In 2019 the leading Marxist Jørgen Sandemose died (some of his bibliography in English can be viewed here).
Given the news about Israel this week, I post a quick translation of a piece (or comment on a Norwegian forum) which Sandemose wrote apropos the November 2014 "Nation-State Bill" of Netanyahu.
Sandemose's general theory (at the risk of summarizing) is that capitalism has not fully or properly developed in the rest of the world (outside Western Europe and US), that is, the economies of Latin-America, Africa, Asia (including even Israel as you will read) are still Asiatic formations. By the way, I think this contrast with the progressivist view (of eg even Luxemburg herself) that capitalism would (or has) simply spread itself everywhere. That is, Sandemose's view is more pessimistic and thus I think compatible with a theory of decadence of capitalism.
Anways, here's the translation (not perfect):
Israel outwards and inwards
Netanyahu is pursuing constitutional religiophobia adapted to a state built on cartels.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opening to legalize Israel "a Jewish state", which will exclude one and a half million Arab citizens, is not a proposal for a coup d'état, as one could easily have thought. On the contrary, it can be carried out under circumstances that cannot possibly break with Israeli constitutional principles.
On November 20, an editorial in the (mainstream Norwegian) Aftenposten stated: "Friends of Israel, and we count ourselves among them, have often justified their sympathy for Israel being a democracy in a part of the world where such is a rarity. If Israel does something that undermines this position, it will have negative consequences that are difficult to foresee. "
Aftenposten is in the wild in its relation to definitions of democracy. Israel is not a democracy, and this is true for two main reasons:
First, Israel has never enacted any constitution that commits the nation to a particular system of government. Apparently democracy is represented at the national level by the Knesset, but this is only in the form of a parliament, as it is still, in line with "provisional" provisions of 1948 and 1950, to be regarded as a working group whose objective is to set forth proposal for a constitution. This obviously never happens. (Or as the Romans said: it does happen "ad calendas graecas".) So far, there are some "basic laws" that are sometimes considered valid surrogates for a constitution, but there is just no constitutional basis for attributing validity to these laws.
If the Knesset was dissolved, and it could happen without constitutional problems overnight, then there is nothing formal in the way that certain positions of power (such as the Army leadership or the Supreme Court) may require a new "temporary" regime. Then we will see how serious it is being taken.
Second, Israel does not have the economic foundation, including property forms, that is the necessary precondition for a bourgeois democracy. While many believe this to be the case, it is often due to the vague term "market economy", which many consider to be a word that covers a traditional capitalist economic system. Although Israel may be called a market economy, it does not have a capitalist ownership structure. The country's economy depends on cartel-like “Business Groups”. This system characterizes virtually all industrialized economies outside Western Europe, the United States and English-speaking countries in general. Here, for example, there is no opportunity for freedom within real corporations; On the contrary, the ruling is around manipulations from co-ownership and unified family groups that have the real dominion, independent of any possible majority of shares. The OECD has long expressed its concern on this occasion, but the same could be said with regard to any industrialized country of this type – from Russia and China over Japan to Chile, to name the last country that has given this mafiotic property form a legal basis in its constitution.
In short: Israel itself forms a part of the world where 'democracy is a rarity' to paraphrase the Aftenpost-leader. To the extent that e.g. Muslim countries are industrialized, they build on exactly the same quasi-capitalist model, which is nothing more than a continuation of primitive family property, full of unpredictability, and constantly threatened by stagnation – which is especially true of Israel's economy, regardless of the current world crisis. More than half of the value of the Israeli economy is controlled today by dozens of family conglomerates.
It is often emphasized that Israel stands out negatively by being the only country in the world that has not defined its borders. Equally important is to see that this external indeterminacy has its counterpart in the country's inner structure.
This apparent indeterminacy is best expressed in an official state ideology based on faith, in this case Judaism. Political action then takes place on a basis that, as with any given apartment, need not be rationally justified. For example, it would be a mistake to call Netanyahu's threats racist. They do not deal with so-called racial differences, but rather are religiophobic, as is characteristic of currents in Islam.
In the same way, it is wrong to call the threats "fascist", in parallel with the meaningless term "islamo-fascism". Fascism is a phenomenon related to corporate features of real capitalist nations. Like Arab countries, Israel is well below that level.