and not with the oppressor” that is fine.
But if that is the case you should also point out, name and condemn the imperialist bourgeois caste whose existence is easy to demonstrate, which is the prime mover of Zionism’s crimes, and which is now actively seeking to destroy the Palestinian movement in the West.
The Israeli Law of Return is DESIGNED to create this identification. It appears to create an identification of all Jews with that ‘foreign’ bourgeois state. But in fact, it creates such a material interest for overseas-born Jewish CAPITALISTS. It’s the usual bourgeois con trick, but given an extra-territorial twist. The same one that works on the idiots putting flags on lampposts here
No, you don’t have such an interest. That’s the whole point! But the Jewish bourgeoisie (by birth, overseas), DOES!
And if you look at the statistics, that layer is proportionately massively greater than the proportion of Jews in the general population. In the US, six of the 10 wealthiest billionaires last year were/are Jewish bourgeois. I can name them.
You don’t have their power. If you criticise them, even implicitly, for this they’ll treat you like they treat Zack Polanski.
So why the high dudgeon about them being criticised and pointed out as the bearers of Greater Israel? Surely for socialists of Jewish origin they are your enemies, because you stand with the oppressed, as you say.
The contradiction is in your head, not mine.
Ian D
Oh, and what do I mean by “treat you like Zack Polanski’? I mean like the Zionist stooge media does here… scroll down this link.
[reproduces and denounces anti-Semitic caricatures in the pro-Zionist media of Green Party leader Zack Polanski with hooked nose]
Matt GoldB. (Walthamstow) quotes Ian D
“Er no. Unless you are a capitalist….”
Dress this argument up as much as you like with “Marxist” verbiage, | asked a simple question about me as a working class Jew, and you patronised me, with your version of Jew hatred, essentially repeating that Jews are disproportionately rich and have a vested interest in maintaining capitalism in general and foreign country in particular.
Ian D quotes Matt GoldB. (Walthamstow)
“Dress this argument up as much as you like with “Marxist” verbiage, | asked a simple question about me as a working class Jew, and you patronised me, with your version of Jew hatred, essentially repeating that Jews are disproportionately rich and have a vested interest in…”
You are simply choosing to ignore everything I said. I did answer the question. My answer was clearly “no”.
In fact “no” was the second word in my reply. That no means …. ‘no’. The rest is explanation of that “no”.
Maher
Right, I think we need to take a breather and let the heat die down.
Benwwk quotes Ian D
“And the Jewish Zionist bourgeois layer | am talking about is not a class either. tis a distinct caste within the imperialist bourgeoisie with a material interest in Israel through the racist Law of Return”
Your conception of Zionism as the (historical and contemporary) project of an ethnic (Jewish) caste within the bourgeoisie is deeply flawed and leads you into serious difficulties, not least making wild statements that the jewish bourgeois caste’ is somehow acting to suppress Palestinian solidarity across the world (rather than western imperialists who nurtured and remain the primary power behind the Zionist project). Zionism is demonstrably and significantly not just a Jewish movement. Neither are the repressive measures being implemented to buttress it the result of some Jewish conspiracy. In failing to recognise this you -like Miller end up setting the tail to wag the dog: projecting Zionism onto some abstract and schematic notion of the Jews somehow subverting Western Imperialist states to repress their citizens (presumably) against their own national interests. At best this seems a bad and conspiratorial reading.”
Simon (not Simon H)
Yes, exactly. The statement that repression of pro-palestinian groups does not serve the interest of the capitalist class here is wild.
Ian D
Israel IS imperialist, its intenational dimension is a faction within the IMPERIALIST bourgeoisie with its own specific imperialist objectives – greater Israel. So, it does serve the interests of imperialism, in particular of Israel as an imperialist formation.
That state has its own special relationship with the wider imperialist bourgeoisie which is actually cultist. They are regarded as the bourgeoisie’s most class-conscious section. In particular, the role of Jewish- Zionist ideologues in the 1970s – Friedman, Sherman, Joseph, Kissinger etc, in popularising neoliberalism gives them a celebrated status
They are regarded as the saviours of capitalism from a major crisis. A huge turn around from Hitler’s day when they were suspected of being in league with ‘Bolshevism’. Zionist strategy effected that change and created that cult.
And as with so many political cults, those who dissent are excommunicated. So even bourgeois figures who dissent get their political careers destroyed. The latest being Thomas Massie in Kentucky, unseated by AIPAC. Far from the first – even presidents have been targeted. Carter and Bush the Elder for a start.
t’s happened here, too. Sir Alan Duncan is a prime example. AS is … Corbyn, arguably. There was a time when Jewish bourgeois in the US (and here) were subject to “country-club discrimination.” Not any more. Providing they are Zionists and part of the cult, they are treated like royalty. Look at Kushner and Witkoff, who are in regular touch with Netanyahu even though they formally work for the US in negotiations. Israel is part of imperialism, and so is its caste.
That was always Zionist strategy – to lead ‘their people out of oppression into the ranks of the oppressor peoples/nations. That was only possible because of the unique nature of the oppression of the Jews which had a pre-capitalist origin, and was not intrinsic to capitalism, even if it’s worst manifestation was in the earlier period of imperialism.
That is why I mentioned Liberia and Sierra Leone. They have some formal similarity with Israel, as states for returning exiles; but Israel is fundamentally different from them. They are oppressed semi-colonies. Israel is imperialist.
Simon (not Simon H)
Another thing that does not help you is the inclusion of irrelevant details in your points
Ian D
None of this is irrelevant. Evidence and facts are the basis of this understanding
Susan quoting benwwk
“Your conception of Zionism leads you into serious difficulties, not least making wild statements that the ‘jewish bourgeois caste’is somehow acting to suppress Palestinian…”
exactly, its like no one has ever heard of Christian zionism which has an old history is essentially antisemitic (we’ll send the Jews there, they are out of Europe where they create problems) and is one of the reasons that Balfour support the Zionist movement. We must remember that the dog wags the tail and, of course, there are differences between the needs of Imperialism and the needs of the the zionist state.
Ian D posts link to article (see link below) Automated extract
“US Hegemony Drains Away Through Israeli Achilles Heel – Consistent Democrats – LCFI
Trump and Netanyahu’s war-escapade is burying US world hegemony. ft has backfired and they haven’t got a clue how to defeat Iran. www consistent democrats org”
The tail and the dog are flawed concepts when discussing this. A better analogy is two creatures who have a shared leg. The supposition within the argument is anti-Marxist and anti-materialist
In 2025, out of the ten wealthiest billionaires in the US, 6 of them are/were Jewish. That is the most extreme manifestation of Jewish bourgeois overreprentation – overall its not 60% but still massively more than the 2% of Jews in the general US population (see article).
The Israeli Law of Return gives them hereditary citizenship rights in Israel. Their bourgeois class status gives them de facto ownership tights over that bourgeois state. The ideology of Zionism, which is the hegemonic ideology among bourgeois Jews, drives almost all of them ideologically to accept that calling (with the odd exception like Soros).
Christian Zionist bourgeois do not have citizenship rights by birth in Israel, so that de facto property relationship does not exist. And the many Christian Zionists (and indeed the smaller number of Jewish Zionists) who are not bourgeois count for effectively nothing in this. Even the bourgeois are fellow travellers but without the specific rights over the Israeli state that make the Jewish Zionists the core of the movement.
Unless it can be demonstrated that these facts are materially untrue, this critique is at odds with the facts.
Laurence quotes Ian D
“The tail and the dog are flawed concepts when discussing this. A better analogy is two creatures who have a shared leg. The supposition within the argument is ant-Marxist and anti-materialist”
Ian, for a period of time, something like 80% of the CEOS of the largest banks were Irish.
This is a silly link to draw.
Also I’m fairly sure the wealthiest billionaire thing just..isn’t true?|
Ian D quotes Laurence
“Ian, for a period of time, something like 80% of the CEOs of the largest banks were Irish.”
Even if that’s true, they don’t have an ideology anything like Zionism
Ian D quotes Laurence
“Also I’m fairly sure the wealthiest billionaire thing just…isn’t true?”
You can check it on Forbes Israel. The links are in the article.
Laurence
On the numbers, Jensen Huang, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are not Jewish.
So that’s at least 5 who aren’t
Ian D
Zuckerberg certainly is
Laurence
Larry Page and Zuckerberg are both atheist
I think this entire narrative is silly. Its drawing lines where they don’t exist.
Ian D
So were Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky.
Simon H posts like to Wikipedia
Antisemitism is the socialism of fools
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_is._the_socialism_of fools?wprov=sfti1
Ian D
I wish those lines didn’t exist. We would be in a very different situation.
Simon H quotes Ian D
“Zuckerberg certainly is”
Are we playing “spot the Jew” now? I don’t think this is good or right
Maher
Ok alright, what the actual fuck is going on in this chat?
Lawrence
lan, I say this as someone who finds your company rather enjoyable, | think this is a very slippery slope and it leads to all kinds of nuts conclusions regardless
Ian D
You have not demonstrated that these facts are irrelevant or untrue. And saying that refusing to deny facts is ‘anti-Semitic’ is simply libellous.
Maher
This kind of stuff is why we get questioned
Ian D
It’s completely factual.
Susan quoting Ian D
“The tail and the dog are flawed concepts when discussing this. A better analogy is two creatures who have a shared leg. The supposition within the argument is ant-Marxist and anti-materialist…”
wow! There are disagreements between the US and its colonial settler state; no one disputes that, but the Israeli military and government does not dictate to the US. And the US has stopped the Israeli state from doing things; do not confuse Trump with others. What took so long to attack Iran which the zionists have wanted for a very long time; it has been an obssession of Netayahu since he was the Israeli ambassador to the UN. If they controlled the US would it have taken this long? no … but the US uses Israel to do its business in the area along with Saudi Arabia (and Iran under the Shah, etc).
One of the strangest things in all the antisemitism that | am reading here is, lan, you seem to believe that Jews are not working class people, that somehow because of a lack of religious opposition to taking interest that all Jews are somehow rich, that is a ridiculous position. It almost reeks of the Merchant of Venice. This is straightout old-fashioned antisemitism; its been a while for me to have seen this so openly except on the right (no, | am not calling you on the right-wing) … as a working class Jewish woman from NYC, I find my non-existence impressive … even if the richest person on the planet was a Jew, that would not make your cabal of Jewish people trying to control the world anything but antisemitic “
Ian D
Where is the factual error?
Maher
As a Semitic person, I plead with you all to find a new topic to argue on, this is going nowhere
Ruth Appleton
Twisted factual. What is your point?
Simon H quotes Ian D
“You have not demonstrated that these facts are irrelevant or untrue. And saying that refusing to deny facts is ‘anti-Semitic is simply libellous.”
It really doesnt matter how many of the top billionaires are Jews. It really isn’t the point and focussing on that simply sounds like a fixation on “Jews” and how they are richer than anyone else or whatever. Classic anti semitism
Ian D quotes Ruth Appleton
“Twisted factual. What is your point?”
Where is the factual error?
Simon H
The fact isn’t disputed – it’s what you politically imply about it which no one agrees on
Laurence
Consider
Clearly, the Irish run the world.
Therefore
Ian D
So the fact is not disputed. But I am being denounced for being factually correct. That is not Marxism.
Lawrence
The Irish Republicans have so much support because of this.
how else would the Irish get a US President?
If not through the power of the Irish controlled banks
you see how this ine of reasoning is silly?
Ian D
So what? Ireland doesn’t oppress anyone.
Ruth Appleton
If your facts are really facts what does it lead you to conclude? The bourgeoisie are really bourgeois!
Ian D
Tell the Palestinians it doesn’t matter
Laurence quotes Ian D
“So what? Ireland doesn’t oppress anyone.”
So your issue here isn’t with a conspiracy that runs the world from one group unless that group happens to be Jews, which is one with Israelis, because they’re the ones oppressing people
maybe, just maybe, the problem is al of capital and not just ‘well Jews are capitalist too’
Ian D
That Israel is a powerful imperialist state whose ruling class overlaps with those of much bigger imperialist countries.
Maher
0k, as the only person from the Middle East, and the only active person who is Semitic. I’m going to need you all to actually take a moment to calm down and reflect
Laurence quotes Ian D
“That Israel is a powerful imperialist state whose ruling class overlaps with those of much bigger imperialist countries.”
0h maybe the ruling class’s interests everywhere overlap
Have you considered this possibility
Simon H
Ian please -1 have really respected the work you have done in YP and | agree with you on a lot of politics. But this fixation on the “Jewish trans national bourgeoise” is really really bad and wrong and I really beg you to reconsider these positions.
Ian D
Not in that specific way.
Maher
The people that you care about, are not in this conversation. Please find another topic
Ian D
This is the only Marxist analysis that fits the situation we are in. I wish it wasn’t. My life would be much easier!
I didn’t kick this discussion off.
Laurence quotes Ian D
“This is the only Marxist analysis that fits the situation we are in. | wish it wasn’t. My life would be much easier!”
Well if your Marxist analysis is ‘one group has more control of global capital than others’ but this is only an issue when Jews’ and not just maybe global capital is bad and ‘capital supports Israel because its in their interest.
Ian D
But if my views are criticised I will defend them.
It’s about Palestine.
Laurence
There’s plenty of Muslim billionaires, but | don’t go around claiming that the reason we have oppression in Saudi Arabia or Iran is that there’s Muslim billionaires
Ian D
In a sense, but in specific ways, which don’t fit the dominant dogma.
Laurence
The root of all oppression is capitalism. It is not one specific faction of capital.
Ian D
Those countries are not imperialist. Qualitatively less power.
Laurence quotes Ian D
“Those countries are not imperialist. Qualitatively less power.”
The Yemenis would beg to differ on Saudi Arabia and the Sudanese would on the UAE
Maher quotes Ian D
“Those countries are not imperialist. Qualitatively less power.”
Saudi Arabia is quite literally imperialist .
Lawrence
The Saudis are literally invading Yemen with the Americans
Ian D
But we have to analyse the specificities of what is around today.
Lawrence
This is going on right now
The UAE is funding militias in Sudan and Yemen too
Maher
Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon
Laurence
Right now.
Ian D
The Saudis are clients of Israel and the US. But all those countries are semi-colonial
Laurence quotes Ian D
“The Saudis are clients of Israel and the US. But all those countries are semi-colonial”
What???
the Saudis and the UAE are clients of Israel is a hell of a claim.
Ian D
Some are lackies, some are targets.
They both joined in the attack on Iran
1 wouldn’t think my view on that are controversial. Only my views on Zionism are controversial.
James Kulmer
I think this piecemeal, dripfeed approach that we are forced into on WhatsApp is precluding the full exposition of the various positions taken in this conversation, and given the importance and controversy of this topic, it deserves an in depth exchange of ideas. I have some severe disagreements myself with some things as stated above, but I don’t think this is the appropriate forum to hash them out.
1 would recommend we instead share some long form content that exposes our views, rebuking them in that format if needed, and if necessary we ought to schedule a debate on the topic in person, if anyone wants to. | don’t want to stifle a conversation as its happening, but I’m not certain this one is going anywhere productive, comrades.
Ian D
I’m fine with that. I’ve always been in favour of this being discussed in a principled manner. I haven’t had that good fortune so far
(And the latter point is not about here)
Susan quoting Ian D
‘The tail and the dog are flawed concepts when discussing this. A better analogy is two creatures who have a shared leg. The supposition within the argument is ant-Marxist and anti-materialist”
lan, where would Israel be if the US was not dumping tens of billions of financial support and weaponry. If Britain had not supported it, it would not exist; if the US did not continue to support it and opposed its genocide, it would not have been able to do so, its weapon and defence systems would not be the quality that they are. You are very confused about this … there have been conflicts between them and itis brought into line by the US. The zionist state is a regional imperialist serving the interests of the US.
1 have avoided this ridiculous antisemitic discussion honestly, but at this point it has gotten to be too much to ignore. Also, just to say my last point. Zionism is a political movement, not a religious one and is independent of the Jewish religion itself (as we do know Christian Zionism is born in antisemitism as is the Jewish zionist response). Conflating Judaism and Zionism falls into exactly what the Zionists want. Zionism requires antisemitism to justify itself, you are giving them what they want. Congratulations.
benwwk
Agree with Susan, the problem here has nothing to do with WhatsApp and entirely due to the fact that lan has a patently antisemitic worldview. This shouldn’t be brushed aside but confronted. Simon touches on the core of it above (the view of the “Jewish transnational bourgoisie”). The fact its claimed as the “only possible Marist analysis” suggests how far gone we are from the realm of reasonable discussion.
Al Green quotes Philip
“Who ARE you? I mean ‘My views on this are well known. Get you. What a sense of your own importance. & I ‘suggest you read the Red Partisan article’ too. JHC. What is a Red Partisan? Is it some sort of lettuce you saw in Waitrose? And then Do you deny your support for Nazi terrorists”
I am following this debate to figure out what @lan D is actually saying
The accusation that he is some kind of “state security operative” is completely unfounded. What evidence do you have for this?
This kind of cop-baiting should have absolutely no place in any political discussion among socialists.
If we really thought we had a known, proven police agent in our midst we’d get them off this chat and shun them completely.
This is a method that the Stalin-era Stalinists used all the time. They accused Trotsky of being an agent of Hitler, and various other bourgeois state rulers, including the emperor of Japan. The goal was to seal off their members from consideration of his ideas.
The concept that Zionists are Jewish supremacist seems to me to be obvious.
But lan is not just saying that.
That the big imperialists are being manipulated to act against their own objective interests by an international extension of the Israeli ruling class, which exercises great power in other countries based on a common Jewish identity ~ that sounds like an updated version of the idea of a Jewish cabal scheming away at the heart of global finance capital.
Imperialism has always wanted a solid military outpost (and safe oil outlet) in the Middle East: it does not need to be tricked by wily Israeli operatives into prosecuting war against Iran (or Iraq), or into seeking to minimize Russian influence in Syria. A Greater Israel looks attractive to many wings or shadings of the G7 imperialists.
Divisions over ruling class policy are rife in many countries: this is because of a shifting kaleidoscope of imperialist configurations or putative alliances in the run up to generalized world war — and not because of Israeli string-pulling.
Susan quotes benwwk
‘Agree with Susan, the problem here has nothing to do with WhatsApp and entirely due to the fact that lan has a patently antisemitic worldview. “This shouldnt be brushed aside but confronted. Simon touches on the core of it above (the view of the “Jewish transnational bourgoisie”). The…”
i do not think that this can be debated as to have a ‘debate’ on a patently antisemitic position; means that it has veracity when at some level.
James Kulmer
This conversation has to cease now. | am going to put a pause to this channel to allow the organising committee to review the conversation and collectively decide how to proceed.
Ian D
Oxford Dictionary:
“Hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.
Cambridge Dictionary:
“Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”
Merriam Webster
“Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”
Collins Dictionary:
“Anti-Semitism is hostility to and prejudice against Jewish people.
The allegation made here is simply defamatory. And it’s very clear why itis being made. It has been conceded in this debate that I have got my facts correct. You cannot say that I am falsifying anything.
1 have said nothing derogatory or discriminatory against Jews as an ethnic, religious or racial group. NOTHING I have said conform to those definitions above. NONE OF THEM!
1 have a record of challenging GENUINE anti-Semitism when I come across it.
Criticising the SPECIFIC forms of racism characteristic of super-rich bourgeois Jews is not the same thing as racist abuse against Jews in general
Those who say it is actually share an element of an anti-Semitic world view. Equating the formation that I am criticising, and it is conceded that my facts are correct, with criticism of Jews in general. That is common in the world views of both Zionist and anti-Semitism, and it is very common in Western left-liberal and social-democratic discourse. Your Party, and even its diffuse left wing, is an obvious place for it to take root.
Some people are scared of the issue, not least because their arguments against it are not coherent. They are using a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ that is not to be found in any Dictionary but a halfway house to the IHRA where factual criticism of Zionist oppression, or key elements of it, are dragged it to suppress debate.
James Kulmer
I have not had a chance to review all of the messages in this chat, but as there are now accusations of both antisemitism and defamatory statements I think it’s in everyone’s interest that we take a pause here to assess the way forwards. Thank you all for understanding.
