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.

No?  Well, that ends my input to this discussion.

> >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
>
>