At 11:12 PM -0500 4/4/02, David Griffin wrote:

>This is the entire point with regards to the Israeli law of return. Even Jews
>who have "never set foot in the country" (what's the matter? did I misquote
>you again?) are entitled to return to Israel.

You cannot "return" to a place you have never been to. I may be dumb, but even I can work that out.

If you want to quote me, or anyone else, it is a good discipline to quote the precise date and the subject line of the message you take the quote from. Its a bit more trouble than just slapping quotation marks around anything that pop into your mind, but less prone to error. It also has the advantage that you have to look back and see what people actually wrote, which I often find is somewhat at variance with what I thought they wrote. Its a human quirk that we interpret what people say and recall our interpretation, rather than what they really said. Disciplining yourself to quote actual words and respond to those actual words, forces you to confront what people actually said, rather than what you interpreted them to say.


>Correct. But what in turn was the philosophical source of Nazism? It was the
>economic collapse of the 1920's and the defeat of socialism a few years
>before, along with the bankruptcy of the 2nd Communist International. The
>source of Nazism was capitalist imperialism. Fascism is simply an
>authoritarian form of capitalism-- completely necessary if capitalism was to
>stay afloat during this time period. How is it that you claim to be
>ostensibly "socialist" when you do not consider the principles of historical
>materialism at all?

It is arguable that the material basis of Nazism might have been the economic collapse of the 1920's. Though I'm not convinced. It appears that most societies going through the ultimate transformation from a semi-feudal form of political government to a capitalist one are subjected to a temporary period of extreme instability that can only be resolved by a dictatorship. England under Cromwell, France under Bonaparte, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin. I don't really understand it, but the creation of a bourgeois state requires the final destruction of the forms of previously-existing social relations and this seems to require a totalitarian regime.

Still don't understand what you mean by "capitalist imperialism". Perhaps you simply mean the source of fascism was capitalist hegemony finally overcoming the anachronistic feudal social and power structures of pre-WW1 German society? Anyhow, a material basis should not be confused with a philosophical source. Ideas come from people trying to understand what they experience, historical materialism is more akin to the environment factors that shape biological evolution. Likewise, some philosophies and social structures with thrive under certain material economic conditions, while other philosophies that did well under different conditions will inevitably perish.

> > The Nazis' denial of citizenship to German Jews was only the first step of
>> course. Then they tried to expel them and finished up trying to kill them
>> all. It was a logical solution to the same problem the Jewish state has
>> with the Palestinians who are inconveniently in the way. And they seem to
>> have struck out on the same journey.
>>
>
>Why would it be necessary to have a "logical solution" to a philosophical
>problem. Existentialism exists as a philosophy-- does someone need to have a
>"logical solution" to it?

I have to confess to you that I have not the slightest idea what existentialism is. Perhaps someone would like to summarise it for my benefit and the benefit of any other uneducated proles in this forum? Come across the word from time to time, but have never bothered to try to understand it. Probably because I usually expect to get some feel for meanings from the context, but that one never seems to have any context, so I subconsciously dismiss it as meaningless babble. Case in point, your assertion that a philosophy doesn't need to be logically explained. It makes my blood boil to hear people dismiss the need to explain things and I don't know how someone who professes an adherence to, or even an understanding of historical materialism, can make such a strange statement. If you don't understand the reason for something, I just don't see how you can hope to understand the thing itself.

There is a logical explanation for every philosophy. Though not a "logical solution", because a philosophy is not necessarily a problem to begin with. A philosophy is really just an explanation of something. Sometimes a logical explanation, often not. But there's usually a reason for it being illogical even. It is meaningless to babble about solving an explanation of course.

> > Realistically, there's no such thing as an "ethnic Jew", anymore than one
> > can be an "ethnic Moslem". Judaism is a religion.
>>
>
>This is what I mean when I say you make authoritative statements about things
>you know nothing about. You say it without the least bit of uncertainty or
>give-and-take, while on the other hand you claim you still have much to learn
>on these issues. You are simply embarassing yourself here concerning Judaism
>because the statement you've just made is simply untrue. By this statement
>you have negated the existence of about two thirds of all Jewish people
>(including myself, incidentally), who consider themselves ethnically Jewish
>but are not religious, even atheist!

Well why don't you explain the reason you consider yourself ethnically Jewish and of course your working definition of "Jewish" then? Either you can define it, or you can't. By definition, if you can't it is irrational.

> > Frankly, this whole "ethnic" this that or the other seems totally
>> irrational.
>
>Now you are saying my mother, who considers herself ethnically Jewish, is
>"totally irrational." Who the hell are you to talk about my mother like that?

As I say, if you can define it, it is a rational description. "Rational" means amenable to reason. If you can't give reasons, it is irrational. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but if you aren't Jewish, it is nonsense to talk about yourself being "ethnically Jewish" because some relative of yours once visited a Synagogue.

If your definition of "Jewish" is merely that some remote ancestor was Jewish, then I have explained the flaws already. Some of your ancestors might well have been Catholic too. Another might have been Buddhist. So, by that sort of sloppy thinking, you would be a Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist! Sorry it upsets you to be told that this is irrational, but someone has to tell you. The basic thing to understand about any religion, what defines it as a religion, is a basic belief system. Almost always a belief system that adherents hold fast to despite of any evidence that the beliefs might be mistaken.

Of course if you decide to reject the basic beliefs of the religion it doesn't mean you necessarily reject *all* the cultural baggage that the people who hold to the religious tenets have. Few people would do that, they would usually pick and choose which ones still make sense. So the most that could be said is that you are more or less *culturally* Jewish, in that you still retain some of the cultural influences of Judaism.

Many of the cultural influences of Judaism and Christianity are retained by us atheists, and so it should be. It makes no more sense to unquestioningly reject every philosophy of these religions as it would be to uncritically accept every idea.

But to hold to *some* of the philosophies, or perhaps merely some of the practices, of a religion, does not entitle one to claim to be of that religion. Jews would be justified in protesting that it is highly misleading for someone who doesn't hold to the belief in one supernatural, all-powerful god to claim to be Jewish. Insulting to their beliefs in fact. Because that is clearly one of the defining elements of the religion. On the other hand you claim to be an atheist.

I wouldn't blame them if they accused you of being anti-Jewish for trying to undermine their beliefs in that way.

You cannot be both an atheist and a Jew.  For me to accept that you are, would leave me without any useful definition for either "atheist" or "Jewish".

What you probably mean is that some or possibly quite a lot of the cultural values of Judaeism has been passed onto you by by your ancestors? That goes without saying. I'll admit to that too.

>Bourgeois-democratic capitalism has, by conservative estimates, killed 120
>million throughout the world in the last decade. The last time I checked,
>only 12 million died by Nazi fascism. If this counts as "civility", I wonder
>what you'd consider "savage"?!!!!!

Perhaps (for the sake of argument I won't quibble with your numbers) but the difference is that "Bourgeois-democratic capitalism" kills its victims chiefly by economic means. Starvation, exposure, preventable disease, and all the social ills that arise from this unnecessary economic degradation of humanity. Nazi Fascism preferred physical violence, there is a big difference even if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. Of course it is tragic that the civilised ethics of capitalist society regard killing people by economic means as acceptable, while it regards lethal violence as unacceptable. But that is how things stand and in a way it is progress.

Anyhow, you understand the ethics correctly. The apparent double standard is of course explained by the theory of historical materialism

And it is changing. The material basis for a more enlightened ethic is a productive capacity that can make hunger and want obsolete, but it always takes time for the ethics of society to catch up with its material basis.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas