Log in

View Full Version : Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism



Asoka89
12th June 2009, 08:52
All the currents that claim adherence to political Islam proclaim the “specificity of Islam.” According to them, Islam knows nothing of the separation between politics and religion, something supposedly distinctive of Christianity. It would accomplish nothing to remind them, as I have done, that their remarks reproduce, almost word for word, what European reactionaries at the beginning of the nineteenth century (such as Bonald and de Maistre) said to condemn the rupture that the Enlightenment and the French Revolution had produced in the history of the Christian West!

On the basis of this position, every current of political Islam chooses to conduct its struggle on the terrain of culture—but “culture” reduced in actual fact to the conventional affirmation of belonging to a particular religion. In reality, the militants of political Islam are not truly interested in discussing the dogmas that form religion. The ritual assertion of membership in the community is their exclusive preoccupation. Such a vision of the reality of the modern world is not only distressing because of the immense emptiness of thought that it conceals, but it also justifies imperialism’s strategy of substituting a so-called conflict of cultures for the one between imperialist centers and dominated peripheries. The exclusive emphasis on culture allows political Islam to eliminate from every sphere of life the real social confrontations between the popular classes and the globalized capitalist system that oppresses and exploits them. The militants of political Islam have no real presence in the areas where actual social conflicts take place and their leaders repeat incessantly that such conflicts are unimportant. Islamists are only present in these areas to open schools and health clinics. But these are nothing but works of charity and means for indoctrination. They are not means of support for the struggles of the popular classes against the system responsible for their poverty.

On the terrain of the real social issues, political Islam aligns itself with the camp of dependent capitalism and dominant imperialism. It defends the principle of the sacred character of property and legitimizes inequality and all the requirements of capitalist reproduction. The support by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian parliament for the recent reactionary laws that reinforce the rights of property owners to the detriment of the rights of tenant farmers (the majority of the small peasantry) is but one example among hundreds of others. There is no example of even one reactionary law promoted in any Muslim state to which the Islamist movements are opposed. Moreover, such laws are promulgated with the agreement of the leaders of the imperialist system. Political Islam is not anti-imperialist, even if its militants think otherwise! It is an invaluable ally for imperialism and the latter knows it. It is easy to understand, then, that political Islam has always counted in its ranks the ruling classes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Moreover, these classes were among its most active promoters from the very beginning. The local comprador bourgeoisies, the nouveaux riches, beneficiaries of current imperialist globalization, generously support political Islam. The latter has renounced an anti-imperialist perspective and substituted for it an “anti-Western” (almost “anti-Christian”) position, which obviously only leads the societies concerned into an impasse and hence does not form an obstacle to the deployment of imperialist control over the world system.

MORE

http://monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm

by Samir Amin

Die Neue Zeit
12th June 2009, 14:24
I think that emphasizing this immediate solution can woo Muslim workers away from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois Islamism:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/equity-vs-interest-t90921/index.html

AvanteRedGarde
13th June 2009, 11:11
Let us remember that "political islam" was originally supported by U.S. imperialism as a proxy.

Moreover, the idea that Hezbollah or Hamas are simply lackeys of imperialism is ridiculous. Granted the character of political Islam lends itself as an ideology to be promoted by the national bourgeoisie- which invariably vacillates over the course of class struggle. However, Samir Amin should turn the lense on the First World. What group with any reasonable supprt could be seriously called anti-imperialist. I have to ask, whom is truley leading any sort of functional anti-imperialist struggle right now: Islamists or Marxists. (even in the case where Marxists are leading anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist struggles, it's in places like India).

What's even more of a mockery is when people whom keep on thinking First Worlders are revolutionary, even though it flies in the face of all reality, yap about 'wooing' Muslims (to what exactly?). Perhaps one of the reasons that 'political Islam' is so popular today is because First World influenced 'leftism' seems so ridiculous in this simple regard.

h0m0revolutionary
13th June 2009, 11:24
I have to ask, whom is truley leading any sort of functional anti-imperialist struggle right now: Islamists or Marxists.

To ask that question comrade is to answer it. Only the working class is capable of consistent and principled anti-imperialism, those orginisations that are part of (exclusing those who [wish to] 'lead') the working class are anti-imperialist. It has been the role of political islam to ride over class differences in time of revolutionary upsruge (Palestine being a pressing example) and restore order in the interests of capital - this is ebcause political islam in it's 101 different guises offers no answers to the working class as it instills cross-class collaboration, in the belief that people are united in their faith rather than their class.

Occasionally cross-class struggles, under the leadership of islamists shoot in the right direction (Iran for example, Hizbollah, Hamas etc.) but to call them anti-imperialist is a bit of a stretch because imperialism isn't an isolated phenomina, it occurs ebcause the interests of capital necessitate it - therefore bourgeois factions who seek to undermine class agitation are not anti-imperialist.




What's even more of a mockery is when people whom keep on thinking First Worlders are revolutionary, even though it flies in the face of all reality, yap about 'wooing' Muslims (to what exactly?). Perhaps one of the reasons that 'political Islam' is so popular today is because First World influenced 'leftism' seems so ridiculous in this simple regard.

*yawn* boring Maoism :/.

Asoka89
13th June 2009, 14:04
*yawn* boring Maoism :/.

Amen. AvanteRedGarde's post is EXACTLY what's wrong with a segment of the modern left EXACTLY, when he asks who is leading the "resistance" and expects us to support "resistance for resistance's sake".

This is an important article IMO: http://platypus1917.org/2009/03/15/going-it-alone-christopher-hitchens-and-the-death-of-the-left/

Call me an orientalist or whatever, but I'm not in league with political Islam

Die Neue Zeit
13th June 2009, 14:36
Comrade, did you read my Theory thread on an obscure Russian anarchist who ended up backing the Black Hundreds?

Asoka89
13th June 2009, 15:24
No I haven't read much of your material lately, I'm actually just catching up a bit now, I'll give it a look

Die Neue Zeit
13th June 2009, 15:34
I forgot the thread link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/conspiracism-and-prophet-t108012/index.html

redguard2009
17th June 2009, 04:43
Fact is, western "revolutionaries" can offer very little to the multitudes of third and second worlders whom we seek to preach and lead and teach and criticize. For all the promises in the world, there is little respect for the opinions of western "progressives". If anything can be called "resistence for resistence's sake" it is the haphazard way in which, from the eyes of the rest of the world, we first world "revolutionaries" waste time pandering about twiddling thumbs and bickering like old nannies.

Look at it this way. Western 'revolutionaries' have for decades, even centuries tried to bring down their governments under revolution, the vast majority failing time and time again. And yet a handful of impoverished fighters in Iraq using stolen weapons and religious zeal have given the armies of the US and Britain the biggest black eye since Vietnam -- in which again, our underpriviledged third-world compatriots living off rice and corn managed to defeat the enormous military might of the United States.

Rather than continue believing we have something to teach them, I really think we ought to realize they have a lot to teach us.

AvanteRedGarde
17th June 2009, 17:47
I don't really understand your point. Are you taking the 1940's CPUSA? Since there is little chance of revolutionary in the First World, and since most of the original revolutionary demands have been met in the First World, should we just focus on further reforms instead?

Should we be taking leadership from arious Islamist resistende groups in Iraq? Should we emulate them and engage in adventurism?

black magick hustla
17th June 2009, 18:04
Political Islam came into being after they murdered workers and communists. It is the equivalent of a white reaction.

redguard2009
17th June 2009, 23:41
If you want to be assenine and call it "adventurism", sure, let's do that. Fact remains while we've been engaged in a rather low-key struggle against imperialism and the ruling class, the people of the third world (who unarguably bare the extreme brunt of exploitation and oppression in human society) have repeatedly fought for their self-interests against imperialist and capitalist aggression, with many examples of success. The problem comes from the fact that the anger and resentment that third world workers and peasants feel is most easily manipulated for the use of archaic fundamentalist dogma and empty promises from various religious or violent influences. The left has done a really garbage job empowering these workers with the virtue of socialist revolution and authentic anti-imperialism.

We don't have much to offer them.

AvanteRedGarde
18th June 2009, 07:00
Well it certainly doesn't help that most so called leftist here can't even tell an exploiter from the exploited.

Maybe if we quick pretending there is a significant First World proletariat or if we quit crafting a practice around such useless wishful thinking, then we could be of more service.