Yes, CrishingBore, I did do it again: I was RIGHT again. Re: Znet commies.

  • Thread starter LoafingOaf - The Great Satan
  • Start date

LoafingOaf - The Great Satan

In a message titled "Re: You've done it AGAIN!!!!!!", in a previous thread, CrushingBore said:

> Jesus H Christ!
> Go to the Bios link - it's a rollcall of who's who in the intellectual
> left - very few of these people would consider themselves communists
> (although you undoubtedly would as most would disagree with you).

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a communism, but Znet is chock full of commies and that's just a fact.

> A communist is a person who sets themselves up wholly in opposition to the
> capitalist system -

Sounds like Znet to me.

>they support centralised markets, worker's control of
> production, etc. The contributors to Znet have a variety of concerns, but
> about the only political concern you WON'T find addressed on this site is
> "Communism".

> Go to the Staff link, and read what these people believe in;
> Michael Albert, longtime activist, speaker, and writer, is co-editor of
> ZNet, and co-editor and co-founder of Z Magazine. He also co-founded South
> End Press and has written numerous books and articles. He developed along
> with Robin Hahnel the economic vision called Participatory Economics

Oh yeah, Michael Albert, the guy who calls himself a "market abolitionist."

> He does not support the overthrow of capitalism, he's a socialist who
> supports the reform of existing economic structures to deliver broader
> social equity.

Explain to me what he means by "market abolitionism" if it is not about overthrowing capitalism.

Well, lets have a sampling of what that commie Michael Albert says and see if he's as you describe....

Here's Commie Albert discussing Social Democrats, the people most of us think of when we think of people who are merely reformists of capitalism, and people Commie Albert does not count himself among:

Social Democrats overwhelmingly, whether from inclination or from lack of hope, assume the continuation of existing defining institutions and try to ameliorate pain within that expectation. They will often be quite progressive, on the side of short term justice, and can be as worthy and humane as anyone else, more so than most, often, differing only about prospects not about what would be just. But, due to accepting that existing defining relations are going to persist, they have no reason, even, to consider altering those, employing different relations in their own work, etc. It isn't even an issue. Thus, the institutional vehicles of Social Democrats will look at most marginally different than those of the system they are trying to amerliorate...

Here's a clue as to what a "market abolitionist" is (from same URL):

"What do you think about markets in general? Are the compatible with the ideals of socialism"?

I think markets are an abomination...

If by socialism you mean the idea that people doing work should have say over it proportional to the effects on them, for example...and that people should be justly remunerated, and that institutions should promote solidarity rather than force folks to step on one another if they are to get ahead -- then, no, I don't think markets are compatible with the ideals of socialism....

But note, just because I abhor markets that doesn't mean I don't go to the store, or use a bank, or look at existing markets and see the need for demands that fall short of their abolition -- say demands about trade, or income redistribution, or work day length, and on and on...

Oh, so he's not for the overthrow of capitalism? LOL! This is from the FIRST interview I looked up on the pinko, so it took me exactly four minutes to prove he's exactly what I said. LOLOLOL!

And it took my 6 more minutes to find the link where Commie Albert describes himself as an "anti-capitalist" several times (only he claims that he's somehow different/better than the past anti-capitalist commies who caused such atrocity...).

And at the link I found this commie-style paragraph response to a question:

At this point you offer, "of course, your agenda is first of all one of destruction. Everything Z magazine and your books are about is destruction of the American social order which far from having its `boots' on the `necks' of anyone, has liberated more people -- more diverse people -- than any other social system in the history of mankind. It even gives you the freedom to work 24/7 to destroy it. Try that in Cuba."

Capitalism gives no freedoms other than to the propertied, the freedom to employ wage slaves and to try to extract from them as much labor for as little pay as possible, and to buyers and sellers to try to fleece one another as best they can. Freedom to dissent, still sharply limited in our society at least when it starts to become effective, is hard won, like women's suffrage, the end of Jim Crow, the eight hour working day, and on and on. As to "destruction," would it make sense to say of an opponent of dictatorship that their agenda is "all one of destruction?" Of course not. My economic agenda is to attain a condition in which people enjoy the fruits of their labors via a classless system that promotes solidarity, self management, equity, and diversity. Does this mean I favor replacing institutions that obstruct these values with new ones that embody and promote them? Yes, it certainly does. Is that a destructive agenda? Of course not, and you know it.

OK, I'm done with him, when you skim his shit for more than ten minutes it gets incredibly dull, and it only takes me ten minutes to know that Michael Albert's vision is nothing most people want to see imposed on them, which is why the ideas and contributer on Znet are considered EXTREMISTS KOOKS.

> Next;
> tim allen

I don't know who he is and I've had my fill of Znet kookiness for today.

> tim is the other full time editor and staff member at ZNet. As well as
> ZNet, tim is involved in queer and transgender, anarchist, youth lib, and
> anti war activism.
> There it is, clear as can be - he's an anarchist - and if you told him
> he's a communist to his face he'd probably punch your lights out (if he
> wasn't a pacifist, but sometimes even pacifists get the blues . . .).
> Anarchists believe in the wholesale devolution of all structures - for an
> anarchist a communist system is abhorrent because it remains a system,
> however democratised it is. Communism presupposes centralised structures.
> Some anarchists argue that anarchy is the natural extension of Marx's
> original intent, but not many communists would agree with them.

> So, basically, back to my original point - it seems the term
> "Communist" can be readily interpreted in your lexicon as
> "anyone who disagrees with Loafing Oaf".

Nope. But I sure as hell know that Znet publishes rubbish by exactly the same sorts of Marxists who, with their so-called good intentions and idealism, caused the murder of over 100 million people in the 20th century. So I understand why they're afraid of a spade being called a spade: No sane person would want to see the results of Znet people actually having power. Indeed, we've already seen the results of such people.

Take the most left wing person in most circles people move about in, and that left winger will be considered a right winger by the Znet crowd....

Oh and I'm curious why you didn't mention Noam chomsky, the leading "intellectual" over at Znet.

It's not surprising you love that crowd, given what you've said about Israel.
Here's what Alan Dershowitz has written about Noam Chomsky after Chomsky's disgusting petition to have universities divest from Israel. I particularly like that Dershowitz, in the second essay, points out that countries such as France, Great Britian and Italy can't claim to have a superior record on human rights as Israel), but you'll hear none of that from those who follow the anti-semetic pied pipers into singling out Israel as the worst country on earth. Which is why I include the second essay despite it being a little repetitive after the first one.

Chomsky’s Immoral Divestiture Petition
Guest Column
Alan M. Dershowitz
Who is Noam Chomsky and why is he seeking to compel universities to divest from corporations that have ties to Israel? I have known Noam Chomsky for more than thirty years. I have debated him on numerous occasions, and I have written extensively about his zealous anti-Zionism and his flirtations with neo-Nazi revisionism and Holocaust denial. I was not surprised therefore to learn that he is the inspiration behind the foolish and immoral campaign for divestiture.

I first debated Chomsky in 1973, several weeks after the Yom Kippur War. Chomsky’s proposal at that time was consistent with the PLO party line. He wanted to abolish the state of Israel, and to substitute a “secular, binational state,” based on the model of binational “brotherhood” that then prevailed in Lebanon. Chomsky repeatedly pointed to Lebanon, where Christians and Muslims “lived side by side,” sharing power in peace and harmony. This was just a few years before Lebanon imploded in fratricidal disaster.

This is what I said about Chomsky’s hare-brained scheme in our 1973 debate: “Putting aside the motivations behind such a proposal when it is made by the Palestinian organizations, why do not considerations of self-determination and community control favor two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab? Isn’t it better for people of common background to control their own life, culture, and destiny (if they so choose), than to bring together in an artificial way people who have shown no ability to live united in peace. I confess to not understanding the logic of the proposal, even assuming its good will.”

My counterproposal was that “Israel should declare, in principle, its willingness to give up the captured territories in return for a firm assurance of lasting peace. By doing so, it would make clear what I think the vast majority of Israelis believe: it has no interest in retaining the territories for any reason other than protection from attack.”

Chomsky rejected my proposal out of hand. He characterized it as a mere return to the “colonialist status quo.” Only the dismantling of the colonialist Jewish state would satisfy the PLO, and only the creation of a secular, binational Palestine in “all of Palestine” would satisfy Chomsky.

My next encounter with Chomsky revolved around his writing an introduction to a book by an anti-Semite named Robert Faurisson who denied that the Holocaust took place, that Hitler’s gas chambers existed, that the diary of Anne Frank was authentic, and that there were death camps in Nazi occupied Europe. He claimed that the “massive lie” about genocide was a deliberate concoction initiated by “American Zionists” “and that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. Chomsky described these and other conclusions as “findings” and said that they were based on “extensive historical research.” He also wrote that “I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust.” He said he saw “no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work,” including his claim that “the Jews” were responsible for World War II. He wrote an introduction to one of Faurisson’s book which was used to market his anti-Semitic lies.

In a subsequent debate at the Harvard Medical School, Chomsky initially denied having advocated a Lebanon-style binational state for Israel, only to have to back down upon being confronted with the evidence. He also tried to dispute the fact that he had authorized an essay he had written in defense of Robert Faurisson to be used as the forward to Faurisson’s book about Holocaust denial, but again had to back down. Chomsky took the position that he had no interest in “revisionist” literature before Faurisson had written the book. When confronted by Robert Nozick, a distinguished philosophy professor who recalled discussing revisionist literature with him well before the Faurisson book, Chomsky first berated Nozick for disclosing a private conversation and then he shoved him contemptuously in front of numerous witnesses.

This then is the man who is leading the campaign for divesture against Israel. He is joined in this ignoble effort by some who would take the money now invested in the Mideast’s only democracy and have it sent to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, the Palestinian Authority, and others who support and finance terrorism. He is also joined by a motley assortment of knee-jerk anti-Zionists, rabid Anti-Americans, radical leftists (the Spartacist League), people with little knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and even some of Chomsky’s former students who now teach in Israel.

There is no intellectually or morally defensible case for singling out Israel for divestiture, and I challenge Chomsky to debate me on the morality of this selective attack against an American ally that is defending itself -- and the world -- against terrorism that targets civilians. Universities invest in a wide array of companies that have operations in countries that systematically violate the human rights of millions of people. Nor are these countries defending themselves against those who would destroy them and target their civilians. Yet this petition focused only on the Jewish State, to the exclusion of all others, including those which, by any reasonable standard, are among the worst violators of human rights. This is bigotry pure and simple, and those who signed the petition should be ashamed of themselves and shamed by others.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University.


Divest and Conquer
A nasty and immoral campaign is being waged around the world to damage Israel's economy by coercing universities and other institutions into divesting their holdings in Israel, as some of them did from South Africa during the apartheid regime. There is no justification for the comparison between the two, and the divestment effort should be opposed by anyone who supports human rights.

As fair-minded observers understand, the two cases are entirely different. South African apartheid was a racist system by which a minority controlled and subjugated a disenfranchised majority. The campaign for South African divestment was inspired and joined by long-term advocates of neutral support for human rights across the board. Israel, by contrast, is a functioning democracy that guarantees full equality before the law to all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. The anti-Israel divestment campaign has been inspired by pleaders with a particular animus toward Israel and little commitment to human rights in general.

The intellectual leader of this campaign is none other than Noam Chomsky, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist, who has long favored the abolition of the state of Israel and the substitution of a "secular, binational state" based, it seems, on the model of Lebanon. This is the same Chomsky who has defended the "findings" of the notorious French antisemite and Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, who claims "the Jews" were responsible for World War II. Chomsky has said that he saw "no hint of antisemitic implications in Faurisson's works," including his denial of the Holocaust, which Chomsky claims is based on "extensive historical research." Chomsky went so far as to write an introduction to one of Faurisson's antisemitic books.

Of course, Chomsky is not alone in his divest-from-Israel campaign. He is joined in his ignoble effort by a motley assortment of knee-jerk anti-Zionists, rabid America-haters, radical leftists such as the Trotskyist Spartacist League and even a few of Chomsky's former students who now teach in Israel. Some in this movement would take the money now invested in the Middle East's only democracy and have it sent to "progressive" states — countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba and the Palestinian Authority, which support and finance terrorism.

Thankfully, the divestment effort has garnered little support so far among respectable human rights advocates. Here in Cambridge, Mass., on Chomsky's home turf, a petition demanding divestment from Harvard and MIT garnered just 412 signatures from among students, faculty, staff and alumni of the two institutions, while more than 5,300 signed petitions opposing divestment. The result should surprise no one. There is no intellectually or morally defensible case for singling out Israel for divestiture. Universities invest in a wide array of companies that have operations in countries all over the world, including many that systematically violate the human rights of millions of people. And these other countries are not defending themselves against those who would destroy them and target their civilians. Yet this petition focuses only on the Jewish state, to the exclusion of all others, including those that — by any reasonable standard — are among the worst violators of human rights.

As an advocate, teacher and student of human rights for almost 40 years, I feel confident in asserting that Israel's record on human rights is among the best in the world, especially among nations that have confronted comparable threats.

Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens. There is no more important component in the protection of human rights and civil liberties than an independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme Court.

As the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel is the only country in the region that has virtually unlimited freedom of speech. Any person in Israel — whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian — can criticize the Israeli government and its leaders. No citizen of any other Middle Eastern or Muslim state can do that without fear of imprisonment or death. As one wag recently put it, citizens of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have exactly the same right of free speech — both may criticize Israel and praise Yasser Arafat.

Israel is the only country in the world that has openly confronted the difficult issue of protecting the civil liberties of the ticking bomb terrorist. The Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that despite the potential benefits of employing "physical pressure" (that is, using non-lethal torture in order to extract information), such pressure is now illegal in Israel. Brutal torture, including lethal torture, is commonplace in nearly every other Middle Eastern and Muslim country. Indeed, American authorities sometimes send suspects to Egypt, Jordan and the Philippines precisely because they know that they will be tortured in those countries.

The list could go on and on, and by every single standard Israel would surpass other countries against which no divestiture petition has been directed. To be sure, Israel is far from perfect. I have been critical of some of its policies, as have countless Israeli citizens. Crucially, there are mechanisms within Israel for improving its civil liberties and human rights record. These mechanisms do not exist in other Middle Eastern and Muslim nations.

Even when judged against European nations, Israel's human rights record does very well. It is far better than that of France on virtually any criterion, even if one forgets about the Algerian War, in which the French military tortured and murdered thousands of people. It is least as good as the British record in dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Israeli legal system is far superior to that of Italy, Spain and many other European countries.

There are, of course, difficult issues to be resolved between Israel and the Palestinians. These include the future of the settlements, the establishment of Palestinian self-governance and the prevention of terrorism. These issues will require compromise on all sides. Americans are and must be free to criticize Israel when they disagree with its policies or actions, as they criticize any other country in the world whose record is not perfect. But to single out the Jewish state of Israel, as if it were the worst human rights offender, is bigotry pure and simple. Those who sign the Chomsky petition should be ashamed of themselves. If they are not, it is up to others to shame them.

Here's an alternative to singling out Israel for divestment: Let universities choose nations for investment in the order of the human rights records. If that were done, investment in Israel would increase dramatically, while investments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Philippines, Indonesia, the Palestinian Authority and most other countries of the world would decrease dramatically.

I challenge Noam Chomsky to a public debate on whether universities should invest in or divest from companies that do business with Israel and other countries.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University and author of "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age" (Little, Brown & Co., 2002).





Re: say no to rhetoric

> Here's what Alan Dershowitz has written about Noam Chomsky after Chomsky's
> disgusting petition to have universities divest from Israel. I
> particularly like that Dershowitz, in the second essay, points out that
> countries such as France, Great Britian and Italy can't claim to have a
> superior record on human rights as Israel), but you'll hear none of that
> from those who follow the anti-semetic pied pipers into singling out
> Israel as the worst country on earth. Which is why I include the second
> essay despite it being a little repetitive after the first one.

The fact that you quote Dershowitz shows that you're not really doing a good job here. It's absolutely pointless and ridiculous to criticize one "radical" position by quoting another "radical" position.

The same holds for your overgeneralization as to Znet being all a bunch of "commies", and therefore bad. Dershowitz is precisely the name you can quote to show how people can be equally "bad" without being "commies". A pointless debate.

Do be better informed if you want to be taken seriously. Although I guess that none of your readership really takes you seriously, and I hope they don't take themselves very seriously either.

P.S. On Israel having a superior record on human rights above France, Italy and UK - you will have to admit that Dersho doesn't provide any facts, or period in time to check. Which makes it all very wishy-washy and, at best, ridiculous. It does fit the general picture, though: ready-made rhetoric for those who want to use it.

Freedom of speech and expressing your opinion? Sure; I don't share your points of view, but I'd fight for your right to express them correctly, and without silly rhetorics.


You seem to have my handle wrong, leafing elf!

How the f*** am I supposed to respond to that! I haven't the time or the inclination to debate you over semantics on all these points, but neither Albert nor Allen have declared themselves communists. Hard left, unquestionably, but my concern is with your mindless, derogitory use of this epithet to imply that any information from this source is somehow to be discarded becuase the people running if have hard left leanings.

Plenty of academics have had their disagreements with Chomsky over the years, but you can in no way consider him a commie, either. I'm not going to debate you about divestiture, or Chomsky's campaign, suffice to say I basically support Chomsky on this, but with qualifications. And the fact that other countries have behaved appallingly in the past doesn't preclude them from behaving properly in future - you've made this point yourself in relation to the US.
Top Bottom