Kyrie Irving's Socialism of Fools
The old quip that “Antisemitism is the socialism of fools” is so old that it predates several modern definitions of “antisemitism” — not to mention the invention of basketball — but somehow it still holds truth, and bears on the latest Kyrie Irving controversy. In fact, the analogy explains much of the whole ordeal, from the documentary he posted, to his initial refusal to apologize, to his suspension, and the general reaction to it. Ferdinand Kronawetter would indeed be proud…
The actual origins of the “socialism of fools” line are murky, but it seems like it was initially meant as simply a dismissal of the antisemitism that was so common in 19th century Europe. But the German social democrat August Bebel, to whom the line is often mistakenly attributed, expanded on it more substantively, acknowledging that many people “are confronted by capital mainly in the form of the Jew.” In other words, since both custom and European laws often forced Jews into capitalism’s more unsavory roles, like moneylender and landlord, then the main exposure people had to Jews was when they were being crushed under the boot heel of capitalism.
But there is also something conspiratorial about antisemitism, that makes it more than just anger or resentment of Jews. The documentary Irving posted was rife with conspiracies about Jews — that Blacks are the original Hebrews and that modern Jews have stolen their identity; that the Holocaust was a lie; etc. — and those barely scratch the surface of conspiratorial lies about Jewish people: that they control the media, that they spearheaded American slavery, etc. That these conspiracies have all been thoroughly debunked does not seem to matter; they are founded more on suspicion than fact. But those suspicions, as misplaced as they are, are ALSO deeply connected to capitalism: the notion that the world is controlled by powerful forces you cannot see, that are international and invisible and greedy and amoral. It is not crazy to feel that way under capitalism, even if it is foolish to connect it to the Jews.
If Kyrie Irving had simply apologized when he was first challenged about the documentary he posted, much of this controversy could likely have been avoided. In the apology he eventually posted on Instagram, he explained that initial refusal by saying that he “initially reacted out of emotion to being unjustly labeled Anti-Semitic.” Hence his defiant statements about reporters twisting his words, and his refusal to admit that he did anything wrong: “Did I do anything illegal? Did I hurt anybody?” Only later, after he’d been punished by his team, did he eventually “take full accountability and responsibility for [his] actions.”
This sort of reaction might seem inconsistent, and you might be tempted to doubt Irving’s sincerity. But it’s a totally normal way to react to accusations of bigotry of any kind. Our capitalist American culture is so atomized and individualized that it cannot conceive of any kind of bigotry — whether it’s racism or sexism or antisemitism — as anything other than personal animus towards members of a group. If you are racist, that must mean you hate Black people; if you are sexist, that must mean you hate women; and if you are antisemitic, that must mean you hate Jews.
And so anytime someone is accused of something like this, they immediately retreat to the same defense: How dare you! I don’t hate ANYONE for who they are! I’m actually the least racist/sexist/antisemitic person you’ll ever meet. In fact, I can’t POSSIBLY be racist/sexist/antisemitic. I judge people for who they are… So Irving did the same thing (only, since he’s Kyrie Irving, he was more combative and annoying about it). And maybe he’s right! There’s no evidence that Irving has any personal hatred towards Jewish people, or that he treats them unfairly in his day-to-day life. But that doesn’t mean the philosophy of the film he shared — a philosophy he still seems to fundamentally agree with — is not antisemitic.
I’ve written before — many, many times — about how stupid and limited it is to frame discussions about racism around personal feelings people have about other races. And this is just as true, if not more so, about antisemitism, which is often rooted in those aforementioned conspiracies. It’s not always about how you treat or perceive Jewish people in your daily life, but what you believe about Jews as a force in the world. This is particularly ill-suited to the way we have evolved to deal with bigotry: harsh, arbitrary punishment from powerful forces.
There’s a quote you sometimes see on the Internet, often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” The real author of this line was likely the neo-Nazi and white nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom. Despite its unsavory provenance, you can see why this pithy line might catch on — it’s a very catchy way of saying something that feels true.
You can also see why the line would be so popular with antisemites who believe Jews control the media: It puts anyone attempting to call out antisemitism in a double-bind, since any criticism of someone for being antisemitic only proves that Jews DO hold a disproportionate influence over what people are allowed to say. As not just Irving but Kanye West and Dave Chappelle have been criticized for anti-Semitism in recent weeks, it has been common to suggest these people — all of whom are known for controversial statements — finally crossed some invisible line between “offensive but allowable” and “verboten” by going after the Jewish community.
This is, of course, nonsense. Not that you won’t get in trouble for going after Jews — obviously Kyrie, Kanye, and Chappelle were all punished or criticized to varying degrees for their comments. But people get pushback for all kinds of controversial views, and it’s not like antisemitism is some third rail of American politics: A Holocaust denier just had a personal meeting with the former President, for fuck’s sake.
It is also pointless to argue over which kind of speech is more punishable in the United States. Indeed, so much energy is wasted by both progressives and conservatives arguing that their views are repressed more than the other side. The truth is you can be fired for criticizing Black Lives Matter and you can be fired for criticizing the police. You can have your show canceled because you were racist, or because you called the president a racist.
The relevant factor in all these cases is not the content of the speech, but something else: Whether your speech is likely to make someone else money, or cost them money. Under capitalism, the answer to the question “Who are you not allowed to criticize?” is always, ultimately: the boss. Maybe that’s putting it too crudely — there are certainly bosses open to criticism. But the boss, representing the capitalist class, is always the ultimate arbiter of what speech is allowed.
The reason that norms and rules around speech in the US are so inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary — why antisemitism will get some people canceled and other people elected President — is that the power and preferences of bosses varies from person to person and situation to situation. The Nets are a public-facing business, accountable on some level to fans and advertisers, and they were getting flak for Irving, so they decided that his statements made him “unfit to be associated” with the franchise. On the other hand, Donald Trump is a capitalist — he owns the means of production and thus is not subject to discipline from bosses — so he can have as many white supremacists over for dinner as he wants.
But this brings us back to August Bebel’s comments about being “confronted by capital mainly in the form of the Jew.” Because when someone is criticized for saying something offensive, people understandably focus on what was said, on who was offended. And in this case, since Jews are the offended party, it seems like they are the protected class. But, truthfully, it mattered far less whose feelings were hurt, and far more whose revenues were disrupted.
There is, of course, an important element of this whole controversy that I have up until now ignored: race. Kyrie Irving is, of course, Black, as are Dave Chappelle and Kanye West. Trying to unpack the whole history of relations between Black and Jewish Americans is too much for one newsletter, but I’ll just say this: Black people have good reasons to be suspicious about accusations of antisemitism, and they have good reasons to be suspicious of the ADL.
When Irving was first suspended, there were reports that the Nets wanted him to meet with the Anti-Defamation League before he could be reinstated. That meeting never happened, although it seems like ADL’s president recommended other “Jewish leaders” for him to meet with. But the ADL’s involvement is a bad sign, and if Irving refused to meet with them, that’s to his credit.
The ADL, which often presents itself as the official spokesgroup for Jews in America, is a bad organization whose main purpose is to weaponize allegations of antisemitism in defense of the state of Israel’s apartheid regime, and its brutal treatment of Palestinians. We should not let the ADL speak for all Jews and be the arbiter of what counts as antisemitism. So it seems especially relevant, given that Irving has previously spoken in support of Palestine, that the ADL was one of the first groups to condemn him for sharing the film.
This doesn’t excuse the film, but perhaps this explains why he was initially defensive, and why he didn’t take those allegations seriously. If you are going to toss out allegations of antisemitism every time someone criticizes Israel, then you are inevitably going to dull those allegations to the point of meaninglessness, and it will no longer sting as much when applied to actual antisemitism.
Indeed, the state of Israel isn’t even as old as the “socialism of fools'' line, but its existence only makes the line more resonant. The way “antisemitism” has come to be defined, when its politically convenient, as criticism of a nation-state, show that nationalism can pervert the fight for justice just as much as a religious bigotry. There is no promised land that is not socialist…