Moved this here because I watched the rest of the video and he gets shitty at the end.
How do we get people like Norm to stop being credulous about flawed science and fucking bigotry.
His larger point with the video is more interesting but it gets lost in anti-trans shit at the end
He’s a transphobe? I haven’t followed what he’s said in years but that’s a major let-down. What’s up with moderately lefty people and just diving head first into transphobia. Zizek was like this.
If you’re hearing about them through channels controlled by the upper class they arent left, just tolerable to the upper class. The real solidarity isnt going to be found amongst academics, its at the picket line.
What’s up with moderately lefty people
moderately
MODERATI UN CAZZO VIVA STALIN PORCODIO
Finkelstein’s his academic career has been destroyed by Zionists because he never backed downa and sold out. Zizek has and always will be some edgy contrarian ivory tower leftist.
Yeah what happened to Finkelstein put him on an “anti-woke” bend because he identified with the free speech crowd. I feel like in another timeline where there was an actual left wing in academic circles that could’ve stood by him he wouldn’t necessarily have gone down this road. But screw him for siding with the free speech absolutists that only ever care to defend the speech of rabid bigots like the one he’s slowly become.
From what I understand he wrote that transphobic article in 2023 shortly before October 7th and I remember thinking “okay he’s gonna spiral into this kind of person” but the events following October 7th seemed to really reenergize him and I haven’t seen him say anything chuddy like he did in that article since. He’s been really good with staying on topic.
Since he never apologized for it I suspect those are still his beliefs and I bet we will start hearing more rhetoric like that from him when/if things “stabilize” in the levant. I hope in my heart of hearts that he has noticed that so many of the people internationally that support Palestine are trans and that makes him reconsider but I really doubt he would be swayed by that personally.
He’s not on social media, and the coverage of queer people in Palestinian solidarity protests that he is likely to see is obviously no good at all. My hopes aren’t very high.
There are generally two types of boomer left i have come across.
Those who were radicalized decades earlier (some were already staunch opposer of US imperialism going back to the Vietnam war) and saw their workers movement being dismantled from the inside by weaponized liberal identity politics post-USSR collapse, these boomers are far more likely to harbor anti-trans/LGBT sentiment.
Then there the boomers who were radicalized during Bernie/Trump era and shifted leftward toward Lenin/Stalin as the years went by (a small proportion but they do exist), these boomers are generally supportive of LGBT and various other progressive rights.
At least this is my experience with them.
I think there’s some truth to this but the overall impression I get is that there’s enough exceptions that it doesn’t work as a general rule. A lot of Gen Z guys with manosphere type thoughts also picked up many leftist ideas and these are the prime demographics for the ACP, Jimmy Dore, Russell Brand, etc. And a lot of older people who have been in leftist orgs for decades know a lot of minorities and are familiar with their struggle so it’s harder for them to fall into vulgar materialism and dismissive attitudes toward minorities.
edit: oops, ignore the first part, you were only talking about boomer leftists.
I should have made it clear that I was talking about American boomers who were radicalized and ended up reading Marx and Lenin (they do exist lol, just not many of them), so not just any boomer that consume online leftist media. Maybe I should have said boomer Marxists/communists instead.
he is like 100 years old so it’s not all that surprising but yeah, sucks. he has said some really whack stuff about trans people
cw
Watch the video, he whines about cancel culture and says the science is against puberty blockers
He could certainly be worse, hence why I’m asking how we stop people like him from going down this path, not just purely shitting on him, but he is on the path. I don’t feel he’s irredeemable, and his scholarship over the years is of great value, but it sucks to hear this stuff from him, and makes him and his ideas unpresentable to young people who are better informed than he is about trans issues. He is becoming more and more like the people he associates with, whining about cancel culture with them and reading their work about social issues
Yves Smith too.
I’ve never seen that
Haven’t seen this one but I did see one of his previous interviews with MEE that was more or less the same. Leaving his transphobia aside, I definitely agree with his point that what Trump represents is an appropriation of fascist aesthetics but with neither the mandate of destroying the left nor the false revolution. It’s basically just slop Mussolini with no communists to crush so it all becomes kayfabe instead.
Leaving his transphobia aside,
you shouldn’t
Caution: This is in some ways a stream of consciousness. Please don’t hesitate to challenge and correct my thinking here.
Here is something I think people here can help me wrestle with. I’m leaving this comment here because I think this is another instance of this phenomenon I’ve seen sporadically from some left leaning individuals. I say Individuals because I do not think this is a broad sentiment within the left that simply goes unspoken. That is, this notion of “Not focusing on Identity Politics”, which at times I’ve seen coupled with “We need to focus on Class Politics”.
It is this inversion of the sentiment “Anything but class” into its polar opposite “Nothing but class”. How is it that people come to this conclusion, wherein the only thing they believe we should be struggling against is the Marxian class divide? To me, it would seem, by focusing strictly on class, you homogenize a large swath of society and, as such, dilute, erase, or otherwise ignore the struggles of the diverse demographic makeup of the proletariat. How is it that you can convince people deep in the margins of the proletariat that your movement can uplift them, if you can’t even articulate, as a result of having done zero analysis of these group’s various struggles, the ways in which society will be improved that resonate with their struggle?
Finkelstein’s entire message here falls apart, explicitly because of what he says at the very end. For someone who considers themselves an intellectual, it’s telling that he seems not to understand that historically fascist movements also scapegoated marginalized identity groups, and has not synthesized this truth into his broader understanding of fascist movements. This type of lukewarm understanding of fascism is what leads him to this conclusion that Trump is somehow not a true fascist. By their very existence, Trans People expose a fundamental contradiction within patriarchal capitalist society. If gender is fluid, if gender is not binary, if at birth you are not predetermined man or woman, then all forms of gender-based oppression are rendered functionless. As Engels states in Origin of Family, “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”
Devoid of the analysis of identity, we cannot come to the conclusion that queer and trans people’s very existence challenges this foundational form of class oppression. It seems clear to me, as someone who is a simple shitposter on an internet web form and not a world renown intellectual, that if people are allowed to be who they feel they truly are, without any boundaries or limitations; if they are allowed to be a woman today, and a man tomorrow, then this house of cards we call “Patriarchal Capitalist Society” falls apart. To be clear, I do understand it is not a simple matter of “Today I decided to be this or that”, but that is the simple, uncompassionate, reductionist perspective that lays at the heart of what Finkelstein is saying here. He deliberately speaks outside his field of expertise to cast a smoke cloud over the actual point he is giving to the fascists. That idea being, If we cannot rigidly define who is a man, and who is a woman, then how on earth can we exploit the “free gifts of nature” that spring forth from a person’s capacity to give birth? How can we legislate the bodies of the people we need to produce more laborers if we’ve also given those people the inalienable right to self identify?
He says that historically, fascism arises from a conflict with a growing and powerful [economic] left movement. He says this while ignoring the fact that one of the earliest acts of violence handed out by the growing German fascist movement, was in 1933, when they looted and destroyed the Institute for Sexual Science, burning all of its files and research. Likewise, he says this as Fascism under Mussolini results in the widespread targeting of homosexuals by Italian fascist police. It is as if this is a key element of Fascist oppression. That not only is this a capture of the economic arm of society but also the social side of society, with the goal of regressing the social culture back to a form more compatible with capitalist origins. An attempt to reinstate “the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage” and the “first class oppression…”, “…that of the female sex by the male.”, which ultimately requires the destruction of the idea that these categories are not rigid, and then reimplementing through violence the patriarchal gender binary.
Serious: Am I flying too close to the sun here? Am I wildly off base and need to do more reading? I know that could be entirely possible. It feels apparent to me why we shouldn’t be “leaving aside his transphobia” because his world view and understanding of the nature of capitalism is rooted in a patriarchal hierarchy, a hierarchy fundamental to the continuation of capitalism. This root allows him to dismiss what is clearly Fascism, as something he identifies as, not really fascism.
Your stream of thought is much clearer than my attempts to write coherently, good job!
People need to read Losurdo’s class struggle. It’s legitimately the best book that covers this (though from a historical and not specifically trans-supporting perspective), outlining how other struggles (and LGBTQ fits the mold perfectly) are class struggles. It honestly makes it super clear relative to the confusion made by “class reductionists” or “struggles outside of class” people.
Finkelstein seems to me to just be unwilling to see all class struggles intertwined and accepts his assumptions about trans struggle without consideration. He is, of course, not Marxist so I wouldn’t expect him to think this. But it is disappointing to see that this mistake can allow/lead to such hateful and incorrect positions.
He is, of course, not Marxist so I wouldn’t expect him to think this. But it is disappointing to see that this mistake can allow/lead to such hateful and incorrect positions.
I thought he was a former Marxist Leninist Maoist?
I should say, I’m not super familiar with his history or how he currently calls himself but his positions and analyses are markedly not Marxist. Maybe he was at some point or called himself Marxist, but he’s not now acting as a Marxist. He’s still often useful and giving good information, details, and arguments though. But a distinct filter needs to be used for applying his work to the world as a Marxist
one of the earliest acts of violence handed out by the growing German fascist movement, was in 1933, when they looted and destroyed the Institute for Sexual Science, burning all of its files and research.
Actually phenomenal point. You really can’t divorce this point from an understanding of fascism. I think I probably need to develop my thoughts on this new form of fascism then, because it does seem that by engaging in the reinforcement of gender lines and hostility against the trans people that soften or break them, fascism has a material gain to make. But I think we need to try to understand how this hostility can exist in the context of imperialism and the age of pinkwashing. Now, even though the watered down trans rights that have been conceded by the liberals in the West are not emancipatory, they do at least represent a crack in patriarchal logic. But they also represent a line of attack against Global South countries that have similar patriarchal structures but haven’t developed a cultural elite that fancies itself as being the vanguard of trans liberation, and thus can be painted as backward and regressive. So the interesting dialectic for me, is that the fascists more or less concede this line of attack (not entirely, obviously many far right politicians oppose women’s rights yet engage in pinkwashing rhetoric about Sharia law being bad for women’s rights), and seem less interested in that cultural project of conceding some symbolic and some minimal material benefits to minority groups as a way of wielding a new line of attack against the periphery.
But I definitely think that “class only Marxism” is not enough to actually understand what’s going on and it’s thoroughly useless at promoting participation from marginalized people.
Excellent post! Thank you for this.
Great post!
I’ve thought for a while that the task of uniting as a working class involves understanding, accommodating, and making retributions for all the intersectional lines by which we are divided. It’s crucial that the analysis goes beyond, “you’re black, I’m white, they use that to divide us, let’s get over it” but into the ways that these divisions are built on class antagonisms. Men as income earners and women as house keepers was a structurally necessary component of 20th century America’s particular flavour of capitalism, just as having people with darker skin perform the grunt work at their expense has been a ongoing feature of Anglo-American domination since the beginning of European colonialism.
very good post!
It is this inversion of the sentiment “Anything but class” into its polar opposite “Nothing but class”. How is it that people come to this conclusion, wherein the only thing they believe we should be struggling against is the Marxian class divide? To me, it would seem, by focusing strictly on class, you homogenize a large swath of society and, as such, dilute, erase, or otherwise ignore the struggles of the diverse demographic makeup of the proletariat. How is it that you can convince people deep in the margins of the proletariat that your movement can uplift them, if you can’t even articulate, as a result of having done zero analysis of these group’s various struggles, the ways in which society will be improved that resonate with their struggle?
On this part in particular, you’ve lost me. It seems like, precisely due to the universalist nature of the class struggle, that it is the most comprehensible to the many as to how it would benefit a person and society, irrespective of any other particular concerns/struggles of such a person.
For example, suppose our broad class based solution is the nationalization of various industries (e.g., healthcare, housing, and telecommunications). If a person is struggling with rent, living in a slum, struggling to save to buy a place, or just unhappy with paying rent, it seems to me that such a person will see how this movement will improve their life and society even without an articulation of a struggle particular to that person. So too if the person has had any interaction with the American healthcare system or paid a phone bill (with respect to the other examples).
Except we live in a highly propagandized society, one where the medical and psychological needs specific to trans people are wildly depressed and rapidly eroding. Where the medical care of black people and women is full of racism and misogyny that leads to poor health outcomes. Where neurodivergence is under diagnosed or misdiagnosed by neurotypical doctors and psychologists. There is also the question of Native Americans, and how we must reconcile their past so they can have a prosperous future.
Would a person living in a slum intersecting with any of these identities be better served by better economic conditions? Obviously. Except that doesn’t address the social conditions that they live in. Which, I should point out are part of their material conditions.
The material external environment in which humans live, including the natural environment, the means of production and the economic base of human society, objective social relations, and other externalities and systems which affect human life and human society.
Changing the economic relations doesn’t make society suddenly not racist, misogynist, homophonic, or transphobic. Something is to be done with the social relations as well. As Marx puts it in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers’ party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.
The transitional period where we are moving away from capitalist society and twords a socialist society will entail the restructuring and dismantlement of bourgeois law, and that will require using the power of the state to implement justice reforms for these marginalized groups.
In 1918, hot on the heels of the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks put forward reforms to the rights of women, spearheaded by women in the Bolshevik party. Russian feminists largely influenced all manor of reforms that impacted the lives and conditions of the women living within its borders.
All you have presented me is a rising economic tide, which even bourgeois liberal society could accomplish. In what feels like over night women in the Soviet Union earned more rights and privileges and equal status in the workforce then they did in the decades before the revolution.
If we can not articulate what is to be gained trough revolutionary action by our comrades on the margins of society, then what hope is there for revolution? Why should they take the risk if there is no clear program in place to ensure their safety and equal status in society? This is why intersectionality maters. This is why we should be focusing on identity coupled with class.
while we’re criticising Norm it’s worth noting he is also a zionist, he does not seriously question Israel’s right to exist and still advocates for the so-called 2 state solution iirc?
I believe his stated position is closer to “we are not in a place where getting rid of israel entirely is remotely feasible and I don’t talk in hypotheticals” and that was like 10 years ago, idk if he’s addressed it head on recently. Now, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t advocate for the long dead 2 state solution or that he’s not wrong here, I think he is, but just adding a little more detail. He leans a bit heavily on international law in a way that I don’t think recognizes just how weak international law is.
He addressed it pretty head on in another interview. His thinking is, he’s an academic who is trying to study and explain exactly what international law says should happen, and what the law says is that Israel is a legitimate state, but it also says that all the actions that Israel is engaged in constitute a genocide and should therefore be sanctioned. This is his main disagreement with BDS, where he claims that BDS wishes to simultaneously condemn Israel on a legal basis, yet also go against international law by claiming that Israel is an illegitimate state.
Obviously this line of thinking is very problematic and assumes that international law is 1. correct and 2. static. People have the right to say that the international law isn’t working and was established on an unjust premise of justifying the creation of an ethnostate because of the Holocaust. That doesn’t mean that it becomes hypocritical to use the same international law to criticize the Zionist project’s illegal actions, it just means that there are multiple dimensions (moral and legal) to the transgressions of the Zionist entity. I think Norm understands this point to some extent and limiting his scope to always siding with the law is more just a way to stay grounded and always having an undeniable basis for his arguments, even if they’re not fully there morally.
This is a much better explanation than I could have given, thank you comrade
As long as the Palestinian parties are for the 2 state solution, we should likely be for it. Unless we have parties with clear positions and strategies for how to use support for something else to their benefit, I see no reason to publically disagree with them. Of course I think the correct moral position is 1 Palestine from the river to the sea, but being morally correct and being effective in assisting a real struggle sometimes are different.
yeah, i understand pure anti-zionism, no israel is kinda simultaneously a quixotic and utopian position. what you said is fair. but i don’t think it’s wrong to identify 2 state solution as essentially, technically zionist.
This. Palestinian parties accept it because Israel has made itself too powerful to destroy entirely, not because the conquest of 48 was more legitimate than the conquest of 67. They have to be politically realistic while we here can recognize that any Israel at all is an affront to the people who lived there before
What does your “recognition” do? I’m talking about meaningful positions. Is that a party which is taking actions working with Palestinian parties and a cooperative strategy which includes having a different position on this? It could be, and I’d find that super cool and interesting. Otherwise, my point is just that anarchic calls or recognitions aren’t as useful as just repeating exactly what Palestinian Liberation groups are saying. It has no extra positive effect except to make us feel good.
I’m an individual, my personal thoughts are meaningless, as is my position on the bear site. I could post resistance positions verbatim and it wouldn’t have an extra positive effect. I’m simply saying that just because the resistance accepts Israel’s existence doesn’t mean that I have to
It’s zionist as a concept in a vacuum for sure. But as a strategy on the path towards liberation, the step transforms into an anti-zionist position. We’re agreeing here for the most part, I believe, but I want to encourage people to see the process as part of the concept itself, not as something totally separate. So 2-staters who do it to preserve Israel are of course wrong and terrible. 2-staters who are supporting palestinians sovereignty and their own path to complete liberation are not at all zionist due to that position. I’ve never read Finkelstein, and so going off of only some videos, I would place him in the 2nd category more than the first. Though I think he is blind to how struggles interrelate and such, of course, because of all his other positions.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
