Re: ANYT THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN PBS SERIES (fwd)

>[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?

i do not see the distinction. you are messing around with words here.
"capitalist" and "pro-capitalist" are not conceptually different
categories.

>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.

you are strategically changing your argument here. previously, you
romanticized the islamic fundementalist movement as a movement against
opression. now, you are calling it "terrorism", which puts you in
a situation of contradiction with your earlier accounts. 

>> 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.

elson, i saw a tendency in your posts to rationalize religion. that is why
i responded. your distinction between "right" and "christian
fundementalism" automatically reveals your partial escapes from
criticizing religion. for this reason, i also suspect your Marxism because
Marx knew how oppressive religion was and how it bacame a tool in the
hands of the ruling classes to indoctrinize people. religion is not
irrational, of course. but this does not mean that we should not give a
_constructive criticism_ of it. otherwise, we slide into post-modern
celebration of religion, fragmentation and status-quo-- and thus the NEW
WORLD ORDER.

plus, your view lacks a systemic analysis of social movements elsewhere. i
previously, i argued that the islamic movement should be grasped within
the context of world economy and neo-imperialism--the state, class
relations, systems of production and the dynamics of the world system.
islamic movements are not archaic identity formations, but infact use
modern means of communication, technology and economic power as defense
mechanisms to establish a new order. thus a connection needs to be
established between the  "material" and formation of political identities.
of course, the US imperialism is very happy about this situation because
it indirectly creates these movements, fuels tensions already existing,
and hence justifies its inteventionin in the region. it perpetuates the
status-quo in various ways--through a discourse of "otherizing" by the
hegemonic intelligensia here, and by means of multiple mechanisms such as
economic, institutional and political.


Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
dept of pol scie
SUNY/Albany
Graduate School-Nelson A. Rockefeller College
Albany/NY