Re: So What?

All of the characteristics of "Political Islam" outlined by Ismail Buykakan
are also characteristics of capitalism, ("no genuine regard for laws,
abolition of national boundaries, aggressive, needs to conquer the world")
somewhat in the stage of "primitive accumulation" and especially in the
stage of crisis--(pre-fascism and fascism?).

Steve's comment about "scientific humanism" as being a source of terrible
problems in the world can also blur over the reality that it was the
processes and forces of capitalism that produced these fragmentations and
destruction, not a philosophy of "scientific humanism" (however ambiguously
that might be defined.) After all, humanism presumably refers to a
philosophy/system on behalf of all humans, not merely an upper class who
oppressed both slave and worker. (And killed a larger number of rival
landlords and capitalists as well.....)  The forces that drive these
systems---so-called "Political Islam" or Christian or Jewish or Hindu
"Fundamentalism" spring from the needs of the various sections of the ruling
(capitalist) classes to preserve their system--which in capitalism means
"expand or die". Then again, what modern system does not have the need to
expand -- or at least, disarm its enemies?

I do not advocate a simplistic "class reductionism" here. But we should be
wary of a psycholgical reductionism that implies that it is some irreducible
human psychological drive for power that underlies the systems of
oppression.

The role of ideology is not simply a somewhat insignificant, thin "coat of
paint" sprayed on top of a machine of economic class oppression to disguise
it.............it is that, but much more, since these ideologies--whether
religious "fundamentalism" that poses as pre-modern or "we are inherently
(biologically?) superior" ideology that poses as "modern" but is also
anti-scientific------are both very, very powerful forces that seep into the
consciousness of the oppressed and become an especially powerful force that
intertwines with the mechanisms of economic and political class oppression.
In today's world, both those ideologies are very flexible--such as when the
"fundamentalist" Khomeini government realized that it was losing revenue by
closing the race tracks, and therefore declared that betting on horses was
"wagering" rather than "gambling" and therefore permitted by Islamic law. Or
the religious leaders that go to Cairo to dance clubs and to have parties
with prostitutes, or the "modernist" politicians of the imperialist "West"
who invoke "God versus Evil" on a regular basis.

Ideology is a very powerful force that can, for long periods of time,
distort, undermine, and divert other processes that would have seemed to be
on a linear path of development. But driving all this is the need to
accumulate and protect wealth -- difficult as it is, nevertheless it is
easier to change or modify ideologies than it is to change the fundamental
processes and patterns of capitalist accumulation and profit, which are
essential not just to the capitalists' lavish lifestyles, but to the
survival of the capitalist system itself.

While the seemingly pre-modernist and the modernist might appear to be
contradictory, they can coexist and even reinforce each other quite
effectively, especially in the context of nationalism -- which sometimes
means "RESPECT MY SOVEREIGNTY" and other times means "YOUR SOVEREIGNTY IS
NOT VALID, SO WE HAVE THE RIGHT, IN THE NAME OF OUR NATION-RELIGION (or
supposed philosophy of "democratic modernism" say those who support U.S.
military adventures) TO VIOLATE YOUR  NON-AUTHENTIC  SOVEREIGNTY."

One might even argue that nationalist ideology, with all its ambiguity,
became a Trojan Horse that has played a major role in undermining Marxist
aspirations for an egalitarian world---not by assaulting Marxism from
outside, but rather by corroding those early Marxisms from within.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ismail Buyukakan" <buyukakan.ismail@btinternet.com>
To: <Threehegemons@aol.com>; <wwagar@binghamton.edu>;
<john.till@famchildserv.org>
Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: So what!


> Here are a couple of ideas as food for thought.
> in the discussion on Political Islam
>
> Ismail Buyukakan
> -----------
> Characteristics of the Islamist Political Movement in Opposition
> 1. Whatever is written in the party programme, the aim of the Islamist
> Political Movement is to establish an 'Islamist state', that is, a 'state
> based on Sharia'. It wants to unify religion and the state, to subordinate
> the state to religion.
> 2. It is an anti-secular movement. Secularism is regarded as an insult, as
> infidelity. As can be observed throughout the world, by increasing social
> tension, by creating conflict at every level of society, and by
aggravating
> this conflict, it splits the whole of society into the secular and the
> religious.
> 3. In order to be able to survive, this movement is a mortal enemy of
class
> reality. Since it splits the society into believers and infidels, it
> overshadows class reality, suppresses it and diminishes class potential.
> 4. It splits and dismembers democratic organisations and institutions at
> every level of society. Hence, it once again overshadows class reality and
> diminishes class potential.
> 5. Who are organised by the Islamist Political Movement?
> a. Those 'rootless' people who break away from the traditional lifestyle
and
> congregate in cities, but cannot participate in production
> b. Simple commodity producers, tradesmen and artisans; in other words
petty
> bourgeois producers;
> c. The real invigorating force of the movement and its leading cadres are
> small businessmen, small capitalists, in other words the non-monopoly
> bourgeoisie.
> 6. Therefore, the class content of the Party of Prosperity (in Turkey, 1n
> 1993-IB) is small capitalists, i.e. non-monopoly bourgeoisie, and to a
> certain extent small tradesmen.
> 7. This movement is totally against such notions as 'enlightenment',
> democracy, secularism and individual liberties.
> 8. This movement is against not only the reality of class, but the reality
> of nation as well. It defends the notion of religious community. It does
not
> recognise national boundaries. It is perfectly aware of the fact that, if
> its march is halted at some point, if it cannot conquer the entire world,
> then it will collapse.
> 9. Precisely for these reasons, it will not accept the legal framework of
> any state. State laws are simply elements of evil to be abolished.
> 10. It is anti-democratic in the real sense of the word. It cannot be
> otherwise.
> 11. It does not recognise the notion of 'citizen' in society. All social
> units other than the family are also rejected.
> 12. It is a jihad movement. It has to wage war against and shed the blood
of
> everybody who is not on its side or made a part of it. By definition and
due
> to its structure it cannot be a peaceful movement. When Erbakan  says 'We
> are coming to take revenge for the past fifty years', this is what he
means.
> (referring to election discussions in Turkey in 1993-IB)
> 13. It politicises without fail the whole of society. (This may seem a
good
> thing to some, but the real consequences appear only after it seizes
> power...)
> 14. It cries out for culture, morals and justice, but at every step in
> engenders lack of culture, immorality and injustice.
> 15. Right from the beginning it blunts and lowers society's potential for
> reflection. It replaces wisdom, enquiry and logic with the acceptance of
the
> 'absolute', and absolute obedience. Apart from the great harm this causes
to
> society, the organisational advantages that it thus conceals are enormous.
> Compared with its adversaries, it is extremely disciplined. 'Orders cut
> through iron'.
> 16. It engenders a cult of violence and denunciation throughout society.
As
> has been observed concretely in Iran, small children through ignorance
> denounce their parents in the name of Islam.
> 17. It is a totalitarian movement right from the beginning. It brings
order
> to every aspect of social life by attempting to squeeze everything into a
> single 'right'.
>
> (This passage above was from a long article on Political Islam in Turkey
> written by late R.Yurukoglu. It was actually sent by me to the moderator
> some time ago. It seems it was screened out as off topic. If you are
> interested in the full article I can send it to you. .)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Threehegemons@aol.com>
> To: <wwagar@binghamton.edu>; <john.till@famchildserv.org>
> Cc: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: So what!
>
>
> > In a message dated 1/30/2003 1:03:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> wwagar@binghamton.edu writes:
> >
> > > But the major positive religions
> > > of our era originated in pre-capitalist times and are steeped in
> > > pre-capitalist pre-modern pre-scientific world-views.  If their
leaders
> > > cannot stomach capitalism because of its associations with modern
> secular
> > > thought and/or Western imperialism, their default mode is not modern
> > > secular socialism but an attempt to revert, time-travel if you please,
> to
> > > the centuries of their founding, e.g., 7th-Century Arabia.  Actually
> > > getting there is, of course, impossible, as WS analysis shows, but
they
> > > can try, and sometimes their efforts to resurrect the social relations
> of
> > > production that obtained in these earlier centuries can be just as
> > > oppressive to workers, or more so, than anything cooked up
> > > by
> > > Western-style capitalists.
> >
> > Here its difficult to presume that, despite your protestations to the
> contrary, you're referring to fundamentalism. Catholics, Methodists, et al
> haven't shown any propensity for trying to turn back the clock to the 7th
> century.  But, for the most part, neither have fundamentalists.  The big
> exception is the Taliban (fiercely denounced by the current Iranian
> government), and they were amply assisted by the various Soviet and
American
> weapons that demolished whatever was 'twentieth century' about
Afghanistan.
> >
> > Since scientific humanism produced virtually everything bad associated
> with religion (intolerance, conformity,  inquisitions, etc) and left out
the
> good (spiritual ectasy, art, communal rituals) why exactly are we supposed
> to believe it is THE path for the twenty-first century?
> >
> > Steven Sherman
>
>