No worries, dude, I’m with ya… I completely understand the disillusionment, but people touting the death of electoralism that think they’re really being revolutionary, IMO are being useful idiots for the elite. And its definitely rampant here… I’m back and forth on whether to stick around, honestly.

My friend, you are very much barking up the wrong tree here. And I don’t blame you one bit, there is a ton of what you’re describing here and it is very frustrating, but you’ve misunderstood me to be saying something I’m not. I think it’s helpful to know historical context to know that even more leftism is not only possible, but has happened… but I think Mamdani is still a huge win in this current political climate and I think attempts to tear him down are almost laughably self-defeating from anyone considering themselves on the left.

Fully agree with you man, we should take the W here as a much needed shift left of the Overton window…

“Historically” being the key word here… the political landscape of America, and frankly the western world, changed after the 80’s shift to neoliberalism via Reagan and Thatcher.

I have not said Israel shouldn’t exist. I’ve said it shouldn’t be an ethnostate. That’s all. While you’re trying to tar anyone against the idea of an ethnostate as an antisemite, I might point out that the most vociferous advocates for ethnostates in America are white nationalists such as the KKK. So maybe we should keep this converation between you and I rather than slandering each other based on who is standing on our side, because you’ll find you have your own pretty unsavory types standing with you. Including, ironically, ardent antisemites.

You can call yourself pragmatic, but supporting the genocide or apartheid of a people because the people doing the genociding were themselves once genocided seems pretty ideological rather than pragmatic. I don’t think this puts you in a very good position to finger wag others for their views on racism, cowboy.

I think the lesson of the 20th century is very, very clearly that ethnostates only lead to genocide and war. They almost have to by definition… the story of the Balkans and central Africa for the past century has been one of attempting to establish borders based on race and then humanitarian disasters followed as people who didn’t fit into those borders were either forcibly expelled or killed. This can’t really be denied, can it? And aren’t we seeing this exact thing play out in Israel?

Can you explain to me how it is possible to have an ethnostate without engaging in either genocide or apartheid? Because I can’t see how that’s possible.

I think we also need to acknowledge there’s a pretty big difference in a people currently or within a few generations culturally connected to a land, and people who have been displaced for literal centuries. Do we give Britain back to the Gaelic peoples that were displaced by Saxons? They can both claim a cultural connection and have been present the entire time, as with Jews in the area around Israel. How far back do we go?

In any case, no, even in the case of indigenous peoples, I absolutely do not support ethnostates because of the above… they invariably and always lead to genocide and apartheid, which I feel should be avoided at all costs. Do you not?

Hungary. We order our groceries online and the app lets you tip right as you order. For prepared hot food, we often don’t order through one of the major services… we in fact try to order direct from the restaurant whenever we can so they don’t lose on a commission to a service we really don’t need, and in this case we always tip the delivery person. In restaurants, at a minimum you’re pretty much expected to at least round the bill up the nearest 1k forint for a nice sit-down meal, more is common. Some places have mandatory service charge similar to what some places in the US do. Again, we aren’t talking the expected 15-20% of the US, but tipping is certainly expected for some services here. Cabs, barbers, lots of services.

The bigger point to me is that Europeans, rightly, get upset when American tourists refuse to comply with cultural norms they don’t agree with… it’s just as pig headed when European tourists to the US refuse to do the same in my opinion. It’s being a bad guest.

Definitely agree with that. I’d say he’s near the edge of politicians currently in an actual elected position in the US, but that’s about as far as it goes. Even in the US, there have been politicians further left in power historically. Absolutely no pipe dream.

Way too many people in here speaking for “Europe”. I live in Europe as well, and here tipping at a restaurant or a delivery driver is 100% expected. It isn’t usually as much as the US, but tipping exists here as well.

Also, when in Rome… plenty of people here get upset at Americans for not following cultural norms, seems fair to get upset at people visiting America for not doing the same.

Well yes, but that’s my point, this trend has been global since the 80’s with Reagan and Thatcher. Continental Europe held out longer, but even here it pretty much rules the day. A lot of Americans have a very, very misinformed view of what politics here look like thinking it much more to the left, and that just hasn’t been the case for arguably a few decades. There’s a few issues we’re even to the right of Americans on. Sure, there are some holdouts, but not many that have impacted politics much in recent history.

So I’d repeat my follow up question: aren’t there quite a few peoples who could claim ongoing discrimination as a justification for founding an ethnostate? Should the Roma in Europe be given an ethnostate? Why do you only extend this to Israel? The Roma face far more open discrimination in Europe today, measurably. Should Europe hand them land that doesn’t belong to Europe in India because that’s their ancient ancestral homeland?

Heck, look at the anti-Islamic rhetoric and attacks that have happened post 9/11… doesn’t this, using your reasoning, justify the existence of an Islamic State?

I don’t think you can fight racism with more racism, and ethnostates by definition require some degree of racism. All you do is encourage more racism, and I think quite clearly this pans out as the rise in antisemitic views has directly coincided with the actions of Israel. Or you’ll have to walk me through how they don’t… if ethnicity is an institutional dividing line within a state, you necessarily have to engage in racism to uphold it.

(Also not sure what you’re referencing in the Night of Long Knives… I really hope this isn’t an oblique National Socialists are socialists reference, because that would be pretty ridiculous. Even the Strassers, while you can certainly argue had some socialist ideas informing them, were not really traditional socialists. National Socialism was a distinct movement from socialism, and the latter never really aligned themselves with fascists, they were actively bleeding fighting them).

I do agree that DSA, as a whole, aren’t generally socialists, but I also think it’s a little disingenuous to say they’re they same as the Hilary cadre which is more what you went on the describe. They’re certainly to the left of them. If the entire Democratic party was aligned with DSA vs the more staunch neoliberals in the mainstream, what a wonderful problem we’d be faced with compared to where we are now…

Ehhh, this isn’t half as true as it used to be (lived on both sides of the Atlantic extensively, am currently in central Europe). The majority of Europe is as firmly neoliberal as America is ideologically. We have a more robust welfare state, and some of us have some better labor laws, but the core ideals of neoliberalism rule nearly the entire subcontinent with real, old school socialist parties (that are actually still holding socialist views) don’t really have any more power than they do in the US. They get a bit more just by virtue of parliamentary systems, but their actual size and influence is almost non existent in most countries here.

So would you support the idea of ethno-states in general? Do you think being against ethno-states as a principle means one is against any given ethnicity that is attempting to found one? If you don’t support ethnostates in general, what is the basis for granting exceptions such as to Israel? Having suffered a great injustice earlier in history? Couldn’t, say, Ukrainians claim this because of the Holodomor? Would you find it ethical for them to, say, have separate rights for ethnic Ukrainians vs ethnic Hungarians, Russians, and others that are Ukrainian nationals?

I’m really asking here, because I just can’t see how you can square this circle without just being plain arbitrary. You either are okay with the idea of ethnostates, or you aren’t. And if you’re in favor of them, you almost definitionally need to engage in either genocide (in the wider sense of any form of removal of a people) or apartheid (having separate classes based on ethnic lines). No? How else could you realize this without one of the two?