I just got into an argument with a Zionist settler who claimed that in the years of austerity after the Entity was established, that it had state ownership of the means of production, ergo it was a socialist state - but that the state's mismanagement led the settlers to shift towards liberal capitalism. The settler interlocutor also stressed that there were ties between the USSR and the Zionist entity.

So basically, what's up with that, and how can I better argue against Zionism, bearing these facts in mind?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Coolkidbozzy@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

They once had more state-owned companies than they do now, but they've always had a private sector where workers have no rights over the means of production

From wikipedia:

The official Soviet ideological position on Zionism condemned the movement as akin to bourgeois nationalism. Vladimir Lenin rejected Zionism as a reactionary movement, "bourgeois nationalism", "socially retrogressive", and a backward force that deprecates class divisions among Jews.[2] From late 1944, however, Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that a Jewish state would emerge socialist and pro-Soviet, and thus would speed the decline of British influence in the Middle East.

I don't blame Stalin for thinking european Jews would become the USSR's natural ally, but it seems like a silly lapse in ideology for realpolitik

It's worth pointing out that in Stalin's Marxism and the National Question, he acknowledged that zionism is reactionary. What a silly guy

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago

Fascinating!

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wasn't the thinking at the time national liberation then class liberation? Did that come later?

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Lenin's A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism was well from 1916 and that expressed that idea, didn't it?

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Dunno. Haven't read it. Let me go look it up.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Like a lot of theory, my compehension of it is lacking, but I do remember that our boy did spend some time talking about Norway's independence from Sweden in it, which I found kind of surprising and neat.

Edit: apparently Lenin wrote something dunking on Rosa Lux over Norway, The Right of Nations to Self Determination. That was in 1914.

[–] TheGenderWitch@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

okay i had a post about this a long time ago but basically it was the politburo that overruled him on the thing and only gave tentative support to better relations with the west. They still held that the best defense against anti-semitism would be a dismantling of fascism in europe.

There was no 'support' as much as molotov ribbentrop was an alliance