I don't mean to imply that "Structural Antisemitism" does not 'exist'. Stalin's campaign against Leon Trotsky was "structurally" anti-Semitic. He treated Trotsky as a 'Jew'. I just don't think that it is beneficial to invoke the concept.

I always think it's ridiculous when people say things like this:

"Whereas antisemitism is a primitive critique of the world of capitalist modernity."

While it's fine to suppose that some antisemitism amounts to that, to imply that it would amount to that wholesale or universally is absurd. Lots of people who are antisemites wouldn't think anything like that.

How is it ridiculous? He's describing Structural Antisemitism as a form of racism which is slated as rudimentary anti-Capitalism. He, then, goes on to explain how this is particularly dangerous because it equates anti-Semitism as being somehow emancipatory. I don't agree with Moishe Postone as I think that he is far too critical of rudimentary anti-Capitalism, but what he is suggesting is not totally out of hand. There sort of is an anti-Semitic logic to some anti-Capitalist positions where the enemy is just seen as some unseen avaricious other who is so thoroughly demonized that they can ostensibly be treated in any way, shape, or form imaginable. I think that this is indicative of a pathology spawned by an inane adherence to revolutionary vengence and not necessarily indicative of anti-Semitic tendencies even though it does hazard that a person may have a greater proclivity towards anti-Semitism.

Postone is describing a particular kind of anti-Semitism and not necessarily anti-Semitism in general. I think that his argument is somewhat valid, but not necessarily sound, or, to put it better, that he identifies a social plight which does exist, but treats the problem too expansively and is, therefore, incapable of coming up with an effective solution to it.

The begining stages of anti-Semitism on the Left can be countered by confronting pathology. The anti-social hatred of the other is resultant of alienation. To dealienate a person means to accurately consider the pathology that was born of and, in all liklihood, resulted in further alienation. Postone is too dismissive of naive anti-Capitalism which he writes off as more or less just being "anti-Semitic" when a person honestly just might not know all that much about Capitalism.

I think that Postone's concept makes sense, but that it just isn't terribly useful to invoke. It would only apply to a few very particular cases. As a generality, I think that it unintentionally hazards becoming somewhat repressive.

Rabbinic Judaism is first and foremost a religion, i.e. one of the three offshoots that survived the destruction of second-temple Judaism by the Roman Empire. The reason why it is not exactly the same as second-temple Judaism, is understandable. That is why the two other offshoots are neither. I personally do not believe that antisemitism is inspired by a facile attack on the Rabbinic take, that would somehow emerge from the one or the other simplistic view on comparative theology. The real problem is the apartheid State of Israhell.

While the Israeli state can be considered to be unjust, that is not the problem which has been identified here.

Moishe Postone actually qualifies his concept in the quote at the begining of the article that I posted. He states, "It’s true that the Israeli government uses the charge of antisemitism to shield it from criticisms. But that doesn’t mean that antisemitism itself isn’t a serious problem." He does go on to state that "The way in which antisemitism is distinguished, and should be distinguished, from racism, has to do with the sort of imaginary of power, attributed to the Jews, Zionism, and Israel, which is at the heart of antisemitism", and is critical of anti-Zionism, but am actually unsure as to whether or not he is Pro-Israel. I would assume that he would adopt a vaguely sympathetic, but somewhat critical stance towards the policies of the Israeli state. Antideutsch took up his ideas and is vehemently Pro-Israel, but I think they may have misinterpreted his ideas.

Edit: In the interview that I read, he is actually talking about that, though, and it is I who am really on about another topic, so, that is, I suppose, the topic at hand, but I don't know that I actually care to get into a debate upon it.

He's describing Structural Antisemitism as a form of racism which is slated as rudimentary anti-Capitalism. — thewonder

There is antisemitism that is anticommunist/socialist. There is race hatred that comes out of religion. There is antisemitism that is happily couples with hatred of blacks and arabs and is extremely procapitalist. There are all sorts of individual takes on anti-semitism also swirling around out there. I do agree with the OP that to class conspiracy theoriests as anti-semites as a rule is confused.

Postone is too dismissive of naive anti-Capitalism which he writes off as more or less just being "anti-Semitic" when a person honestly just might not know all that much about Capitalism. — thewonder

Or might be suffering the consequences of it. Or might be Jewish and not a self-hating Jew, who, for a variety of possible reasons dislikes capitalism or current forms of it.

The oversimplification of people - by calling them anti-semites or any other oversimplification - who say there are conspiracies not currently accepted to exist at broad levels of the population
is
1) not an effective way to change anyone's mind
2) not separating the wheat from the chaff
3) facile
4) fundamentally confused, since there are conspiracies, so even the name itself implies false things

He does go on to state that "The way in which antisemitism is distinguished, and should be distinguished, from racism, has to do with the sort of imaginary of power, attributed to the Jews, Zionism, and Israel, — thewonder

I wouldn't know how to estimate the levels of power involved. How does one look at the participation at high levels of Jewish people and Jewish organizations in the US media, private sector and government and say its power level X and this means influence Y? I can't do that. I don't think in terms of Jewish conspiracies or equate Jews with the elite. I just think that his thinking there is confused. It's as if a rational person would have a good estimate of the power. I think it makes more sense to say that such a person would see a systematic use of that power by Jews AS Jews for Israeli or Jewish purposes,whatever that would mean.

I also think it would be very hard for a citizen to estimate the power of Israel, and thus via an overestimation be judged anti-semitic.

I agree that the charge of anti-Semitism can be an oversimplification, but I do think that there is a case to made for that anti-Semitism is problem in the Left.

I don't think that the impossiblity of an estimation of Israeli power necessarily implies that overestimations can't be anti-Semitic. I think that he makes a good point by stating that Jews, Zionism, and Israel are percieved as having more power than they actually do.


I have decided to clarify my position because I felt that I was too dismissive of your post.

I dropped out of Israeli-Palestinian politics a while ago because I just wasn't doing it any good. I think that the Israelis should abide by some sort of set of terms and conditions which are more or less outlined in the two-state solution, that there should eventually just be one state, that ideally Israelis and Palestinians would just form an Anarchist commune and abandon the idea of the State altogether, that the Israeli state doesn't really have the existential justification that it claims to, that it does, however, exist and that that has to be coped with somehow, that Israel really does use the charge of anti-Semitism to dismiss legitimate critiques of the state, that anti-Semitism really is a problem within left-wing circles, right-wing circles, and pro-Palestinian circles, that the focus of politics in the region shouldn't necessarily just be on Israel, that anti-Arab racism is also a real problem, that none of the political organizations in Palestine are really all that great, that Antideutsch is kind of a left-wing mob, and that Moishe Postone kind of makes some pretty good points in spite of that I don't really agree with him.

I actually consider myself to be Pro-Palestinian, but some people say that I'm "on the fence" because I think that anti-Semitism really is a real problem.

The way in which antisemitism is distinguished, and should be distinguished, from racism, has to do with the sort of imaginary of power, attributed to the Jews, Zionism, and Israel, which is at the heart of antisemitism — thewonder

You know, when you ban the Jews from lots of professions and jobs, as they used to do before the French Revolution, it will make a large number of Jews fail to sustain themselves, while some will succeed anyway.

Another aspect of medieval antisemitism was the many restrictions imposed on the Jews. They were excluded from many occupations because of the fear of competition with the local population. For the most part they could not own land, since, under the feudal system, the pledge of loyalty required from a vassal upon the enfoeffment of land had the form of a Christian oath; however, there were exceptions. Their residence in cities was often limited to specific areas known as ghettos. Following the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, Jews were also ordered to wear distinctive clothing, in some instances a circular badge. Some Jews managed to evade the humiliating requirement of wearing a badge by bribing the local authorities.

Nobody cares about the ones who failed to sustain themselves amidst these restrictions. The losers are never very visible. That is obviously not true of the winners. They will give the impression of possessing some secret that makes them survive and even thrive against all odds.

That is just a very typical example of survivor bias.

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

When Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "That what does not kill you, will make you stronger", he counted on what Nassim Taleb would later on coin the "antifragility" of humanity. An individual really needs adversity to grow. Even your muscles need training to become stronger. That would be zeroth-order antifragility, which is actually still relatively weak compared to first-order antifragility, described in the survivor bias, which is the truly strong phenomenon, because it proceeds by ruthlessly weeding out the weak. It is the same process as in which bacteria become antibiotic-resistant.

So, no, "the sort of imaginary of power, attributed to the Jews" is not completely imaginary, because in the Middle Ages, they really had their antifragility more extensively stimulated than the rest of the population.

I agree that the charge of anti-Semitism can be an oversimplification, but I do think that there is a case to made for that anti-Semitism is problem in the Left. — thewonder

There is certainly a great deal of criticism of Israel, but I don't see this carried over, in general, to Jewish people. And oddly, these are not the conspiracy theorists, either, who nowadays tend to be more on the right, sadly enough.

I don't think that the impossiblity of an estimation of Israeli power necessarily implies that overestimations can't be anti-Semitic. I think that he makes a good point by stating that Jews, Zionism, and Israel are percieved as having more power than they actually do. — thewonder

To me that's creating a criterion which, since it is not quantifiable, allows people to be labeled anti-semitic when they are not. I agree, one can overestimate the amount of power. My issue is with being able to say when that has happened.

I see the point you are making about the survivor bias, but I am unsure as to how you came to the conclusion that you did. I don't think that "antifragility" results that in victims of oppression are given superhuman powers, I guess.


I think that it's sort of there a bit. There's definitely a tension that results from the views and attitudes that people have towards the Israeli state. It's not quite what is meant by "anti-Semitism" but I do think that there is an adverse relationship between Jews and some Leftists.

I think that Postone's theory hazards that anyone can be charged with anti-Semitism in spite of that it can be 'true', but not that that quote does that. We do know that Jews only assert a certain degree of influence over politics. We can evaluate overestimations of that. You could say that the concept of power just simply can not be quantified, but I would still be able to overestimate the power that someone has.

I think that the Israelis should abide by some sort of set of terms and conditions which are more or less outlined in the two-state solution, that there should eventually just be one state, — thewonder

In my opinion, the representatives of the apartheid State of Israhell should be remanded to sit at the negotiation table with Hamas, to discuss the only real point of contention: the dissolution of the apartheid State of Israhell.

So, we need a repeat of the negotiations between Frederik De Clerq and Nelson Mandela, in which they discussed the inevitable takeover by the ANC. Seriously, I do not see any other solution.

Furthermore, the former British mandate of Palestine will simply have to reinstate the erstwhile Ottoman millets:

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet /ˈmɪlɪt/ was an independent court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

The continuation of the millet regime was even a condition in the 1917 Balfour declaration on the return of the Jews to Ottoman Palestine:

... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ...

ideally Israelis and Palestinians would just form an Anarchist commune and abandon the idea of the State altogether — thewonder

Wow, no, no. That would only lead to a Libya-style system of 2000+ different militia battling for power. So, no, certainly no anarchy. It will lead to the collapse in trade and commerce, and the resulting levels in specialization, which in turn, will destroy existing levels of income.

Law and order needs to be guaranteed.

Therefore, the successor state to the apartheid State of Israhell will simply have to reintroduce the Ottoman millets, while Hamas will have to guarantee law and order.

I see the point you are making about the survivor bias, but I am unsure as to how you came to the conclusion that you did. I don't think that "antifragility" results that in victims of oppression are given superhuman powers, I guess. — thewonder

The seemingly "superhuman powers" are just part of the survivor bias. The weak who got weeded out have zero visibility. That is what gives the impression of "superhuman powers".

How will Hamas guarantee law and order and who will possibly agree to the restoration of Ottoman millets?

I see what you are saying, but I don't think that that makes the misconception that Jews have a reach of power that could be likened to something like the New World Order not anti-Semitic.

How will Hamas guarantee law and order and who will possibly agree to the restoration of Ottoman millets? — thewonder

Hamas will inevitably agree to the restoration of the Ottoman millets. They have no choice in that matter, because it is the Quran which mandates the Ottoman millet system.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think that that makes the misconception that Jews have a reach of power that could be likened to something like the New World Order not anti-Semitic. — thewonder

This "new World Order" ideology exaggerates the historical ability of the Jews to survive Medieval European antisemitism. "Throwing antibiotics at the bacteria" will merely create resistant strains. That is obviously what historically happened. I do not believe that it is more than that. It is mostly the Catholic Church who created these surviving strains.

So, I personally believe that the solution to the conundrum in mandatory Palestine, consists in conducting negotiations which will bring the ANC/Hamas to power, and which will reinstate the Ottoman millet system.

I can't see the Israelis accepting Hamas's rule anytime soon. I also don't know how much positive change that that would really effect.

I can't see the Israelis accepting Hamas's rule anytime soon. I also don't know how much positive change that that would really effect. — thewonder

It is not really "Hamas rule" that would make sense. It is rather: using Hamas to prevent the emergence of 2000+ Libyan-style militias. Furthermore, the Ottoman millet system means it will be Hallakah rule for the Jews.

It is also better to raise the issue of military service with Hamas. Either the Jews do military service, or else they pay compensation for not doing so. Traditionally, they pay compensation, but I somehow suspect that it is negotiable. By the way, Napoleon suddenly reversed the traditional solution in Europe, but I am not sure that the Jews particularly liked it:

Napoleon's Infamous Decree. The decree made it so that the Jewish conscripts (required enlistees of military) couldn’t find replacements for themselves when drafted like other Frenchmen were allowed to do.

He's describing Structural Antisemitism as a form of racism which is slated as rudimentary anti-Capitalism. — thewonder

That's semantic (it has to do with meaning; what the particular form of "racism" is about). But tons of people who are antisemites do not think about it that way.

I'm just not sure that that Israelis will accept Hallakah rule in any near future. I also don't know that that would ultimately effect a good political situation. I'd have to learn more about it, though

As for Hamas, I kind of thought that Fatah was preferable. Fatah is fraught with all sorts of problems, but I kind of think that they're preferable to Hamas.

I don't really support any of the political parties in Palestine, though. I think that effective change will just have to somehow come from somewhere else.


I see what you're saying. I would argue that Fascism can be considered as a form of totalitarian Capital and that the Fascist enmity towards Capitalism is somewhat insincere. It is probably the case that most anti-Semites just don't really have anything against Capitalism.

In late October, a Globe and Mail columnist wrote how during a recent concert at Vancouver’s Hollywood Theatre,“a band member said something about a free Palestine. This, according to attendee Hanah Van Borek, led to a few shouts from the audience: ‘Fuck the Jews!’

“It was clearly audible in her area of the crowd, a person who was with her confirms, but nobody around them shut this down. There were some cheers of support, though. ‘My whole body went into shock,’ says Ms. Van Borek, who is Jewish.

“Ms. Van Borek left the venue and explained why to security staff. She says a worker encouraged her to go back inside and reassured her she was safe. ‘Nobody will be able to tell that you’re Jewish,’ he said, according to Ms. Van Borek. (Oy.)

She did return to the show, but Ms. Van Borek was — and is — rattled. She supports the band’s right to make political statements. It was the shouts from this group — and the silence around them — that were alarming.”

For many years I’ve been and likely will continue to be a critic of the maltreatment of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel [i.e. its government and security/defense agencies] and, with few exceptions, Western mainstream news-media’s seemingly intentional tokenistic (non)coverage of it. By doing so, that media, whether they realize it or not, have done a disservice to its own reputation and the Israeli/Jewish people themselves. The road to hell, after all, is also paved with good intentions.

Having said that, I still never expected the level of anti-Semitic attacks in the West, notably in Canada and the U.S., since the Oct.7 Hamas assault against Israel. For one thing, the Jewish people in Israel and especially around the world must not be collectively blamed for the acts of Israel’s government and military, however one feels about the latter’s brutality in present Gaza. It’s blatantly immoral for them to be mistreated, if not terrorized, as though they were responsible for what is happening there.

[Needless to say, diaspora Palestinians and Western Muslims similarly must not be collectively blamed and attacked for the acts of Hamas violence in Israel or Islamic extremist attacks outside the Middle East.]

There seems to have been much latent animosity towards Jewish people in general, perhaps in part based on erroneous and disproven stereotype thus completely unmerited. Also, incredible insensitivity was publicly shown towards Jews freshly mourning the 10/7 victims, especially considering that young Israelis and Jews elsewhere may not be accustomed to such relatively large-scale carnage (at least not as much as is seen in other parts of the Middle East) in post-9/11 times.

Having the top-mentioned (in The Globe and Mail) ugly and scary occurrence playout in my mind’s eye and ear left me disgusted. Also scary is the real possibility that this public outpour of blind hatred may lead some young children to feel very misplaced shame in their heritage.

Meantime, there also were/are the ugly external politics. Particularly with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, one can observe widespread ideological/political partisanship via news and commentary. Within social media the polarized views are especially amplified, including those of non-Jews and non-Palestinians.

While the conflict can and does arouse a spectator sport effect or mentality, many contemptible news trolls residing outside the region actively decide which ‘side’ they hate less thus ‘support’ via politicized commentary posts. I anticipate many actually keep track of the bloody match by checking the day’s-end death-toll score.

Structural antisemitism? Where? Where are semites singled out for the reason that they are semitic, besides maybe in Iran and India?

Where are semites singled out for the reason that they are semitic, besides maybe in Iran and India? — Lionino

Everywhere I have ever been. Not to mention much of the Middle East. But you’re right that it isn’t official state policy anywhere but the Middle East.

That is strange, because the Middle East is itself full of semites for the most part. What structures do you see there that would be antisemitic?

We’ll most want to wipe out Israel. Just do an internet search on where The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are sold or referred to. :wink:

Wanting to wipe out Israel does not make you antisemitic, it makes you anti-Israel or maybe anti-Zionist. Israel's population is almost 100% semitic in fact.

It’s more complex than that.

Just do an internet search on where The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are sold or referred to. :wink: — Tom Storm

Non-response as expected. The core issue is that you do not know what the word "semite" really means. Consider the dictionary.

Let's consider one of the many different semitic populations: Jews.
Jews in the United States are: grossly represented in Ivy Leagues (source), overrepresented in Forbes 100 by 1400% (source), in Hollywood by also a lot (source), and many more, including congress and top military positions.
Question: how is there any antisemitic structure when this set-up came to be? Obviously, there is not, as any structural antisemitism in the United States would stop that reality from coming into being. Even if Arabs, the most common semites, were extremely oppressed in the US, Jews would be the proof that there is nothing inherently antisemitic in that society.

Non-response as expected — Lionino

Perhaps you confuse information you don’t know or understand with a non-response - I don’t blame you, it’s a complex subject.

I remember debating a Nazi and David Irving acolyte back in the 1980’s. He argued that since semites included a broad group of people, not merely Jews, the issue was incoherent, a non- starter. It’s a pretty old and wonky argument. And of course, I’m not calling you a Nazi.

We know that a hatred of Jews is a very specific and organised bigotry. It comes in many forms. Much of it set out by that Tsarist text, the aforementioned Protocols, which as recently as 2012 were referred to in Greek Parliament as evidence of a structural Jewish conspiracy. And remains the model for most antisemitism and remains a best seller throughout the Middle East. In fact, the starting point for this form on antisemitism is generally pointing to Jewish success stories and prominence and hinting at special treatment and benefits of race. Let’s not quibble over definitions, let’s talk about usage.

He argued that since semites included a broad group of people, not merely Jews, the issue was incoherent, a non- starter. — Tom Storm

The issue is incoherent by definition if you are not talking about discrimination against semites.

I don't bring up the topic of eurocentrism and start talking about Polish nationalism. Even if relevant, it is not the topic of the discussion. I don't how much more clearer I can make this. Again, open a dictionary.

Much of it set out by that Tsarist text, the aforementioned Protocols, which as recently as 2012 were referred to in Greek Parliament as evidence of a structural Jewish conspiracy — Tom Storm

The Greek parliament also has its Zionist and pro-Jew members. Does that mean there is structural Zionism in Greece? You really betray your intentions whe you say the Protocols were used in the "Greek parliament" to prove a Jewish conspiracy. To anyone interested in what Tom is lying about, he is referring to Ilias Kasidiaris, who is basically a pariah of Greek society, not representative of any "structure".

And remains the model for most antisemitism — Tom Storm

Protocols of Elders of Zion does not talk about semites as far as I know, only about Jews, so it would not be the case.