There’s a valuable set of work on the topic of antisemitism done from a Marxist analysis. One of the most developed theses is that of Moishe Postone’s. He wrote a foundational essay about Nazi antisemitism, arguing that antisemitism is a kind of fetishized anticapitalism. [Anti-Semitism and National Socialism]

I think it’s true that antisemitism presents a particular problem for anti-capitalists and those doing research on the topic, because antisemitism is an expression of “anti-capitalist” resentments. The field of anti-capitalism is not the sole possession of people on the Left, not of those who seek or advance an egalitarian worldview. An example for the contemporary U.S. context is the Minutemen, whose anti-immigration politics are closely related to their attack on U.S.-Mexico free trade agreements (NAFTA).

I am hypothesizing that the specific power analysis, based on a general critique of hierarchy, that is specific to an anarchist (or “anti-authoritarian”) critique, will, lacking a social-historical analysis of antisemitism, be unable to address antisemitism until, or unless, it is explicitly expressed in black and white terms or in violence.

Of course, some will be and are currently blind to such expressions too. That’s the limit of this particular hypothesis, which takes for granted the intention of anarchists to recognize antisemitism when they see it. I am only discussing one structural reason why I think they often fail.

Regarding your comment about anarchists’ “justification of Palestinian territorial and property rights,” it’s not clear to me what you’re specifically “dumbfounded” by. So I’ll leave it rather than speculate about it.

Thanks for the feedback.

When I think of anarchists and antisemitism, personally, I’m dumbfounded by the justification of Palestinian territorial and property rights.

I see what you’re referring to in my text, but my main focus was not about antisemitism amongst anarchists, but rather, more simply, the lack of substantive discussions about antisemitism in anarchist circles. And therefore I focused on developing some ideas about why that is occurring.

As I mentioned, I think this has to do with the attempt to stretch a hierarchy-analysis to account for the phenomenon of antisemitism (rather than analyzing antisemitism in its social-historical specificity.) [The same thing happens with anti-zionism, but that is a topic for another day.]

As a result, there is a blindspot regarding the analysis of antisemitism because 1) it can not be addressed by thinking simply in terms of “oppression”, and 2) because antisemitism itself functions as a twisted critique of hierarchy.

The reason I say that antisemitism can’t be adequately analyzed (particularly in the U.S. context) by thinking in terms of “oppression” is because of the relative success of the American Jewish population in overcoming much of the discrimination and oppression that was earlier widely established in law and civil society.

Of course, attacks and discrimination against Jews and Jewish institutions continue to occur in the U.S, and so do stereotypes about Jews. But what fails to be captured in an oppression/discrimination-based analysis of antisemitism in the U.S., is the discursive level in which antisemitism widely circulates, in particular, conspiracy theories about Jewish power.

Take for example, the highly popular conspiracy theory that Jews working in the World Trade Center were alerted before the 9/11 attack and told to not go to work. (Or the more extreme version which accuses Jews and Israel as plotting the attacks.) Or take the conspiracy theory about the Israel Lobby, which is supposedly controlling U.S. foreign policy, and was responsible for the Iraq War.

These accusations are certainly expressions of antisemitism, but they don’t fit easily into the category of “oppression” or “discrimination” or “prejudice.” It might be more accurate with such examples to speak about a kind of defamation or demonization.

There is certainly a relationship between these two forms: 1) defamation/demonization and 2) “oppression” “discrimination” or “prejudice.” Here’s an example: When an irate man barged into a Seattle Jewish Community Center and open fire on the women working there, he justified his actions on his conspiratorial view that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Jews.

“He said he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people were being mistreated and that the United States was harming his people,” Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske of the Seattle Police said Saturday at a news conference. “And he pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all of these problems. He stated he didn’t care if he lived.” [NY Times, July 30, 2006]

I think the example illustrates a clear connection between the two aspects of antisemitism. The defamations/demonizations provide the perpetrator a “justification” for anti-Jewish violence. But the former does not always result in the latter, and there needs to be a way to speak about antisemitism then, on the ideational level.

But attempting to bring this rant back together, I will rephrase my concern. The reason I was speaking of a blindspot for anarchists on this issue, is because I think that those who advance an analysis based on a generalized critique of hierarchy, face a unique problem on this issue. It is because antisemitism functions as a critique of hierarchy, as a critique of power (although deranged). Just as racism can be perpetuated in the immigration debate in the U.S. without any mention of particular social groups, antisemitism can be perpetuated without the mention of Jews in particular. Depictions of “the Zionists” and “the neo-cons” replicate the structure of the conspiracy theory (of Jewish power).

Because conspiracy theories are so widely circulated today — from the 911 conspiracy groups to the Israel Lobby theorists — a particular analysis of these tendencies need to be grappled with. A generalized critique of hierarchy just doesn’t grasp the phenomenon, and in some cases, even plays into it. But, in some ways, this is nothing new. Social phenomenon can’t be understood from a general theory or ethical assertion. Social theory has to constantly grapple with the situation on the ground, and its historical precedents, if it is going to be relevant for understanding the world.