this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
66 points (93.4% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14450 readers
507 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

but you know it's almost all of them and practically all their institutions. It's fair for their victims to be wary. It's fair to talk about their abusers, who identified themselves above all else as cis men, US Americans, Germans and Jews and were enabled by almost all cis men, US Americans, Germans and Jews. To talk about them as exactly that, as cis men, US Americans, Germans and Jews.

Yes, of course it's not cis men, it's patriarchy. It's not US Americans, it's American imperialism, it's not Germans, it's German Nazism, it's not Jews is it's zionist fascism. Not just ideologies, but structures linked to production and reproduction. That must be clear to us. But there are loud privileged people among those who aren't in the group of chosen victims, who want us to never ever use the names of the structures our oppressors build their identities around. At least not when talking about their crimes.

But what is patriarchy? Can you define it without saying "men". Can you tell the history of imperialism without telling the history of the US? Can you tell me what the Nazis thought they were fighting for, without mentioning their German national identity. For whom do the Zionists think they are killing and lightning the world on fire? Who benefits and enjoys the privilege of ruling the patriarchal family, ruling the US empire or ruling an ethnostate?

It's the believe, that men are superior, that US Americans deserve the spoils of imperialism, it's the believe that Germans should rule the world or that Jews must drown the land in blood to build their ethnostate. And even those who didn't actively participate still benefit immensely materially. You have to risk complete exclusion from the respective culture to really reject your bloody privilege.

Yes, male dominance, US imperialism, German Nazism, zionist fascism all have allies outside of their chosen benefactors. Don't pretend I didn't say it. Privileged cis women, comprador rulers, axis countries, evangelical zionists. There are more people living in comprador ruled periphery countries than in the US. It's still the US empire.

That doesn't change the fact, that these ideologies are nothing more or less than the ideologies of chauvinist cis men, of racist US Americans, of racist Germans and of racist Jews, at least in this their enduring oppressive historic moment.

For them to overcome these chauvinist position, to reverse their betrayal of the worlds working class, which happened to their own great benefit but can only lead to their eventual self destruction, to reject their unearned privilege, to escape their fascist death cults, that are build on a single specific identify, these problems have to be named as a problem specific to this identity: Men must address their patriarchal privilege as privileges of men. Today's Imperialism is a US American problem, it has to be fought as such. Never forget the responsibility of Germans for Nazism. And when you mention Zionism, don't pretend it's got nothing to do with Jewish identity as it is understood by most Jews and almost every single Jewish institution.

Yes, we must absolutely not fall into chauvinism and anti-semitism ourselves. We would become tools for further oppression. Liberation will even benefit the oppressors in the end. But in the mean time, let the victims name their abusers by the name those abusers screamed during their torture, if they so choose. Language is nothing but a tool to affect change in the world. Every oppressed class needs to lead the struggle for it's own liberation or it is doomed to fail. Let the victims decide how to use language in their fight for liberation. You can offer ideas, but know when to step back, as long as you're still privileged. Don't impose your strategy on the leaders of the liberation. They are in the best position to know when to coldly analyze the oppressors institutions and ideologies using academic names of ideologies and when to boldly call out individuals by the name they have chosen themselves to tie their crimes to.

We must support the right of queer people, of woman to decide when it is tactically beneficial to talk about problems with "men". And they should be able to do so without screams of "not all men" immediately drowning out any discussion. Cis men should know their place is to offer support instead of leading the feminist struggle.

We must support the right of people from the periphery to speak about "Americans", when they tactically choose this verbal shortcut over the academic "imperial core countries". They will need to liberate themselves on their own terms.

The survivors of the concentration camps said they were rescued from "the Germans". Did the Soviet soldiers rush to correct them:"Not all Germans! We only came to rescue you from the Nazis!". No, that would have been tasteless, uncalled for.

Are you living every day in mortal danger? No? Then If you ever meet a Palestinian who survives this long long genocide (and that's a big if), will you rudely interrupt her if she tells you the story of how she fled from "the Jews"? Will you barge in with a smug:"not all Jews!" Even though her failure to be born as a Jew was exactly what condemned her and her family? Let them tell their own story.

And let's remember to assume some good faith online. We don't know every comrades background.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] agentant@hexbear.net 2 points 1 hour ago

I think an important point being missed is that Jews, unlike Germans, Americans, or Cishet men, are a historically persecuted group save this this particular instance in the past century where the US Empire has offered them the oppressor role to serve as an arm of Imperialism. "I hate Americans" and "I hate men" conjure up very different images to "I hate Jews" since the former two have mostly been in response to justified opposition to Imperialism and Patriarchy. Further, it would depend on which group is making that statement, West Asians making the statement because of living in proximity to the Zionist entity and it's genocide is more justifiable, but Americans making the statement is far less so.

I also think the Jews who live outside the Zionist state don't benefit from it exclusively. I benefit from the Zionist project so far as it's an arm of American Imperialism, the same way everyone living the Imperial core does, but not exclusively compared to other residents of the Imperial Core.

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's not about critiquing when minorities 'tactically deploy criticism'. It is if the criticism is reactionary or revolutionary.

Someone can say "All men are sexual predators and should be castrated." as much as they want. Unless I am in conversation with them I rarely will criticize it. Water off a ducks back. That said,, that is not a revolutionary criticism. In fact, it is a reactionary sentiment that fails to address why, if they truely believe this, all men are sexual predators, and why castration is a solution to this issue. If it is an inherent genetic aspect of being male, then they are just repeating eugenic ideology coming from a position without power that, nevertheless, affirms that there is an inferior gender, it is simply men, so it is not the axiom that is wrong, but the conclusion. All this does is affirm and reinforce the hegemonic logic though.

On the other hand, If it is a cultural or social condition, then that places a possibility that there is a future where they can socialize that behavior out of them, which is closer to a revolutionary position, but I disagree with the solution, because castrating someone doesn't eliminate them from still being a sexual predator, and likely isn't a realistic solution to the problem as presented.

I can't tell what they mean from the reactionary sentiment alone, which means I have absolutely no idea if they are actually on my side politically or not. Do they understand that it is the patriarchy or are they simply comfortable affirming reactionary eugenics if they are not the target?

I don't make the assumption that a persecuted minority status automatically bequeaths someone with special insight into structural criticism. It exposes people to particular injustices (speaking euphemistically), but so much of the interpretation of these injustices is done through the hegemonic ideology, which only serves to affirm the hegemonic ideology and reinforce the injustice.

That said, the response "Not all men" is equally reactionary, as it is clearly enough men that they feel the need to defend themselves. Patriarchy requires a majority of the population to affirm it, enforce it, and sustain it, even though it mostly just provides substantial benefits to a small number of men at the top.

So, I would never say, "Not all men." I would say, "What do you mean by 'all men'?"

The issue surrounds the fact that we have been taught incorrectly, on purpose, how to approach these topics, and there is very little sympathy and understanding because of the utter lack of any real political commitment on either side. None of it matters, so we can say anything we want, and thus we have all become fascists.

When you have to ask a person from a group that benefits off of oppression "so... you don't support that yeah?" Before you can feel comfortable around them.

"You're not a zionist yes?".
"You're not a secist?".
"You're not a nazi?".

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Just because it's inappropriate to correct a Palestinian, that does not mean it's appropriate for Westerners to use.

An American blaming Jews is, intentionally or not, shifting the focus away from the US government and onto a minority group. They are effectively sanitizing the US by presenting it as merely being corrupted by outside influences, rather than being the core, driving force of the problem. This allows the energy of the movement to be redirected towards the right, towards nationalism. Therefore, it is not appropriate for leftists in the imperial core to adopt this language.

Lenin makes the point here, in an entirely different context, that unity in action does not require unity in rhetoric, that what is appropriate to say from the perspective of someone from an oppressor nation vs an oppressed nation is not always the same thing. The inaccuracy is more permissible from a Palestian perspective, because there is no question of whether it is motivated by US nationalism.

In any case, I am going to keep talking about Zionism because that is the most correct and most appropriate term to use. I have no idea why people suddenly have a problem with that.

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

In any case, I am going to keep talking about Zionism because that is the most correct and most appropriate term to use. I have no idea why people suddenly have a problem with that.

Me too in many cases, though I'll make it a tactical decision based on context. And I don't have a problem with that. I just think we shouldn't treat it all that differently from those other three cases.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Me too in many cases, though I’ll make it a tactical decision based on context.

What is the tactical purpose that would be served in any context by talking about Jews rather than Zionism? If we want to look at things from a tactical perspective, surely framing things in terms of Zionism is the correct approach. The sort of people who would be alienated by critiquing the Israeli state but would agree with critiquing Jews are 1) completely dwarfed in number by the reverse, and 2) reactionaries who you don't necessarily want to attract to a movement, or if you do attract them you want to get them to drop their reactionary sentiments.

It seems like the only "tactical" argument against framing things in terms of Zionism would be the tailist one. Otherwise, again what tactical consideration is actually served by it?

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 1 points 56 minutes ago

So first of, as I have said many times, it's not an either or. We do not need to become tailist or stop critiquing "Israel".

Some orgs, will want to address Jews as Jews for the same reason we address men as men. Beyond the abstract concepts of Patriarchy (the rule of men) and Zionism (the project of the jewish ethno colonialism), men are real people who exist in the real world and so are Jewish people. They are not just objects of debate. Today, most Jewish institutions are zionist, but they don't need to be forever. Just as we call out:"You men need to stop being so sexist!" (even though not all men are sexist). We should also be able to say:"Jews need to stop being so zionist!" (even though not 100% are). For example to convince and empower them to address this issue within their institutions and communities, to get other actors in local areas, cities and nation states to make cooperation with Jewish institutions depend on a clear distance from Zionism.

Zionism also depends on the idea of Jews as the eternal victims who can do no wrong. We should be able to counter that by insisting, that many Jewish communities are fascist and need to change, while some need our support in countering the institutionalized Zionism.

[–] puppygirlpets@hexbear.net 18 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

another argument about god's specialest white people

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net 1 points 4 hours ago

No, but precision in theory and language is for NERDS. We're all irony poisoned libs on here. Get with the program.

[–] GeckoChamber@hexbear.net 22 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

"Not all men" argues that the oppression of women is actually done by a small minority of men. It is incorrect because oppression can not be reduced to its most active part, but should be understood as a whole. To only blame extreme misogynists and sex pests on an individual level is, in effect, defending the system of oppression as a whole.

The opposite is true in the case of "not all Jews". Jewish zionists are only an active part of western conlonization of Palestine and the Middle East. To name the oppressor "the Jews" is incorrect and insufficient for liberation.

We should of course tolerate imprecise language from the masses, it is a precondition for interacting with them at all. But we should also expect precise language from comrades, and use precise language with the masses. "We must teach the masses clearly what we have received from them confusedly."

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 9 points 5 hours ago

The opposite is true in the case of "not all Jews".

Can you back that claim up with sources? And did you read the article I provided as a source? Studies say: a clear majority of Jews worldwide agree with Zionism and support the genocide. And they benefit by having the option to go and occupy a stolen house in Palestine. And many visit religious institutions that actively collect money for the genocide or even hold auctions of stolen properties.

[–] git@hexbear.net 12 points 9 hours ago

To name the oppressor "the Jews" is incorrect and insufficient for liberation.

From the perspective of the oppressed it is correct and sufficient when the oppressors identify as Jews, claim to be acting in service of all Jews, operate militarily for a self-identified Jewish state, and are imprinting stars of David into their land and skin.

This does not discount your next paragraph of course.

[–] diamath@hexbear.net 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Jews benefit from the colonisation of Palestine and it's neighbors in a way that others don't though. They are the most active part true, but they therefore also get unique privileges. For instance no other westerner can get a house with garden and an orchard in west asia as easily as a jewish westerner. The people that almost exclusively benefit from the landstealing are Jews.

[–] MemesAreTheory@hexbear.net 3 points 4 hours ago

The Kapos in concentration camps were Jews too. They got privileges for doing the dirty work of genocide. It would not make sense to essentialize the benefits or cruelties of the Kapos as a Jewish phenomenon, though. The most culpable and meaningfully powerful party in that instance was the Germans, obviously. By analogy, I think that extends to the EU and even more heavily Americans and the UK in regards to modern Israel.

Being able to point to the primary actors as most responsible doesn't absolve the Kapos entirely, they're still legitimate targets for self-defense and even punitive treatment, but trying to craft a theory about how it's the Jews and the unique kind of benefits they receive that's at issue is to miss the forest for the trees. If it wasn't the Jews it would be some other minority or ethnic division used towards similar ends, as we've seen in colonial projects time and time again. The Jews are uniquely amenable to their position BECAUSE they were so intergenerationally traumatized by the Holocaust. It "proved" Zionists right, and most of the anti-zionist Jews—the original Anti-zionists—were killed. Anti-zionism is a Jewish tradition older than the state of Israel.

[–] ByteFoolish@hexbear.net 25 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Cis men should know their place is to offer support instead of leading the feminist struggle.

I don't think this one fully extends. Americans should absolutely be taking a leading role in the anti-imperialist struggle in America. Anti-zionist Jewish people should be loudly saying "not in our name" and fighting against Zionism in their spaces. And cis men should be calling out other cis men for their misogyny and reinforcement of the patriarchy.

Identity based support sounds good until you ask the question "whose voice should I listen to and amplify?" Should I listen to the pro-intervention/pro-Shah voices of some of the Iranian diaspora? Should I listen to the comprador PA? Or the trad wife upholding the patriarchy? Because obviously people with marginalized identities aren't a monolith. If we want real change we need to go beyond passive support and towards active intervention in support of feminist, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-zionist principles. That's what solidarity means.

You mostly said what these groups should not be doing, which I agree with. I just wanted to add to the conversation on what they should be doing. Not saying I think we're in disagreement here

[–] AntifaCatgirlSuperSoldier@hexbear.net 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

. Americans should absolutely be taking a leading role in the anti-imperialist struggle in America. Anti-zionist Jewish people should be loudly saying "not in our name"

No, they shouldn't center themselves, "don't kill people in my name" fuckass

[–] ByteFoolish@hexbear.net 4 points 2 hours ago

Of course they shouldn't center themselves

[–] Salah@hexbear.net 11 points 8 hours ago

I don’t like the idea that there is only identity who can fulfil a “leading” role in any struggle. All struggles consist of many facets and they all have place for many identities. Jewish people should take a leading role in the struggle to disconnect the zionist project from Judaism, Palestinians (who can be jewish as well ofc) should take a leading role in the struggle to reveal the evil nature of the zionist entity as well as a leading role in shaping the future of the land that the zionist entity occupies. Europeans, USians, and other citizens of nations that support the zionist entity should take a leading role in the anti imperialist struggle in their own country to stop its complicity in the destruction of Palestine.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 27 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

My question to you given only one of these groups has suffered systemic oppression in living memory: I agree with you on most of these points but do you think truly as a white westerner (not saying you are) but focusing on Jewish perpetrating of this genocide, will that make more socialists or more Nazis. This is a genuine question because lately I have been seeing a lot of reactionaries focusing on the Jewish aspect of this one current example. White people in general are still doing the same shit and I see way too many so-called leftists taking this stance and claiming it is somehow different because this genocide is "ongoing" implying that indigenous people in the US are some sort of lost cause and that their genocide is somehow over. This is a common talking point among patsocs for example.

Actually Nazi antisemitism still exists in a way that does not apply to any of those groups. There are no fascists encouraging misandry or anti white racism.

There are 100% still actual Nazis out there that do want to exterminate jews and so to equate that with men or Germans is really fucked. Nobody is out here saying kill all the men.

With the examples you have given it implies there is a legitimate faction of feminists that are justifiably or not seeking to persecute men, or that there is a faction that is fighting against the demonization of Germans. This is a frankly absurd strawman.

[–] diamath@hexbear.net 16 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

My question to you given only one of these groups has suffered systemic oppression in living memory

how is this relevant?

but focusing on Jewish perpetrating of this genocide, will that make more socialists or more Nazis

this is not about as much about "focusing" on jews but more about the ongoing defocusing of the "jewish" part of jewish supremacism.

Actually Nazi antisemitism still exists in a way that does not apply to any of those groups.

but it has no power. That's the key difference when talking about zionism which has huge amounts of power. There are however no comparably powerful antisemitic institutions. Not even close.

There are 100% still actual Nazis out there that do want to exterminate jews and so to equate that with men or Germans is really fucked.

It would however be also very foolish to not act like the majority of white men or a majority of germans are not complicit in nazi shit.

there is a faction that is fighting against the demonization of Germans. This is a frankly absurd strawman.

there is though? What do you think all that german guilt that gets paraded around is actually for?? There is a huge movement to downplay the role men have in the current systems of oppression, #NotAllMen, antiwoke stuff constantly focuses about how giving women preferential treatment for jobs or scholarships puts men at a disadvantage because we supposedly have gender equality

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 1 points 51 minutes ago

this is not about as much about "focusing" on jews but more about the ongoing defocusing of the "jewish" part of jewish supremacism.

Yes, thanks for summarizing it perfectly.

[–] America_Worst@hexbear.net 19 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

If it were me, I would worry more about stopping israel from committing genocide in my name than arguing with leftists who are against that genocide.

Right or wrong, the longer that israel exists the more and more people are going to see as OP sees.

Idk about you but I feel a kind of way about seeing one of those six pointed star after seeing enough videos of little kids ripped to shreds by idf soldiers.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 17 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If it were me, I would worry more about stopping israel from committing genocide in my name than arguing with leftists who are against that genocide.

this argument is spurious. it takes a few minutes out of someone's day to post, often multitasking with waiting in line or literally shitting in a toilet. Our actual activism does very little to impact geopolitics as it is and the very marginal effort of typing a few words isn't going to make the difference.

[–] America_Worst@hexbear.net 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

If there is no difference then this just is a giant reenactment of waiting for godot except the godot is the end of israel and america killing schoolchildren.

will you be the vladimir to my estragon?

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

How do you propose this then and why not focus on the US that is responsible for its existance. Say you focus only on the destruction of Israel. There is a real chance if you do that then the US just lashes out to protect its vessel. Israel on the other hand is entirely dependent on the US. Is that and US imperialism not the primary contradiction and Israel simply an extension of that?

Obviously Israel by necessity must be destroyed but I feel like people are making a grave strategic error here.

[–] diamath@hexbear.net 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

How do you propose this then and why not focus on the US that is responsible for its existance.

Because it's (comparatively) easier to focus on the zionist project than it is to focus on the hegemon funding it. The liberation of Palestine would also significantly weaken the US making it easier to liberate other people's and nations. Also the destruction of the US is not a goal in itself. The liberation of people is. So destroying Israel is actually the direct approach from this perspective.

[–] America_Worst@hexbear.net 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Okay so youre saying destroying israel is a bad goal?

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Obviously Israel by necessity must be destroyed but I feel like people are making a grave strategic error here.

Didn't even read my comment.

The best outcome is the US collapsing itself with this war with Iran while hopefully the regional coalition defends Palestine.

I dont think you actually read my whole comment.

[–] America_Worst@hexbear.net 11 points 16 hours ago (16 children)

No you said the us will lash out to protect its vassal if israel is destroyed.

Israel is going to fall before america does.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 13 points 15 hours ago

It’s fair to talk about their abusers, who identified themselves above all else as cis men

Ive read enough about colonial settlement done by germany, usa, britian (etc), and israel to know that actually cis women do plenty themselves. Not just women in the home countries calling for more violence in order to protect women.

anyway

[–] kittenzrulz123@hexbear.net 13 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I am deeply ashamed to have been born Jewish, I wish I could say that maybe one day it wont be the grand majority of Jews but seeing how well the Germans have been denazified probably not for a very long time.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 33 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

You should never be ashamed of conditions you were born into and there are a lot of reactionaries pushing this line and it is both unmaterialist and unproductive. Focusing on Jewish people as a whole only serves the right wing Nazis attempting to coopt leftist language.

It does suck there are not more antizionist jews but there are still far more Christian and even secular zionists. Don't let them make you ashamed of your culture. The second you concede that then you just let more zionists and Nazis legitimize themselves.

[–] kittenzrulz123@hexbear.net 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I mean because my entire life almost every single time I have engaged in Jewish culture it has been directly or indirectly subsidized by genocide

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 4 points 3 hours ago

Unfortunately that is also true of every single American.

[–] diamath@hexbear.net 8 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

As a german get what you're saying about being ashamed to be born jewish.

However german denazification suffered from yankee ops like operation paperclip it was far more effective in the east. In particular nazis were kept somewhat powerful because of their staunch anticommunism.

Dezionification will only take place after the yankee empire has fallen and is only known for their staunch anti-arab hate. There will be no reason to mitigate their defanging.

Germans and jews both still need to deal with our fascism problem but I don't know how this could currently happen. The majority of the population is sooo latent and it will need a significant worsening in their material conditions to wake them up. People keep agreeing with what I say but then not act like it, it's maddening.

[–] MayoPete@hexbear.net 1 points 19 minutes ago

The majority of the population is sooo latent and it will need a significant worsening in their material conditions to wake them up.

I can't personally accept this. The conclusion from this, in my mind, excuses doing nothing or doing toothless organizing such as holding book clubs to the same small group of academic type leftists that collect theory the way kids collect Pokémon cards...

We have to act and do something, even if it's futile and even if it's the wrong time. We have to keep showing people that there's a better way to live, that there is hope out there. I hope everyone reading this goes out and does an organizing conversation or runs for office or helps a genuine leftist running for office, spreads propaganda, heckles a fascist today. Just don't sit back and do nothing! I don't care if it's hopeless... I can't live with myself if I don't try to make things better

load more comments
view more: next ›