« Margaret Hodge, New Labour and Slave Labour | Main | Syed Saleem Shahzad: A Book You Really Should Buy »

September 12, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cb6b753ef014e8b7e0966970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sometimes It's Easier Not To Do Anything:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

modernity

OK, supposed instead that Press TV pushed anti-Black racism week in week out, would you feel happy going on their programmes?

(That's not a rhetorical question)

Well, would you?

Paul Stott

Providing I would have a platform to argue against that - yes I thinking I probably would. I worked hard to maintain 'no platform' for many years - new technology has made it redundant.
We now have to win the arguments....

james walsh

I’ve come to the view that most people active in ‘politics’ do not see the point as to change people’s minds, because if they did they would like to start of with looking for commonality that may push folk in the direct wished. Most ‘political debate’ isn’t about seeking enlightenment or spreading light but a chance for breast beating, proof of sainthood, appealing to their own backward gallery and generally about keeping everything in save confines so the elite can keep the mass media about the non discussion of the spectacle – as if that was real news. I’ll give George Galloway that he is not one generally given over to such vices- which is a major reason he often gets respect even when he doesn’t deserve it.

People 'on the left' would rather we do nothing than engage with people on their terms. Which is a rather good demostration of their dictatorial nature

modernity

Paul

Intellectual nonsense, you can't win arguments with racists as they don't respond to arguments, which in part is, why they are racist.

Now coming on to people that articulate anti-Jewish racism, you will often find that they are even more entrenched than the average dyed in the wool bigot.

And there is a very good reason for this, their racist views form an ideology for them, something all-encompassing that explains the world in very simple terms and for them it normally comes down to "The Zionists/Jews/Israelis did it....", which is why they are loath to give it up.

So evidentially speaking there is little point arguing with entrenched racists, as they don't change their views for want of reason.

But surely you know all of that?

james walsh

Clearly there is no point in arguing or even discussing with entrenched knowitalls.

Internationalist

You poor thing.

I note however that you still link to Harry's Place but not to Press TV or anything else associated with George Galloway. So there is no equivalence. Still, Gorgeous George has clearly taken a fancy to you, so maybe that will change.

Frankly I have avoided TV and radio news coverage for the past two or three weeks' 9/11 fest.

I feel sympathy for any victims of the War on Terror but as it says in The Bible, let the dead bury the dead.

web design bangalore

very good reason for this, their racist views form an ideology for them, something all-encompassing that explains the world in very simple terms and for them it normally comes down to ..

modernity

Paul,

If this is helpful to your career why not say so?

But your inability to justify these questionable actions does you (or your past record) no credit.

Now you are in the company of Lady Renouf and others, surely that should ring alarms bells with you?

I asked these questions, in good faith, because I am bewildered at this, plus the fact that you are becoming an academic and surely would want to justify this logically and with reason?

Internationalist

In Stott's defense, no it does not put him "in the company of Lady Renouf and others".

What a ridiculous thing to say.

But it is precisely this kind of guilt-by-association rhetoric that is frequently used at Harry's Place.

I.e. never mind the fate of seven million Palestinian refugees, never mind the disgusting nature of the Israeli state, never mind the billions of dollars invested in repressing both Palestinians and their Jewish sympathizers, never mind the Gaza blockade. More important is the revelation that an anti-Zionist (i.e. "self-loathing") Jew once occupied the same room as a Guantanamo detainee.

Which is precisely why Stott should stop actively promoting that Zionist cesspit and instead start denouncing it.

As to Stott's actual interview, it was pretty bland stuff.


james walsh

I hope it does help Paul's career- what do for a living 'modernity'? It seems that only us poor folk are expected to live in rags.

People like you ain't worried about all your fellow travellers careers- in any negative sense anyway, at least internationalist knows that's a stone he can't throw.

'good faith' my arse!

Internationalist

Modernity can you explain to me why it is that Harry's Place loudly proclaims Orwell's words "Freedom, if it means anything, means the right to say what people don't want to hear" ...

... but bans opinions it doesn't want to hear, i.e. people who disagree with BOTH Zionism AND Islamism from an internationalist persepective?

... and yet it publishes disgraceful comments from anti-muslim bigots?

My impression is that the greatest nightmare of its contributors is that one day the Jewish and Palestinian working classes might struggle together against the common enemy.

james walsh

The trouble with nationalists they view the world and relations as a zero sum gain. And Islmaists are the same- except religion gives them their 'nation'- I guess that could could be said of Zionists also- maybe they learned some of their bad habbits from the Zionists.

A strength of capitalism is that it does not always do that, the apolagists of capitalism say infact zero sum games are a rarity in capitalism. Not that I or Internationalist agree with them (sorry if I'm putting words into Internationalists mouth there that he doesn't agree with). A major problem with capitalism for the working class (and many other people probabily) is that it is a zero sum game for the workers/ comsumers.

Internationalist

Capitalism is not a "zero sum game" for workers it is a "net loss game" since part (or in advanced capitalism, most) of the value of their labour is expropriated.

That is elementary marxism.

Of course, capitalism can and does expand its productive base e.g. through technological innovation but workers' share of the rewards constantly diminishes.

Thor Halland

Paul you should be dead proud because George is "going to use you more and more".

Galloway for all is faults is right on this one and doesn't put up with the anti jewish racism that is heard so often on these days.

darren redstar

although I think that it is no crime to try to get the message out wherever possible, and it is up to Paul who he talks to. I do think that going on Galloways show was probably mistaken: Galloway is not a neutral figure, he is a mercenary in the pay of whatever dictator offers the money and public platform that he craves.
his employer, press tv is the official mouthpiece of the theocratic thug goverment of Iran.
up until a few weeks ago he was condemning the opposition in Syria as stooges of zionism, who were attempting to overthrow the 'last true arab ruler'; albashir assad. He still denies that any massacre took place in Tiannaman Square in 1989.
his final comment, that he intended 'TO USE' Paul more often, says more about his method than he may have intended.
For me Galloway embodies everything that is wrong with the left in this country.

Duncan

Like some of the contributors here who like to talk about Harry's Place and little else, Modernity is a bit of a one trick pony.

modernity

You've got to think that people here can't read.

My argument was very simple, whatever happened to 'no platform and don't consort with racist?'

My argument didn't even mention Harry's Place.

Again, for the illiterates it doesn't mention Harry's Place, I don't read it, I don't go there.

I was hoping that anti-fascists here would also have a little bit of antiracism still in them and not consort with Press TV, or justify it.

And thank you for the bile, it's a pity none of you are mature enough to actually address the points I raised.

I have found in my many years that you see the true mettle of people not when they agree with you, but when they don't.

And in the latter case whether or not they act immature and stupid, as you have.

So if you can't see the problems about consorting with Press TV then I pity you.

Benjamin F

Modernity I have some sympathy for your position, but it would mean never talking to any press organisation or mainstream media outlet. Which mainstream media haven't supported racist, imperialist or anti-semitic groups or governments either currently or in the past?

I guess its a matter of extent (is anti-semtism or racism its main characteristic?) and whether the organisation allows you to freely express a contrary position that challenges their main ideology?

I've not seen more than a few minutes of Press TV so don't know by how much its output its structured on anti-Jewish prejudice, but my guess it would be about the same as the anti-Muslim or anti-Romany prejudice of most mainstream newspapers. Unlike the tabloids, who twist even innocent comments to fit their racist agenda, Press TV did not seem to do that with Paul.

An interesting irony now presents itself. If Press TV is antisemtic, and those who have associated with it, like Paul, are guilty by their relationship. And Paul has also written for Harry's Place, which uses guilt by association as part of its argumentative framework, then Harry's Place must also be anti-semitic because of its association with Paul. We shall campaign for its closure on these grounds ;-)

modernity

" but it would mean never talking to any press organisation or mainstream media outlet. Which mainstream media haven't supported racist, imperialist or anti-semitic groups or governments either currently or in the past?"

Again, misreading of my argument.

If Paul wants to make a few bob that's fine by me, but would you have him go on Radio Ku Klux Klan (or similar)?

Would that cause you to stop and think?

Where do you draw the line?

And this is a problem I have not with Paul but the respondents to this thread, it is as if he could do anything and they would justify it?

Yes, Press TV is an arm of Ahmadinejad's regime which consciously and daily pushes racism.

Yes Press TV pushes anti-Jewish racism constantly, and if that doesn't cause you to stop and think then you're probably not much of an antifascist and certainly not much of an antiracist.

If you don't know the Press TV is constantly pushing racism then it's time to educate yourself and not ask stupid questions or make facile points, Benjamin F.

Go educate yourself on Press TV, you have the web, use it.

Tetuo

Funny eh? If there's any single entity that stirs most anti-Jewish feeling in the blogosphere, it has to be Witchfinder modernity.

james walsh

The BBC is an arm of the British state. Go educate yourself.

Thor Halland

there is no 'racism by association"

Paul is no racist. I can't stand Galloway but he doesn't beleive in 9/11 crap and he should be supported for that if opposed on just about everything else.

modernity

Who said Paul was a racist? I certainly did NOT.

I just question the advisability of consorting with Press TV.

I am just astonished at the juvenile behaviour here, it is as if you can't ask questions or challenge certain types of "leaders".

Now as anyone reading SU blog will notice such behaviour is fairly common amongst 'Leninists' and Toytown trots, like the SWPers.

If you make the faintest criticism of their leaders or question their lack of political judgement then all hell breaks loose and you get the type of kettle logic as employed above in this thread.

Seems a shame to adopt their tactics :)

Tetuo

"all hell breaks loose and you get the type of kettle logic as employed above in this thread."

Don't be such a drama queen, mod.

james walsh

Here's a word count of the discussion:
Modernity: 688
Other 1296
That includes me and Internationalist going off at a tanget and Darren being rather netural.

I think it's Mod who is using the leninist's tatics of guilt by assosation and tryin to play the man not the ball. He's had his points knocked down and doesn't think we have the right to question his political judgements.

modernity

It is not "leninist's tatics of guilt by assosation".

Don't believe me, look up Press TV's racism content and make your own minds up.

Then when you've found it, Lady Renouf, Nick Nicholas's stuff, etc ask yourself, is that the type of company that antifasicsts *should* be keeping?

Or should antifascists put clear water between them Mark Dankof and his mate, David Duke?

I'll lend a hand and start you off with this link:

http://jhate.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/press-tv-uses-us-anti-semites-as-commentators/

walter sur la mer

It seems that, as a free agent, Mr Stott doesn't mind being "used" by either the Zionistas of HP or the Iranistas of PressTV...

...it'll be Desmond's Big Brother next.

Ray

And in this case at least Paul, easier not to say anything as well!

web hoisting

. I’ll give George Galloway that he is not one generally given over to such vices- which is a major reason he often gets respect even when he doesn’t deserve it.

modernity

Frankly, I can't understand the reasoning here.

This is a *political* issue and the question is simple:

Should people cooperate with Press TV?

Now depending on your politics, grasp of the issues, inclination towards antiracism you can choose WHATEVER you please, but having made that choice you have to have some small amount of reasoning behind it.

Again, when you do something you have to decide *why* you do it and is it right for antifascists to cooperate with Press TV?

That's the issue, it is a political point and one that activists should be able to decide for themselves, EITHER WAY.

Internationalist

I notice that the traditional left is ganging up against Gilad Atzmon and his publisher, Zero, for daring to question Jewish identity politics in Atzmon's new book, "The Wandering Who?"

Andy Newman of Socialist Unity kicked things off in The Guardian, soon joined by Harrys Place (who target Atzmon just as they target all "self-loathing" Jews, i.e. all Jews who dare to criticize Israel). Now Lenin's Tomb, blog of the despicable Trot poseur and self-publicist, Richard Seymour, has joined in the Atzmon baiting.

It must be the first time that these three have lined up on the same side of the fence.

I assume that, as diehard libertarians, everyone here will defend Gilad's freedom of speech, even if they disagree with some of his points of view.

web design Landon

I worked hard to maintain 'no platform' for many years - new technology has made it redundant.
We now have to win the arguments...I am just astonished at the juvenile behaviour here, it is as if you can't ask questions or challenge certain types of "leaders".

web design Landon

I worked hard to maintain 'no platform' for many years - new technology has made it redundant.
We now have to win the arguments......I am just astonished at the juvenile behaviour here, it is as if you can't ask questions or challenge certain types of "leaders"

Internationalist

Just been listening to Gilad Atzmon on American Freedom Radio, where he points out that the neocon and radical left critiques of his point of view are almost identical (i.e. calling Gilad "antisemitic" even though he is a Jew himself).

He also argues that the far left (he specifically mentions Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb but it could apply equally to other leninists and quite a few anarchists) though they are numerically insignificant, perform a vital service for capitalism as "gatekeepers" on radical discourse. This is a point of view I have held for some time.

That is precisely why both LT and Harrys Place censor people who support proletarian internationalism, and oppose divisive identity politics and ideologies such as Zionism, Islamism and multi-culturalism.

Benjamin F

A number of different points in a number of different replies. First:

>Frankly, I can't understand the reasoning here.
This is a *political* issue and the question is simple: Should people cooperate with Press TV? (Modernity)

It depends by what you mean by 'co-operate'. If you use it, and criticise some of the bases of its operation, are you co-operating with it? Is this bloke (http://www.youtube.com/v/6yrT-0Xbrn4&hl)co-operating with Fox News, because he agrees to be interviewed by them?

As Paul was attacking some of the conspiracy theorists (and underlying anti-semitic notions that underpin them) he could be seen as attacking a feature of Iranian theocracy, to precisely the audience who need to hear it. Otherwise we just talk to the already converted. A very safe place to be, but politically not very effective. If Paul went on Press TV to tell the public how great Iran's rulers were, then you can accuse of co-operating, but this is not the case here.

> I worked hard to maintain 'no platform' for many years - new technology has made it redundant. (WDL)

I agree that new technologies have opened up debate and I agree we need to engage with critics, however that doesn't make all 'no platform redundant'. I share Modernity's view that we don't help supply a platform - provide resources - to those people who oppress us. However, Paul wasn't doing that, he was using their resources against them. Something egalitarians should adopt.

>J ust been listening to Gilad Atzmon on American Freedom Radio, where he points out that the neocon and radical left critiques of his point of view are almost identical (i.e. calling Gilad "antisemitic" even though he is a Jew himself). (Internationalist)

I'm a Jewish person critical of the revisionist Zionist project, so I'm well aware of how the ruling class in Jewish communities uses accusations of 'antisemitism' to silence critics. However, Atzmon is a gift to the Zionist right, because his chauvinistic 'anti-Zionism' is antisemitic. Indeed he endorses the very views of the most nationalist zionists, that Jews, wherever and whoever they are have shared collectiove responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state (see his 2003 piece 'On Anti-semitism').

By allowing Atzmon to be viewed as a legitimate voice of anti-Zionism as the SWP once did, is to help reassert bigotry and make broad-based egalitarian movements harder not easier.

Paul Stott

I am not up to speed on Atzmon, have not read anything by him, so will pass on that one, save for noting the fact that he appears to have united some usually very disperate forces!

The crucial thing for me with Press TV was the chance to argue against 9/11 truth, on what is one of the main vehicles for it in London. Had I turned that opportunity down, I do not see how I would have weakened their case or their cause.

Modernity's argument may have some validity if I had taken a salaried, long term position with Press TV, as Andrew Gilligan in the past and George Galloway currently does. Instead we are talking about a 3-4 minute slot, arguing against both Iranian government policy, and the usual line on Press TV.

modernity

Paul,

I accept your "putting the argument to them" line.

The problem is, as you know intellectually, it's a bit, er, weak.

I heard similar arguments being put to me in the 1970s and 1980s by liberals, who said you could win these people over with argumentation and you didn't need to physically oppose them.

But when you explain that these conspiracy theorists, racist cranks, etc views are not governed by reason or argumentation, therefore there is little point in arguing with them, said liberals tend to go silent.

You can do whatever you please, I would be happy to you to go on Sporttalk, the BBC or anywhere, but associating with a TV channel which pushes anti-Jewish racism is a step too far, and I bet you know that in your heart of hearts.

Again, ingrained racists and their kind don't listen to arguments thus it is futile to employ them, if they had listened to arguments they wouldn't have the illogical views that they maintain with such vigour. Thus, it is a fool's errand to assume that they lack knowledge of the arguments.

PS: As for Atzmon, he is most definitely an anti-Jewish racist, irrespective of his ethnic background. You only need to examine his argumentation concerning the start of World War I and its wider linkage to understand that.

I would suggest that antifascists, serious ones, don't touch him or his deranged ideas with a barge pole.

Internationalist

I listened to a 2-hour interview with Gilad Atzmon today and concluded that he is one of the most misrepresented people on the planet - misrepresented by just about everybody on "the left" from the pro-war, militantly Zionist Harrys Place to the (allegedly) anti-Zionist SWP.

In "anti-semitism" Atzmon writes:

"If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target. It is up to the Jewish people to take a stand against their Jewish state and to disassociate themselves from their zealous national movement."

This strikes me as no different from the appeals to muslims to disassociate themselves from islamist terrorism.

Yet it appears you can get away with saying what you like about muslims. But this does not hold true for Jews.

Atzmon has declared himself an "ex Jew" to make it absolutely clear that he wishes to disassociate himself from the crimes of a state that calls itself "the Jewish state".

Bravo.

He is also totally disenchanted with the left because it now is totally obsessed with "identity politics" which organizes humanity into tribes, some of which we are suppposed to revere (blacks, Jews, women, gays) and those we are called upon to despise (whites, men). He has identified that this is entirely divisive and reactionary and to the benefit of the ruling class.

He also understands the function of the establishment left as "gatekeepers" of dissent, who will silence anyone who has anything genuinely radical to say. In his case, that has meant silencing him on the grounds that he is "antisemitic", a charge which simply does not make sense because Atzmon is not only Jewish himself but works alongside other Jews in one of the most multi-ethnic musical enterprises in the world.

We need more Gilad Atzmons. Then we might have a movement, not a squabbling rabble of whingers.

modernity

Paul,

I seriously think you need to inform yourself & readers about Atzmon's racism.

The SWP made a BIG mistake years back with him, it would be more than a shame for antifascists to make that same mistake.

Web design melbourne, web design sydney

If you make the faintest criticism of their leaders or question their lack of political judgement then all hell breaks loose and you get the type of kettle logic as employed above in this thread.

Web design melbourne, web design sydney

A strength of capitalism is that it does not always do that, the apolagists of capitalism say infact zero sum games are a rarity in capitalism. Not that I or Internationalist agree with them (sorry if I'm putting words into Internationalists mouth there that he doesn't agree with). A major problem with capitalism for the working class (and many other people probabily) is that it is a zero sum game for the workers/ comsumers.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Tip Jar

To run blog

Tip Jar

From My Library