April 2012
Unignoring
anti-Semitism in contexts of critical knowledge production[1]
Ivana Marjanović
I would like to
react to the open letter by Eduard Freudmann and the discussion it opened on
the issue of the belittlement and concealment of anti-Semitism in the Austrian
artistic and academic community specifically related to philosophy, theory and
the arts.[2]
More precisely, I would like to share some thoughts of mine and bring up a set
of questions specifically on how to act against anti-Semitism in the contexts
of critical knowledge production.
Anti-Semitism in
“our” spaces
Anti-Semitism is an
irrational phenomenon and in the same time an extremely violent social and
political discriminatory mechanism of power that is at stake in everyday life
as well as in political fields. It occurs in almost every part of the spectrum
of politics that tend to be categorized into the Right and the Left. [3]
The hatred against Jewish people, their degradation and devaluation has been
reshaping throughout history, taking a large variety of forms, ranging from
Christian anti-Judaism to modern anti-Semitism (that culminated in the
eliminatory anti-Semitism of the Shoah) and new forms of anti-Semitism after
the Shoah, to name a few. However, the history of anti-Semitism has been
overlapping with the history of the political Left since the inception of the
Left.[4]
Even a minor research on the historical and contemporary forms of anti-Semitism
shows the phenomenon’s entanglement with the Left and other spaces of critique
whose protagonists would locate themselves beyond the above mentioned binary
division. Anti-Semitism in the Left has been amalgamating with foreshortened
critiques, e.g. with a foreshortened critique of capitalism that is
historically related to the construction of the Jews being the incarnation of
capital, or a foreshortened critique of imperialism that departs from the
assumption that the state of Israel would be the incarnation of contemporary
imperialism.[5]
Here ambivalence appears as one aspect of anti-Semitism that is central to its
occurrence. Anti-Semitic resentment is rarely unambiguous and anti-Semitic argumentation tends to even
contradict itself.
Surely, it makes a difference where on the political spectrum
anti-Semitism appears and accordingly, the reaction to and the criticism of it
differs. As long as anti-Semitism occurs in the Right many are very ready to
declare and act against it. But, when it occurs in the Left and in other
platforms of critical thinking and action, one is often confronted with a strong resistance towards bringing the
issue of anti-Semitism to the table. In such cases discussions on anti-Semitism
or the acknowledgement of its existence, are repeatedly being resisted,
(self-)censored and silenced; acting against anti-Semitism is often paralyzed
and blocked with the presupposition that talking about it would damage the
image of these spaces.
However, no matter how much the Left strives towards a political thinking and acting against discrimination, it seems unable to create or detect situations that are free of discrimination and its reproduction (which doesn’t mean that this is not discussed, reflected and worked on). Therefore it is clear that anti-Semitism operates in “our” spaces, spaces that we[6] inhabit, where we collaborate and build alliances with people with whom we believe to share similar political horizons, spaces we don’t want to abandon. With leaving the occurrence of anti-Semitism uncommented we become protagonists of its maintenance. As we are active in a field of critique and politics, it is clearly our task to deal with the occurring anti-Semitism, to think what to do with it, how to react on it and how to fight it. Since this is not always a very easy task, I would like to look at an example related to my own recent experience and base some proposals and conclusions upon it.
Dispute on the
textual production of the decoloniality theorist Walter Mignolo
I was very
surprised when a couple of weeks ago I called up the new issue of the transversal
web journal with the title unsettling knowledges published by eipcp, the
European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies in Vienna.[7]
I have been following this web journal for some years now and I contributed to
it with my own textual production. For me and many others this magazine has
been a great source for exchanging and producing knowledge on very different
and important topics related to progressive politics and knowledge production
and I have great respect for the colleagues involved in the work of this
magazine. What was so surprising to me was the fact that the editors of the
mentioned issue published a text by the decoloniality theorist Walter Mignolo
knowing that his work has been conflictually debated in Viennese academic and
university contexts for more than one year. The reason for the contestation of
Mignolo’s work is that certain theoretical reflections of his are criticized for
being based on anti-Semitic constructions, specifically in his
text “Dispensable and Bare Lives. Coloniality and the Hidden
Political/Economic Agenda of Modernity.”[8]
Besides referring
to Mignolo’s theoretical production in my own work, I have been taking an
active role in these debates on several different occasions as a curator, writer,
PhD student, teacher and as one of the members of the editorial board of a book
that is comprised of colleagues – students and teachers – at the Academy of
Fine Arts Vienna. These conflictual discussions and processes, however did not
materialize in any public statement or text so far. Anyhow, the book we have
been working on, with the initial title Vocabulary of Decoloniality, was
referencing Walter Mignolo’s work related to the concept of decoloniality in
many different ways. Once we got to know about the above mentioned text, we had
extensive discussions about which implications arise from the situation for our
work, resulting in fundamental conflicts and gaps within the editorial board
that seem to be unbridgeable. However, we did agree on the point that
publishing the book without addressing the conflicted subject at all would not
be an option. Precisely because of the difficulties of finding an appropriate
way to deal with the situation, the book has still remained unpublished and its
future is in question. In the course of the above mentioned disputes and as one
of the attempts to open a discussion on the topic, I wrote an analysis that was
supposed to be part of a larger dialogic text comprised of individual
contributions by the editorial board members. Eventually the format turned out
to be dysfunctional, so the text was not finished and never published. However,
the analysis, which I will expose below, relies mainly on these thoughts which
themselves are based on the knowledge I, as a migrant coming from the
post-Yugoslav space, have acquired in the process of working, studying and researching in the post-Nazistic
space of Austria.
The text “Dispensable and Bare Lives. Coloniality and the Hidden
Political/Economic Agenda of Modernity” by Walter Mignolo extensively deals with the analysis of the
formation of modern/colonial racism and the concepts of dispensable and bare
life which is pointed out in two specific situations: in slavery and in the
Shoah. In the conclusive remarks of the text, Mignolo states that “[t]he larger
frame in which the racial formation of the modern/colonial world has to be
understood should take account of the context of concurrent transformations of
Christianity and the emergence of the Atlantic economy—an economy of investment
and accumulation of wealth (wealth of nations for Adam Smith) that we call
‘capitalism’ (after Karl Marx).”[9]
These two concurrent moments are summarized in the conclusion in five points.
In the first three Mignolo explains how he sees the transformation of
Christianity throughout the centuries. The last two points and the subsequent
conclusive sentence constitute the most disputed part of the text, so I will
quote them fully:
“d) The
emergence of secular ‘Jeweness’ in Eighteenth Century Europe transformed
religious ‘Judaism’: the believer became, simultaneously, a citizen; a
condition that was not open to other ‘religions.’ One, because Muslims,
Buddhists, Hindus or Incas, were not European residents at the time and,
second, it was the complicity between Christianity and secular Christian
Europeans who managed to negotiate, maintaining imperial control, Christian
believers with European secular citizens;
e) Last
but not least, all of these went hand in hand with the consolidation, during
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, of homo economicus imperiali. If homo
economicous, in the West, could be traced back to the thirteenth century, homo
economicous imperiali, in the West, is without a doubt the transformation
prompted by the economic change of scale opened by the conquest of the New
World and the subsequent massive exploitation of labor. Secular Jewness joined
secular Euro-American economic practices (e.g., imperial capitalism). The major
consequence of the complicity between secular Jews and Euro-American economic
and political practice ended up in the construction of the State of Israel—what
Marc Ellis describes as ‘Constantine Jews.’
Anti-Semitism
today is clearly a consequence of the historical collusion between Western
(neo) liberalism and secular capitalism, backed up by Christianity, on the one
hand, and Constantine Jews,’ on the other.”[10]
Mignolo’s
proposal for the comprehension of the larger frame in which the “racial
formation of the modern/colonial world” has to be understood is problematic for
a number of reasons. First of all, he constructs Jews as a privileged group in
Europe, by stating that what is referred to as the emancipation of Jewish
people (“the believer became […] a citizen”) “was not open to other
‘religions’” as “they were not European residents at the time.” Mignolo here
produces a misconception of what Europe was and is – by excluding great parts
of it. As a matter of fact, Mignolo seems to talk about Western Europe only. As
is well known, Jews were not the only non-Christians living in Europe, for
instance Muslims have been for centuries European residents, and in certain
historical periods and spaces Muslims were definitely not less privileged than
Christians – for example during the Ottoman rule in the Balkans. Furthermore,
what Mignolo terms as condition of the believer becoming a citizen did not end
oppression and violence. Throughout the European history, before during and
after the Jewish emancipation, harm was done to Jews, pogroms against Jews were
conducted and Jews (including the so called “secular Jews”) were discriminated
against on many levels.
Second,
Mignolo’s next step is based on one of the most fundamental and wide spread
anti-Semitic constructions: the alleged complicity between Jews and capitalism.
He puts: “Secular Jewness joined secular Euro-American economic practices
(e.g., imperial capitalism).” Relying on generalization and simplification,
this argumentation categorizes an extremely manifold, heterogeneous group of
people, fully neglecting differences within it. It is impossible that the whole
part of one group of people that ceased to practice Judaism but were still
identified as Jews by themselves or by others (the so called “secular Jews”)
could “join” the “Euro-American economic practices.” Many Jews in Europe were
poor, many constituted a great part of the proletariat in the 19th
and 20th century.[11]
Furthermore, some of them participated in the conceptualization and spreading
of anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist ideas playing an important role in the
history of leftist movements such as the anarchist, the communist or the
socialist ones. Reading Mignolo’s argument another question arises,
which is whether it is possible to relate a group of people, such as the
“secular Jews,” to “Euro-American economic practices” by presuming a process of
“joining,” meaning a process of decision making that is based on “their” free
will. And last but not least, how is it possible to assume that any group of
people or even a part of it could avoid capitalist economic practices in an
increasingly capitalist world? Through such analogies, Mignolo rather
reproduces the myth of the so called “homo Judaicus economicus”[12]
that has been an obsession of anti-Semitic discourses for centuries, both in
the most conservative and in the most progressive circles and both in the Left
and the Right (including Nazism).
Third, although Mignolo bases
a large part of his thesis about the dispensability of human life on his
analysis of Shoah, he concludes that “[t]he major consequence of the complicity
between secular Jews and Euro-American economic and political practice ended up
in the construction of the State of Israel,” thereby ignoring that the formation of the state of
Israel is causally connected to anti-Semitism and the Shoah. Thus he once again reproduces the myth
of Jews being complicit with capitalism which now, as he presumes, granted the
Jews another privilege: the creation of a state. Here a myth is reproduced, that is central in the
argumentation of new anti-Semitism and based on a foreshortened critique on
imperialism: that the Jews are complicit with imperialism.
Moreover, in the lines quoted above, he reduces all “secular Jews” to
one sole aspect of life – their relation to capitalism. This is remarkable not
only because it implies that all of them were capitalists, but also because it
presumes that no one from other
groups of people mentioned in his text, such as the ones in colonies and
post-colonies have had any active relation to capitalism. On the contrary they
are being portrayed as exploited by its mechanisms. I mention this here,
because Mignolo claims the intention to, as he points out, show the “larger frame in which the racial formation of
the modern/colonial world has to be understood”[13] taking into consideration the transformation of Christianity and the
emergence of capitalism. However, he concludes with showing us on one hand his
perspective on how Christianity transformed and on the other his construction
on how “secular Jews” “joined” capitalism. If this is the author’s conception
of the “larger frame in which the
racial formation of the modern/colonial world has to be understood” – and the way
the conclusion is organized shows that it is – Mignolo ends up reproducing precisely what he announced to criticize
and deconstruct: “the racial formation of the modern/colonial world.”
The
culmination of the problem of Mignolo’s analysis is the last sentence where he
not only once again brings into relation Jews and capitalism but also defines
that relation as collusion, that
is a “secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or
deceitful purpose.”[14]
Furthermore, he states that Jews are responsible for today’s anti-Semitism. As
a matter of fact he doesn’t refer to all Jews but rather to one group of Jews,
the so called “Constantinian Jews” (that he misspells as “Constantine Jews”) in
reference to Marc H. Ellis’ debatable categorization of Jews in the USA and
Israel. According to Ellis’ text, which is published in the same book as Mignolo’s
article, “Constantinian Jews” are those who form the Jewish establishment in
these two countries.[15]
But, knowing about the long history of anti-Semitism and the racialization of
Jews, about the Shoah and about the crucial role that the perpetrator-victim
inversion plays in the new forms of anti-Semitism today, it is absolutely
unacceptable to accuse any Jews for being guilty of anti-Semitism. We can
assume that Mignolo refers here to the Middle East conflict and Israeli
politics within it, an issue that is largely being reflected and debated on and
that is excessively being instrumentalized for a huge number of different
political means, an issue about which’s complexity or simplicity one can argue,
but an issue that definitely cannot be considered as the reason for today’s
anti-Semitism, not in the Middle East, not in Europe, not anywhere else in the
world.
Silence, wilful
ignorance and belittlement
Although being
given little space the problem of anti-Semitism in Mignolo‘s thinking is addressed
by Jens Kastner and Tom Waibel in the footnote of the introduction of their
recently published translation of Mignolo’s work “Desobediencia epistémica. Retórica de la
modernidad, lógica de la colonialidad y gramática de la descolonialidad” into German language. They state: “In the book at hand Mignolo repeatedly addresses the role
of Jews as being suppressed and excluded within Europe and within European
thinking. Though at this point he stays ignorant towards the Holocaust as
trigger and motivation for the foundation of the state of Israel. The
indication of a ‘complicity’ between Jews and the ‘current power structure’
mainly serves anti-Semitic clichés.”[16] Although some of the positions participating in
the present public debate (including
myself) think that the problem requires a more in-depth analysis, it needs to be acknowledged that these authors at
least mentioned the subject of anti-Semitism in relation to Mignolo’s
theoretical production.
Looking at the
whole situation from my own troubled experience of failure to address the
problem, while in the same time seeing how my respected colleagues in the field
have addressed (or have not addressed) the same problem and with all the
understanding for the difficulties related to it, I would like to share my
thoughts on what could be a constructive critique in the existing case.
What we have at
stake here is a body of theory written by Walter Mignolo which is by many of
the conflict’s protagonists considered as an important enterprise in the
destabilization of hegemonic power relations, mainly for its contribution to
Post-Colonial theory through its engagement in the theory of decoloniality and
the decolonial option as a proposal for radically questioning and overcoming
“Western” epistemological mechanisms and its power structures. At the same time
the produced theory is partly anti-Semitic and thereby reproduces violence
through knowledge which produces social injury (violence in this case operates
as discursive violence). However, in a very contradictory way a theory that
presumes to question domination itself repeats mechanisms of domination by
factually enforcing what was intended to be criticised and deconstructed: the “racial formation
of the modern/colonial world.”
Considering
the reactions to and the criticisms of Mignolo’s contested text in mind, it
seems to me that it is impossible to dissociate the problematic text from the
“unproblematic” text by publishing the latter while not addressing the former.
Cutting away the problematic part of thinking from our perception doesn’t mean
the problem has gone away. It remains chasing us and others, no matter how much
we let ourselves be inhabited by spaces of paralysis not speaking about
anti-Semitism. Looking at how the discussions and the conflict has developed it
seems to me that acting as if the problem wouldn’t exist by not addressing it
while publishing the author, we would make an active decision to take part in
belittling and wilfully ignoring
anti-Semitism and thereby (intentionally or not) maintain not only any
structure of discrimination but a structure that has had a long history, plenty
of continuities and a vivid presence in this post-Nazistic space of Austria.
Addressing,
unignoring and unlearning anti-Semitism
Conflictual
situations like the one described above are ambivalent and contingent. The
dynamic of work in such antagonisms depend on many different factors: power
relations, competition, previous knowledge, experience, authority of who can
speak and from which position and how much respect, understanding, patience,
self-critique and will for listening, learning and exchanging exists in such a
conflict. Yet, such situations serve as a platform for gaining and producing
knowledge (in this case about anti-Semitism and the way how it is being dealt
with): we think, learn and research and we reflect more in depth about
politics, ideology, interpellation, subjectivity and agency. Speaking and
thinking from my own experience as one of the protagonists of the conflict I
would like to propose what could be done in such
situations though being aware that every situation is specific and that there
can’t be one “formula” to be applied in any case.
So, what could we
do, out of the experience we have now, if we in our publishing projects refer
to a body of theory we know is in parts performing anti-Semitic theories,
clichés and myths? How to act in public when we are confronted with
anti-Semitism in the knowledge production that aspires to decenter hegemonic
power relations?
For the beginning,
I would suggest to take the existence of
ambiguities and contradictions in spaces of critique seriously. This would
first of all mean doing away with the assumption that a space can be an
innocent one (though ambiguities and contradictions might temporarily change
due to our and others’ political actions and interventions but most probably
new ones will arise in their place). And secondly it would mean to understand
anti-Semitism as a political category that is ambiguous and contradictory and
can appear in many different forms, on many different levels and sometimes
closer to us and “our” spaces than we might have assumed.
Now, dealing with
ambiguities and contradictions could take different paths: paths away from
silence and towards speech. Public speech would be the optimal political move
(in this case it would be the speech on anti-Semitism in Mignolo’s work). But,
speech is not always easily performed. Nevertheless, it can have a form of a
process and it can require certain pre-steps, spaces between, that can
constitute the failure of speech but in the same time ensure that the failure
is on the trajectory towards the speech. For example, if the transversal editorial
board decided not to analyse the anti-Semitism in Mignolo’s work, then it could
at least inform its readers that there was a discussion among them and share
the reasons that had led to the decision.[17]
However, this would not be a solution to the problem, but at least it would
open a possibility for working on it.
Biases, ignorance,
prejudices and all the other elements pertaining to structures of violence are
the problem of us all, they affect our lives, limit our possibilities and
freedom of what and who we might become (this has turned out very clearly in
the course of the on-going antagonism, no matter if the protagonists were
Jewish or not). Albeit these limits affect us to very different degrees and in
very different qualities, directly and indirectly and depending on the
specificity of the situation, anti-Semitism exists in our lives (as well as any
other violent vector of power such as different forms of racism, homophobia,
islamophobia, sexism). [18]
We all do have reasons to confront it – especially if we consider ourselves to
be actively involved, through our work, in the fields of critical thinking and
acting.
Therefore it seems
to me that it would be much more constructive to treat anti-Semitism as a
political category and a concrete problem that has to be dealt with instead of
silencing ourselves and others, being negatory and apologetic towards it. Zooming in on it, i.e. exposing precisely the
violent vector of power that is materialized in the theory and opposing it,
rather than downplaying it would allow us to learn more about it. Specifically
this would mean that before (or at least along with) setting any
thoughts of an author who reproduce anti-Semitism into further circulation,
the problematic writing would have to be
contested. Instead of dichotomically condemning and defending, it would be
rather necessary to discuss the problem, looking at the relation between the
explicitly problematic and non-explicitly problematic text of the theoretical
production in question. It would be important to examine if and until which
extent anti-Semitism in one text of the contested author is related to others
of his or her theoretical reflections and to the field of study and action.
Moreover, it would be necessary to think further, asking not only what is the
presence but also the history and the genealogy of anti-Semitism in the spaces
of critique in question. This, by no means, would mean dismissing post-colonial
theory, decoloniality or critical leftist theories as no space is free of
anti-Semitism (why should we expect that these are)? To get into a discussion
about contradictions does not make the postcolonial or any other theory’s point
weaker: on the contrary anti-Semitism has to be addressed. Addressing and
unignoring anti-Semitism actually empowers critical thinking and opens possible
self-reflective projects in these fields in order to make unlearning and
fighting anti-Semitism a political claim and practice.
[1] This text is partly based on reflections and
discussions among my friends, students and colleagues during the last one and a
half years in Vienna. I would like to thank all of them, from whom I learnt a
lot during this process.
[2] In an open letter published on April 5, 2012, Eduard
Freudmann addresses friends and colleagues who recently published works by the
decoloniality theorist Walter Mignolo. Freudmann criticizes the concealment
respectively the belittlement of the author’s anti-Semitic constructions within
those very publications and poses a number of related questions to the
publishers. See: Eduard Freudmann, “Offener Brief: Antisemitismus! Was tun?” [Open
Letter: Anti-Semitism! What is to be done?], http://antisemitismus-wastun.blogspot.com, retrieved April, 2012. Links
to all the answers and statements that comprise the discussion can be found
later in this text and on the blog as well.
[3] I use here the terms Left and Right knowing the
problematic of such a binary division. However, I consider both, the Left as
well as the Right constituting no monolith categories.
[4] See short overview of that history in the book by
David Cesarani, The Left and the Jews. The Jews and the Left, London,
Labour Friends of Israel, 2004.
[5] This new anti-Jewish configuration is analysed for
instance by Pierre-André Taguieff who shortly explains it in the following way:
“…the argumentative form of this new thought-slogan, which developed since the
end of the Sixties, can be put like this: ‘all Jews are more or less hidden
Zionists; Zionism equals colonialism, imperialism and racism; therefore the
Jews are colonialists, imperialists and racists, openly or not’. ‘Zionism’ - as
repulsive myth and not as socio-political reality - became the incarnation of
the absolute evil.” See the translation of the interview with Pierre-André
Taguieff published in the Observatoire du
Communautarisme, September 7, 2005: “Preachers of Hate. Pierre-André
Taguieff on the new ‘anti-Zionism’” http://bartoncii.xanga.com/?uni8836469-direction=p&uni8836469-nextdate=2%2F9%2F2007+11%3A54%3A48.153,
retrieved April, 2012.
[6] I use here we as a collectivity of critical
subjects that doesn’t form a fixed category but is rather related to what we
believe we are part of and what we can become. The critical textual production
I contribute to tends to play a role in such process of constituting a we.
[8] The text is published online in Human
Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge with the title Historicizing Anti-Semitism in 2009, edited
by Mohammad H. Tamdgidi and co-edited by Lewis R. Gordon, Ramón Grosfoguel and
Eric Mielants. See http://www.okcir.com/JournalVII2Spring09.html, retrieved April, 2012.
[9] Ibid. p 86.
[10] Ibid. pp 86-87; emphasis and misspelling in
original.
[11] See Marvin Perry and Frederick M.
Schweitzer, Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2005 [2002], pp. 134,
135.
[12] See: Ibid., pp. 119-173.
[13] Op. cit. p 86; (emphasis mine).
[15] As Marc Ellies put: “Roughly speaking the three groups
are found in America and Israel, and can be defined as the Constantinian Jewish
establishment, Progressive Jews and Jews of Conscience. For definitional purposes,
these groups can be grouped into three categories; neo-conservative,
liberal/left of center and radical. The identity politics each group holds are
important in the selfunderstanding of each: Constantinian Jewish life revolves
around the Holocaust and Israel as central to Jewish life and thus increasingly
adopt a neo-conservative politics of remembrance and empowerment; . . . Though
perhaps a bit too easy, a shorthand understanding of where each group stands
can be summarized as follows: Constantinian Jews form the Jewish establishment;
Progressive Jews, as critics while being indebted to Jewish power, form the
Left wing of Constantinian Judaism; Jews of Conscience are seeking a way out of
the closed circle of Constantinian Jewish reality.” Marc H. Ellis, “On Jewish
Particularity and Anti-Semitism: Notes From a Jewish Theology of Liberation,” http://www.okcir.com/JournalVII2Spring09.html, retrieved April, 2012.
[16]
Translation mine. Original quotation: “Mignolo thematisiert im vorliegenden
Buch wiederholt die Rolle von Jüdinnen und Juden als innerhalb Europas und im
Inneren des europäischen Denkens Unterdrückte und Ausgegrenzte, doch an dieser
Stelle bleibt er verständnislos gegenüber dem Holocaust als Auslöser und
Gründungsmotivation des Staates Israel. Die Andeutung einer ‚Komplizenschaft’
von Jüdinnen und Juden mit der ‚aktuellen Machtstruktur’ bedient vor allem
anderen antisemitische Klischees.“ Jens Kastner and Tom Waibel, “Einleitung:
Dekoloniale Optionen. Argumentationen, Begriffe und Kontexte dekolonialer
Theoriebildung,” [Introduction: Decolonial Options. Arguments, Terms and
Contexts of the Decolonial Theory making], in: Walter D. Mignolo, Epistemischer
Ungehorsam Rhetorik der Moderne, Logik der Kolonialität und Grammatik der
Dekolonialität [Epistemic Disobedience. Rhetoric of Modernity, Logic of Coloniality and
Decolonial Grammar], Vienna, Turia + Kant, 2012, p 26, (footnote 25). See the
development of their argument in the answer to Freudmann’s open letter
published on 09.04.2012: http://argument-wasnun.blogspot.com/, retrieved April, 2012.
[17] Only after being addressed by Freudmann’s open letter,
eipcp gave their view on the situation on 12.04.2012: http://eipcp.net/n/aw, retrieved April, 2012.
[18] I believe that any occurring form of discrimination
should be addressed without competition.
