File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9709, message 154


Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Dissent in Nazi Germany


Comrades,

James was doing so well and then this personal attack.

James has evidently not been following the arguments of my opponents. If
he had he would had noted that Godena and others, but principally Godena,
have said that any defense of Goldhagen automatically translates to
pro-Zionist sympathies and a defense of Israeli and the genocide of
Palestinians. If James would use his reasoning ability, which he slipped
up and revealed to us in one of his posts recently (I want that James
back), he would see that the logic of Godena's argument rests on an
unstated teleology, namely, that the Holocaust was perpetrated so that the
Jews would have the moral authority to establish a state in Palestine; and
the argument is therefore given life by what is about as near to an
anti-Semitic motive as one can come without being called an anti-Semite.
This particular (il)logic underpinning Godena's argument is the only
possible (il)logic which can get him to his ridiculous position. 

(By the way, the point offered by a comrade about Godena's fondness of
Huntington has amused me to no end. Not only does Godena quote this
reactionary with fondness, but in series of posts from Godena, attacking
me for criticizing Huntington, Godena advanced the argument that
Huntington should be critiqued on social scientific grounds, not on the
grounds of his affiliations to global capitalist organizations. Of course,
Godena failed to note that that is precisely what I had done, in addition
to noting that Huntington's work is purchased by the transnational
capitalist class, which is perfectly appropriate even though, as this
comrade pointed out, this does not necessarily invalidate Huntington's
work. These points are going to the credibility of the expert witness. 
But in any event, the irony is incredibly thick here. You gotta love it.) 

My argument that a defense of Goldhagen on social scientific grounds is
possible, James, does not make my argument automatically a charge of
anti-Semitism. But what this debate has revealed, at least among some of
the participants, is that an implicit anti-Semitism underpins the attack
against Goldhagen, because the anti-Zionist motive has been expanded to
swallow up the victims of the Holocaust on the basis of their Jewishness. 
Moreover, Finkelstein does apologize for racism in his essay and he has
been held up as the definitive source on these matters. Some of those who
are bashing Goldhagen on this channel reflect a microcosm of a larger
project to diminish the significance of the Holocaust. To deny this is
tantamount to lying, as I would not presume that we would deceive
ourselves over such an obvious reality. And to fail to point this out
would be irresponsible (and rather stupid, when you consider what's at
stake). 

My other polemic, and this supports my overall argument concerning the
irrational element, concerns my astonishment that while racism is quite
easy to see in other instances (and those who are presently attacking
Goldhagen are among the most outspoken critics of racism on this channel),
suddenly my comrades lose all capacity of reason when the discussion turns
to Jews, the obvious reason being their ideological position against
Zionism and Israel, a matter completely unrelated to the question at hand. 

The attack on Goldhagen has been outrageous. It has been irrational. The
attempt to introduce a "scholarly" critique against Goldhagen by bringing
Finkelstein into the discussion has been an unmitigated disaster for my
opponents. Neither you, James, nor Finkelstein, nor anybody else on, or
presented to, this channel have gone anywhere in this debate. The only
basis for arguments since the beginning still remains that defending
Goldhagen is reprehensible because it allegedly gives Zionists
ammunition against Palestinians, and this argument and its basis have only
been rendered more clearly with time. I have watched over the course of
these several days the motivation for this irrational position emerge and
I have now openly called some of my comrades on it.

Frankly, Kuhls and I have made a rational go at this debate. We have very
reasonable, measured, and at least tried, in so far as it is possible, to
be objective in our presentations. The other side, including you, have
personalized the debate, used ideology instead than science, and have
introduced a profound irrationality into the discussion. If this were a
boxing match they would have stopped it long ago, declared a "no contest,"
and probably fined the promoter.

Andy Austin




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005