Re: ANYT THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN PBS SERIES (fwd)

> >[elson] Islamic fundamentalists are all capitalists?  Oh
please!
>
> you are idealizing islamic fundementalism here. if you look at
their
> programs and rhetorics closely, you will see that they are not
> anti-capitalist. in fact, they legitimize it by openly saying
> that "we are gonna create our own capitalism" (whetever that
term means,
> of course)

[elson] well, it's one thing to say they are pro-capitalist, as
you do now (and I agree).  But it it's quite another to say they
are capitalists themselves, as you previously did (and I thus
disagreed).  How about trying to being consistant?

> >[elson] While I would agree that there are plenty of
fundamentalist
> >leaders who are capitalists and who are using the movement
> >towards their own ends (which is true of just about every
> >movement -- indeed, we should note the populist-fundamentalist
> >anti SOCIALIST struggle in Algeria stems from the great gap in
> >wealth among the rich and poor despite the so-called socialist
> >policies of that government), it is flatly inaccurate to
suggest
> >that, for instance, the Iranian Revolution, including the role
of
> >the fundamentalist participants, was not largely an anti-US
> >imperialism struggle, or that Bin Ladin's attacks on the US
are
> >not largely anti-US imperialism in nature.
>
> i was not arguing that it was not anti-us. i was rather saying
that it was
> not anti-capitalist as such in the way that you want them to
be.

[elson] NEVER ONCE, did I say that they were anti-capitalist!

> >I certainly agree with the description below of the well know
> >basic facts about the situation in Turkey.  But since when was
> >Turkey a hot-bed of fundamentalist anti US-imperialism by
> >comparison to Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.?
>
> first, there are differences between egypt and iran. egypt is a
> seeminlgy secular country whereas Iran is not. both gave
anti-imperialist
> struggles but both ended in different regimes and capitalist
> transformations. to ignore the differences between the two
> is to ignore the ideological differences between two
revolutions. soviet
> coommunism was always a threath and a night-mare to mollas. in
addition,
> iran always aimed to transport its regime to elsewhere in the
middle east,
> like egypt and turkey.
> there are are many middle eastern marxists who argue that, for
instance,
> the political regime in Egypt, despite being led by progressive
and
> populist petty-bourgosie officers, was never anti-capitalist,
neither in
> theory nor in practice. in fact it is another version of
capitalism. if
> you closely read the statements of leaders (which i did), you
will see
> that they respect private property and they do not want to be
"too
> radical" like the soviet union, because, they say, they do not
want to
> attract the opposition of islamic fundementalists. for this
reason, they
> did not even abolish sheriah courts, and appointed an _imam_
(state
> appointed priest)  to regulate religious affairs. and if you
also look at
> the family laws and other similar personal arrengements, you
will see that
> poligamy was abolished in Egypt in 1974, 30 years after the
revolution,
> and it is still not really abolished yet(depends on the
approval of the
> wife). still, islam is the religion of the state, despite being
covered
> in a secular manner. the bottom line is that none of these
regimes ended
> in anti-capitalism and substantive equality like the one  that
existed in
> soviet union and in other socialist countries alike.
> plus, there is a strong islamic movement in Turkey, especially
after
> 1980s', that was motivated and tolerated by the
neo-conservative liberals
> who came to power after the military coup. the last time i saw
those
> students in my university, they were burning american flags and
attacking
> jewish students in a highly racist manner. and the police just
watched
> them withouy doing anything. what an anti-us police? my
socialist friends
> too burnt american flags but their purpose was anti-capitalism
and
> anti-imperialism not islamic capitalism like those jerks, but
they were
> beaten by the police. some of them were hang in 1970s' bacause
they
> protested american navy settled in the country. those
fundementalists are
> always tolerated within the system because they defend a moral
> order, which always appeals to the population, and they have
strong
> connections with _some_ parties and sections of government.
they are not
> punished bacause of their actions, but socialists are punished,
and are
> subject to all kinds of human right violations.

Look, you must keep in mind what our discussion has been about:
the islamic fundamentalist movement, including acts of terrorism.
quite obviously Egypt is a secular state.  but it has a strong
and appearently growing islamic fundamentalist movement that
usues terrorism and which, like Algeria, could conceivably win a
popular election in the near future.  This combination of factors
logically puts Egypt into the discussion and not Turkey.

> >[elson] [The discusson is] about the poverty (elson) or merits
(Hutchinson) of comparing US
> >and anti-US imperialist aspects of Islamic fundamentalisms as
> >equally irrational, as done in the PBS video.
>
> true. i am not talking about PBS video.

[elson] Well, then you can expect persons like me to point out
that some of your comments are irrelevant to this particular
discussion, as I have above.