Chesler Chronicles

June 30th, 2008 3:45 pm

A Glittering Gathering At My Home For Alan Johnson and Democratiya

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Right to Left: Sol Stern, Phyllis Chesler, Alan Johnson, Paul Berman, Michael Weiss and Austin Dacey

What happened to the old New Left? How did it become a supporter of totalitarianism, Islamist fascism, nihilist isolationism, and the narrowest of party lines? When did it lose its “decency” and moral sanity? A growing number of us have been asking these questions for a long time and more have joined us since 9/11.

Britain’s Alan Johnson is a professor at Edge Hill University and a co-author of the Euston Manifesto HERE and Unite Against Terror. Together with Abdullah Muhsin, Johnson also co-authored Hadi Never Died: Hadi Saleh and the Iraqi Trade Unions. Johnson founded what has become an influential online journal, Democratiya, which addresses these and related questions. Some of Democratiya’s interviews are now available in book form: Global Politics After 9/11. This is a serious but highly readable volume of interviews with Jean Bethke Elshtain, Paul Berman, Kanan Makiya, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and is introduced by Michael Walzer.

Pajamas Media’s very own editor and writer, Michael Weiss, (who is, hands down, the very brightest and most promising of his generation’s thinkers), brought Alan to my home. Gathered together were a group of my friends, most of whom are former leftists, who have all lived history both passionately and consciously.

To my delight, former Ramparts editor and currently City Journal’s contributing editor and unparalleled Education expert, Sol Stern, (and my dear friend), toasted me as the “Rachel Varnhagen” of our times–high praise indeed. (She ran a hot salon in Europe).

Sol of course came with the ironic-sardonic humored Ruthie–his better and Israeli half who has just received her Ph.D. Congratulations Ruthie!

Alan came in with Paul Berman–I said the gathering was glittering. Professor Berman’s book, Terror and Liberalism, is a hugely important work and his incisive and wide-ranging mind takes no prisoners. Paul, who currently teaches at New York University, and I have met before but this evening he reminded me of no one so much as Pete Seeger–or of a 1950s style kibbutznik, in his jeans and open shirt.

Also gathered were: The-man-who-knows-almost-everything-and-is-willing-to-tell-you: My equally dear friend, History Professor and author Fred Seigel and his Professor wife Jan Rosenberg. Fred, Jan, and I all raised our sons in Park Slope, in Brooklyn, at the same time and they will always feel like family.

Professors Nahma Sandrow (Yiddishist, retired Professor and all-round lovely soul) and her husband, Bill Meyers, a true Renaissance man (playwright and photographer extraordinaire) also came–an honor indeed, since they are grieving the loss of their wonderful son. They brought their son Isaac’s fiancée, Margot, (whose last name I can’t recall: Margot, please forgive me), a lustrous young poet.

And, my dear friend Ibn Warraq, the author of Defending The West, came shyly in and stood most of the time, rather quietly. Even I could not get him to say much–not that there was any lull in the conversation. He brought his comrade-in-arms, Austin Dacey, philosopher and secularist who works with the Center for Inquiry, and who co-ordinated the first Islamic Dissident Conference in a very impressive fashion.

A very good time was had by all. I strongly recommend that you read Democratiya and its Interviews, contained in Global Politics After 9/11.

Happy Reading!

Alan Johnson

From Left to Right: Jan Rosenberg, Fred Seigel and Bill Meyers standing

From Left to Right:Ruthie Stern and Alan Johnson

Right to Left: Margot, Nahma Sandrow, and Sol Stern

Read bullet | (8) Comments bullet

8 Comments

David Thomson:

Paul Berman is probably part of the problem. The high likelihood is that he is supporting Barack “Barry” Obama. If this is so, then he is inadvertently advocating for the destruction of Western Civilization. Good intentions are not enough in this cruel world. Obama is a self hating American who believes that our country has crapped on the dark skinned victims of the Third World. We richly deserve the “blowback” of the terrorists. Obama is instinctively an appeaser similar to Neville Chamberlain.

Jul 1, 2008 - 3:05 am John R:

I hate to be a skunk at the party but “what happended to the old new Left? And “how did it become a supporter of totalitarianism, etc.” ? You have to be kidding. The old new Left grew straight out of the american communist party of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. It’s singluar animating idea is that it (they) are anti-American. I’ll be persuaded that progress is being made when I hear your pals start owning up to the mess they caused over the past 40 years and join the majority of the modest, decent Americans in destroying this islamist enemy.

Jul 1, 2008 - 5:02 am George Jochnowitz:

In the March 6, 1969, issue of THE VILLAGE VOICE, my article “The Left Is Soft on Anti-Semitism” raises the question of why leftists adopt a position that is the opposite of what they say they believe in. I had no answer then and none now. In August of 1967, the National Conference for the New Politics took place in Chicago. Bella Abzug attended. Anti-Zionist resolutions were passed and anti-Semitic statements were made.

The New Left shares some of the views of the Communist Party, but it was very different in a number of important ways. It was NOT puritanical, as the Communists were and are in the countries they rule. It was not pro-Soviet, although it shared anti-Americanism with the Soviet Union. Some of the new leftists were red-diaper babies, but many came from entirely different traditions. The New left was pro-drugs and pro-spiritualism, unlike the Communsts. To an extent, it was anti-science.

But starting in May of 1967, a few weeks before the Six-Day-War, the New Left adopted anti-Zionism as an essential part of its program. This linked it to the Communists more than anything else did.

Jul 1, 2008 - 9:26 am John R:

Mr. Jochnowitz. I’ll admit I’m not equipped to debate you on, well, probably anything. But I ask you, do you honestly think the fine distinctions you make really matter/mattered in this two party democracy? Do you think The NY Times and the universities, and the broadcast networks, would shill for any other politics? My point is that regardless of your distinctions, in practice the Left was/is anti-american.

Jul 1, 2008 - 10:09 am George Jochnowitz:

John R.

I agree that the left was and is anti-American.

Jul 1, 2008 - 11:36 am Natasha:

I have to keep this short because of time constraints, however, I will later come back to this.

I am leftist, independent now but was part of the very revolutionary left, Leninist, and Maoist. I would go back and forth between the two, however I was also radical feminist and human rights advocate. My years in academia as a non-traditional student [single parent then, and part of the underclass, of which I still am part of that underclass] I did realize the leftist influence in academia–but it was a ‘controlled radicallism’, that was extremely manipulative.

There is a lot of ignorance in today’s left, OR an extreme polarized view/lens, meaning they tend to focus on one ideology and only that ideology. There is little cross analysis or study and even in the analysis of the left there is far too much misconstruing, whether this is lack of historical knowledge or lack of reading, I can’t say. Well, yes I can, I think its lack of reading—or limited reading.

In the parties it tends to be this reading of tracts, almost like a cult-religion, and narrow focus on some materials, or relying on the rebuilding of those themes and thesis. Same goes for the critique of leftism. What we are seeing today is not so much Soviet style Leninism but a combining of,

Stalinism and the counter reaction via Nationalist ‘culture movements’ [the Self-Determination revolutions which relied on Soviets but were in conflict with, e.g., Cuba, struggles in South America and Africa/South Africa, Mexico, etc] against Stalinist controls/Soviet State during the 50s and 60s, the decolonization period. The far left has transformed several times in the American history and has a unique historical development in its own right. Including the CP-USA and the Socialist parties.

Adding to that, the progressive and/or neo-liberal movements in the west, Europe included that had a huge influence on the upcoming generations since the 60s. Then, the power vacuum, end of the Cold War, and what remained in the anti-imperialist struggle?

The Islamist regimes, the fastest growing totalitarian religion in the world, and yes I have no qualms in saying totalitarian, a Medieval totalitarianism in fact.

I will come back to this later but to sum it up, the transformation of the left cannot be described in ideological tenants only because its a combination of forces, resistance to modernization, resistance to Western tradition, anti-imperialism, revisionism and a dangerous one at that, resistance to globalization, and the economic -military gap that was left by the fall of the Soviets. Those Self-Determination NATIONALIST movements were ripe for the hijacking of political Islam, and those in the far left, jumped on it.

What better way to lure and move history than to use one if not the most brutal opiates of terror and Submission over the masses to do so…

Its no coincidence that in the far left parties over the years the liberals, not hedonists now, hedonists actually love the permissions they will have within an extreme misogynist opiate, but true liberals have been purged via kicking out by centralist vote, party infiltration by those of more nationalist bent [race and culture nationalism] and most of them, combined forces of political Islam.

Multi-culturalism and cultural relativism, strategically taught in a very segregated way in academia to divide the victims of imperialist to reinforce, what?

nationhood [Mussolini would have Applauded].

The Nation-State with what?

SPIRITUAL FORCES, thats what…

its no coincidence that in Russia the Bolshevik party is now the National Bolshevik party with the leader a convert to Islam. National Bolshevik meaning, a mix of Leninism, Hitler’s fascism/race and the opiate of mass control, Islam. The MIM, the Socialists apologetics and tolerance, Especially towards misogyny, its no Coincidence that the nations today with the trojan horse are the very nations that were neo-liberal and tolerant of the most extreme misogynist abuses within their borders,

trafficked women and children, sex SLAVES. Do the math, it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. The cause, the refusal to look and critique the FLAWS IN MARXISM and the refusal of autonomy under Leninism and Maoism, Especially towards half of the human population–Women.

Feminism was tolerable IF is was under the control of patriarchal ‘paternalism’[of course with those male entitlements to women, esp the STATE entitlements to women's bodies, create mass labor/armies or depopulate those labor excesses]. Self determination was tolerable IF it was under the control of State paternalism, to a degree, however it became a movement that was allowed autonomy, because it was a strength, as we see today against the forces of transnational imperialism.

The result is we have today the Self Determination forces [Stalin's nationalism against imperialism] with the Opiate of the most powerful Machevielian (sic) totalitarian force there is,

not only to rule with terror and crush any individualism or human rights, but to rule the future generations by the extreme misogyny over women/girls especially to where its possible to create mass State from little bodies,illiterate and under the full power of patriarchy and theocracy, that the children born into,

are so assimilated into the FEAR of totalitarianism the chances of revolt are slim to none.

Brilliant, in fact, no wonder the hard core totalitarian left is in bed with that today.

And the neo-liberal left with their imperialist ‘guilt’, cleverly stratified no less, has not only opened the door for a world order but they have embraced their doom, like sheeps to the slaughter.

The right is just as guilty, in their obsession for the ‘means’ of pleasure [Fromm] they have sold freedom,

for a dollar.

The question is now, what do we Do now, to ward off the forces of a totalitarian world order that makes Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin look tame in comparison, because now, along with the theocracy of Medieval Feudalism–Tsarist type of rule over serfs/slaves

they are combined forces.

What is to be done today?

WAMI

http://wami-womenagainstmaleimperialism.blogspot.com/

Jul 1, 2008 - 11:39 am BL:

It’s very refreshing to see intellectuals getting together, face to face and debating the questions of the day. Democratiya is a very interesting journal. All best to all the creative minds of our times.

Jul 1, 2008 - 6:45 pm David:

This is a strawman argument. The New Left no more appeases terrorists than do the neo-cons, who eagerly embrace Saudi wealth. Dems and repugs both need to do more to stand up against corporate supporters of islamo-fascism (like the Bush admin’s cronies who are getting wealthy doing business with Iran), and do less to fund useless, ineffectual “wars on terrorism” which have done nothing to bring enlightenment to Islamic cultures.

Jul 14, 2008 - 2:29 pm