The Power of Islamism

[Imperius]

I’ve been reading “Milestones” by Qutb and watching a lot of videos by Islamists, and this stuff is starting to impress me. Islamism could be to the 21st century what Communism was to the 20th (with Qutb playing the role of Marx). Islamists have a book, a prophet, a fanatical ideology, a long history, an ability to mobilize large numbers of men to fight wars, a global vision (the Caliphate), an enemy (infidels/USA/Israel), a lot of youthful energy, hunger for power, high birthrates, and they’re starting to take over countries. Apparently they have effectively eclipsed the old Left in some parts of the West. Surely Islamism will present a vast global challenge to the dominant capitalist order in the 21st century, just as Communism did in the 20th. Thoughts?

[Skyhilist]

This is not grounded in fact at all.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So you fell for some jihadi propaganda and needed to post about it? what else you been reading?

[#FF0000]

I’ve been reading “Milestones” by Qutb and watching a lot of videos by Islamists, and this stuff is starting to impress me. Islamism could be to the 21st century what Communism was to the 20th (with Qutb playing the role of Marx). Islamists have a book, a prophet, a fanatical ideology, a long history, an ability to mobilize large numbers of men to fight wars, a global vision (the Caliphate), an enemy (infidels/USA/Israel), a lot of youthful energy, hunger for power, high birthrates, and they’re starting to take over countries. Apparently they have effectively eclipsed the old Left in some parts of the West. Surely Islamism will present a vast global challenge to the dominant capitalist order in the 21st century, just as Communism did in the 20th. Thoughts?

I'm not sure if it's true they've eclipsed the "old Left" in any of the west. Islamism as an actual movement really just does not exist in the West in any meaningful sense.

But yeah, it's really easy to draw parallels seeing as Islamism is the new "Big Bad" for superpowers with interests in the region.

[Red_Banner]

I'm irreligious, but anyways "Islamist" is often used as a weasel word.

It just means the same thing as Muslim, Mehomitan, and Musselman.

[#FF0000]

I'm irreligious, but anyways "Islamist" is often used as a weasel word.

It just means the same thing as Muslim, Mehomitan, and Musselman.

1) No it doesn't
2) two of those words are hella archaic and I don't wanna be like "oh that is offensive" but I will say it's like the equivalent of calling someone a "negro" or something. It isn't an outright slur but it's sure makes you look ignorant.

[Imperius]

I used Islamist because I'm referring to the militant brand of Islam promoted by Qutb and al-Banna, which some argue was a 20th century phenomenon like Bolshevism and Fascism and not part of traditional Islam.

[CyM]

You're posting this during the sunset period of political Islam. The AKP in Turkey, the Brotherhood in Egypt, and Ennahda in Tunisia, this was the apex of Islamism.

The mass movement in Turkey against Erdoğan, the largest demonstration in human history in the revolution against Egypt's Morsi, and the mass demonstrations against Ghannouchi in Tunisia and his assassinations of leftist leaders, this is the beginning of the end.

Islamism is dead.

[Ace High]

It baffles me when people embrace Islam. Looks like someone has been brainwashed by religious fanatics.

[#FF0000]

I think OP's just pointing out that "oh cool Islamsism is like the new Big Bad of the western world" which is, like, true.

But then like CyM said, it kinda really isn't, anymore.

[Skyhilist]

In what way do Islamists represent a threat to "capitalist order"? Will the bourgeoisie cease to exist if radical right wing Islamists seize power?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Political Islam is not a threat to capitalism. It is essentially a petty bourgeoise movement Islamism has been used by ruling classes as an alternative to and a means to crush the left.It offers no alternative to the rule of capital. Its right wing anti-imperialism.

MB rule collapsed/was overthrown in Egypt and is facing mass unrest in Tunisia.The ultimate goal is to restore the 7th century caliphate.

[Imperius]

In what way do Islamists represent a threat to "capitalist order"? Will the bourgeoisie cease to exist if radical right wing Islamists seize power?

If you read Qutb and other Islamists you'll find that they're opposed to capitalism, usury, bourgeois values and materialism in general, but on religious grounds. A problem atheistic revolutionaries have is you try to oppose capitalism on purely materialistic grounds (or make a religion out of Marx/revolution, etc.), which tends to fail. To an Islamist, capitalism and socialism are just two varieties of atheistic Western materialism -- what the Islamists have in mind is a radically different kind of civilization where questions of capital and labor aren't very important.

[Imperius]

To illustrate my last point, after the Iranian Revolution, economic policy was downplayed by the new regime -- Khomeini himself is quoted as saying "economics is for donkeys".

[#FF0000]

If you read Qutb and other Islamists you'll find that they're opposed to capitalism, usury, bourgeois values and materialism in general, but on religious grounds. A problem atheistic revolutionaries have is you try to oppose capitalism on purely materialistic grounds (or make a religion out of Marx/revolution, etc.), which tends to fail. To an Islamist, capitalism and socialism are just two varieties of atheistic Western materialism -- what the Islamists have in mind is a radically different kind of civilization where questions of capital and labor aren't very important.


To illustrate my last point, after the Iranian Revolution, economic policy was downplayed by the new regime -- Khomeini himself is quoted as saying "economics is for donkeys".

That's cool and all but doesn't mean a whole lot and isn't unique to Islamism. Nazism was also not only vaguely "anti-capitalist" in rhetoric (like a lot of ultra-traditionalist anti-enlightenment folks were) but Hitler himself stated something similar to Khomeini. The Nazis didn't have a mind for economics and frankly didn't care about them -- but that didn't mean they were actually, materially, anti-capitalist. The Nazi economy was still a capitalist one, similar to every other Keynesian war-economy in the West.

[4MyNation]

Islam (aswell as Christianity if you read some of the scriptures) are a crutch to humanity. Secularism, Science, and Rational logic are (in my opinion) the path to a progressive society.

[Rafiq]

The same could be said about right wing populist nationalism in Europe. Fascism, Islamism, Libertarianism, technocracy, the four horseman of the bourgeois reaction amid the global catastrophe of capitalism. What we need today is a new Communism, and a mild return to classical Marxism. We need a Communism which is as vigorous and as inspiring of devotion as a religion (yet not ascetic), a Communism which is apocalyptic, one which is unapologetic of it's strive for world domination. In this age of rapid deterioration and an Interconnected capitalist earth, an age of reactionary harbingers, the left cannot sit idly by and act as the conscience of the bourgeoisie, negative force simply there to keep in check the bourgeois state. The left must renounce it's innate fear of power and seek to politicize itself. With mass politicization and mobilisation of the proletarian masses, we must attain power so much to the point where the enemies of the revolution, the four horseman, can be put to the sword.

[Rafiq]

If you read Qutb and other Islamists you'll find that they're opposed to capitalism, usury, bourgeois values and materialism in general, but on religious grounds. A problem atheistic revolutionaries have is you try to oppose capitalism on purely materialistic grounds (or make a religion out of Marx/revolution, etc.), which tends to fail. To an Islamist, capitalism and socialism are just two varieties of atheistic Western materialism -- what the Islamists have in mind is a radically different kind of civilization where questions of capital and labor aren't very important.

They will always be important, whether those scum wish to acknowledge it or not. The Middle East is of the capitalist mode of production, Islamism is a reactionary Bourgeois ideology with collaboration to the petite bourgeoisie, all their bullshit rhetoric exists to sustain the capitalist order and their position as a class.

[Imperius]

The same could be said about right wing populist nationalism in Europe. Fascism, Islamism, Libertarianism, technocracy, the four horseman of the bourgeois reaction amid the global catastrophe of capitalism. What we need today is a new Communism, and a mild return to classical Marxism. We need a Communism which is as vigorous and as inspiring of devotion as a religion (yet not ascetic), a Communism which is apocalyptic, one which is unapologetic of it's strive for world domination. In this age of rapid deterioration and an Interconnected capitalist earth, an age of reactionary harbingers, the left cannot sit idly by and act as the conscience of the bourgeoisie, negative force simply there to keep in check the bourgeois state. The left must renounce it's innate fear of power and seek to politicize itself. With mass politicization and mobilisation of the proletarian masses, we must attain power so much to the point where the enemies of the revolution, the four horseman, can be put to the sword.

Nice rhetoric, but how exactly are you going to inspire this religious devotion to your new Communism in the proletarian masses? Put the enemies of the revolution to the sword? So you want to turn Communism into something like Islamofascism? It could work, but first you need a prophet and a holy book more inspiring than Marx and his Manifesto!

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If you read Qutb and other Islamists you'll find that they're opposed to capitalism, usury, bourgeois values and materialism in general, but on religious grounds. A problem atheistic revolutionaries have is you try to oppose capitalism on purely materialistic grounds (or make a religion out of Marx/revolution, etc.), which tends to fail. To an Islamist, capitalism and socialism are just two varieties of atheistic Western materialism -- what the Islamists have in mind is a radically different kind of civilization where questions of capital and labor aren't very important.

What is their method for transcending the antagonism between capital and labor? Of course any critique of capitalism must have a moral basis but we are in the material world and we need a material analysis of our situation. Its not enough to say "capitalism is evil" and "capitalism is opposed to spiritual values" but do the Islamists have a concrete analysis of the rule of capital?
Humanities economic and political evolution can be traced to material causes.We need an analysis based on more than moral grounds.

[Red_Banner]

Gadafi's "Third Internation Theory" although not ideal was a step in the right direction.

[Devrim]

2) two of those words are hella archaic and I don't wanna be like "oh that is offensive" but I will say it's like the equivalent of calling someone a "negro" or something. It isn't an outright slur but it's sure makes you look ignorant.

Calling somebody a Musselman is not in anyway the equivalent of calling somebody a negro. It may be archaic in English, but it is in fact just an anvils action of the term Muslims use to describe themselves today in the languages of the Middle East, for example in Turkish it is spelt 'Müslüman'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You're posting this during the sunset period of political Islam. The AKP in Turkey, the Brotherhood in Egypt, and Ennahda in Tunisia, this was the apex of Islamism.

The mass movement in Turkey against Erdoğan, the largest demonstration in human history in the revolution against Egypt's Morsi, and the mass demonstrations against Ghannouchi in Tunisia and his assassinations of leftist leaders, this is the beginning of the end.

Islamism is dead.

The AKP are still in power in Turkey, and Ennahda are still in power in Tunisia. It is hardly the end for them. Indeed I would expect The AKP to win an overwhelming majority in the next elections.

Also although the demonstrations in Egypt were large it seems a bit strange to describe what was essentially a military coup as a revolution.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Nice rhetoric, but how exactly are you going to inspire this religious devotion to your new Communism in the proletarian masses? Put the enemies of the revolution to the sword? So you want to turn Communism into something like Islamofascism? It could work, but first you need a prophet and a holy book more inspiring than Marx and his Manifesto!

No. "Islamofascists" have no exclusive claim to revolutionary zeal. I am saying communism must seek legitimacy in our day and age to inspire such devotion. In the 21st century you don't need prophets or holy books. You need something hell bent on total and complete change, something so revolutionary it would seem it causes rupture in the cosmos. One thing islamists have, is this universal, hun like strive for global domination. As if they are like super humans possessed to take power. But it is a lie, the world belongs to the proletarian dictatorship, and it is we communists that are the international spectre, it is we who should prop up like a virus in every corner of the earth with the same goal and purpose, and utter devotion to a single cause. These things are not innately fascist, for fascism is weak in that it is a cowardly retreat while we seek total cataclysm of the existing world.

[Imperius]

No. "Islamofascists" have no exclusive claim to revolutionary zeal. I am saying communism must seek legitimacy in our day and age to inspire such devotion. In the 21st century you don't need prophets or holy books. You need something hell bent on total and complete change, something so revolutionary it would seem it causes rupture in the cosmos. One thing islamists have, is this universal, hun like strive for global domination. As if they are like super humans possessed to take power. But it is a lie, the world belongs to the proletarian dictatorship, and it is we communists that are the international spectre, it is we who should prop up like a virus in every corner of the earth with the same goal and purpose, and utter devotion to a single cause. These things are not innately fascist, for fascism is weak in that it is a cowardly retreat while we seek total cataclysm of the existing world.

This is great stuff, but my point is that then you're no different than any religious fanatic/fascist out to conquer the world. Substituting the words "proletarian dictatorship" for "Caliphate" or "Reich", "Revolution" for "Armageddon", etc. is just superficial; psychologically and spiritually, you're tapping into exactly the same forces. Do you understand?

[Rafiq]

Because I seek global proletarian domination is not a mimic of fascism or islamism, rather, it was the fascists and islamists who appropriated OUR historical tendency towards it. Denying we Marxists have a tendency for wanting world conquest is a blatant lie. It is nothing to be ashamed of. If the world is not wholly under a red banner, then it is a threat to any existing proletarian dictatorship. We have something more than divine right or bullshit about national destiny. We have something real, namely, the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production and the proletariat as a real existing class capable of actual, near cataclysmic change. The revolution will be like a cosmic catastrophe.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Nazis didn't have a mind for economics and frankly didn't care about them -- but that didn't mean they were actually, materially, anti-capitalist.
Man, that's just factually wrong. Of course they did have a mind for economic issues, which can easily be seen in the regime's concern with the relationship between the American and German rate of consumption (consequent projects of the Volkswagen, radio etc.).


The revolution will be like a cosmic catastrophe.Enough with poetry and acid, mkay?

[Rafiq]

Enough with poetry and acid, mkay?

It is ideological, but you can't be outside ideology. And it certainly isn't poetry, it's a pretty normal conceptualization of a revolution, ex.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Yuon_New_Planet_1921.jpg

There are real ideological functions that prompt this type of understanding of a revolution, which can be directly correlated with concrete material forces. The question, of course, resides if they correlate with revolutionary proletarian consciousness, and to that I say yes, it does. I think you'd actually have to be on acid, you'd have to espouse poetry to be so naive as to think that the post-second international model of an organization, not simply in it's structure but in it's societal essence can ever hold legitimacy anywhere. They are weak, and they are ineffective, they are almost like intellectual organizations or book reading clubs. They are incapable of providing anything other than posing as background rhetoric of the bourgeois political scene, sometimes. In the early 20th century, the world was rapidly changing and the communists were seen as heirs to historical progress and whatever. It's different now, and legitimacy is something we should be discussing, because our competitors, or, should I say, the real political giants of the 21st century who oppose the existing order (as reactionaries, albeit) are crushing us with regard. We need to broaden our scope, and hear me, I am disgusted and oppose all forms of spiritualism, but in the midst of a mode of production no longer with a base in industry but finance, one that has already solidified itself globally, the rhetoric of organizations which persisted through the development of capitalism (the industrial revolution) has no place in the modern world. I'm not pretending to have a solution here, strictly I remain an Orthodox Marxist who strives for effective political models which can bolster proletarian consciousness, but from those models, as it was with the Bolsheviks from the Kautskyan model in Russia, eventually, a radical break will be made, but ONLY after such a strong political base is established. But don't you agree that the radical break, for example, from the bolsheviks, was almost like irrational, like a blind leap of faith, poetically a "no" to destiny? That's what we need today, but we lack the organization from which such a phenomena can be espoused.

[Klaatu]

I suggest that the OP change the title of this thread to "The Power of Brain-Washing." :crying:

[greenforest]

Islamic banking practices a form of usury known as 'murabaha'.

An Islamic bank will buy property from a client, and then mark up the value of the property just purchased. The client, beforehand, agrees to buy the marked up item back from the bank at a later date.

It's a round about way of issuing a normal loan.

[liberlict]

Islamism belongs in the dustbin of history, along side communism.

[Red Economist]

I’ve been reading “Milestones” by Qutb and watching a lot of videos by Islamists, and this stuff is starting to impress me. Given how things are going for them at the moment, id' say this very Brave.



Islamism could be to the 21st century what Communism was to the 20th (with Qutb playing the role of Marx). Islamists have a book, a prophet, a fanatical ideology, a long history, an ability to mobilize large numbers of men to fight wars, a global vision (the Caliphate), an enemy (infidels/USA/Israel), a lot of youthful energy, hunger for power, high birthrates, and they’re starting to take over countries. In essence what your saying is that Islamists have more power than the communists. Whilst capitalism makes us feel deeply vulnerable because of it's atomistic individualism, running to the nearest source of power is not a good idea. ultimately, might does not make right, even if it does make us feel 'good' for a time, because using power to solve our underlying problems does not change the lack of freedom or the crippling of the individual which made us want to believe in the ideology in the first place.

Communists had the world on it's knees in the twentieth century and they still couldn't get it right! For what ever reason, The desire for power was greater than the willingness to use that power for it's stated intentions, regardless as to whether we believe this is the fault of individual leaders or social groups.


Apparently they have effectively eclipsed the old Left in some parts of the West. Surely Islamism will present a vast global challenge to the dominant capitalist order in the 21st century, just as Communism did in the 20th. Thoughts?This depends on whether you talking about the size of Muslim populations or the size of the Islamist political parties. Communists made roughly the same guess of their potential power based on the size of the proletariat of their respective countries. This was not an assumption that is safe to make, as at the turn of the 20th century they thought the revolution would happen in Germany, not Russia.

The aim is not to challenge the capitalist order, but to transform it so as to make people more free. Communism was not the revolutionary force it expected to be; instead it changed the nature of political power so that it could control as much of society as possible (hence the widespread state ownership). It did not however transform the nature of society in a way that made people more free as was originally hoped.


If you read Qutb and other Islamists you'll find that they're opposed to capitalism, usury, bourgeois values and materialism in general, but on religious grounds. In 1936 the USSR had a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech, press and religion making the Soviet Union that most democratic country in the world whilst wiping out most of it's own internal party membership, large parts of it's military only so the instruments of repression could turn on the NKVD itself.
It takes some getting used to but you have to use an 'educated guess' to find out whether something is propaganda. we are so heavily conditioned to accept things as we are told they are that questioning them is rather difficult. look into what they have actually done and measure it up to what they said they wanted to do. As a Communist, I can guarantee you it will be extremely unpleasant, but in the end the only thing you have to lose is your own sense of pride.


A problem atheistic revolutionaries have is you try to oppose capitalism on purely materialistic grounds (or make a religion out of Marx/revolution, etc.), which tends to fail. To an Islamist, capitalism and socialism are just two varieties of atheistic Western materialism -- what the Islamists have in mind is a radically different kind of civilization where questions of capital and labor aren't very important.
Both Liberalism and Communism originally appealed to spiritual motives in the humanistic aspiration of making people free. Whilst the arguments used by communists are materialistic, there is also a very strong vein of subjectivity in Marxist thinking which gives communists the freedom to believe what they wish.

E.g "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it" has distinctly Nietzschean overtones of an individual's subjective values changing the moral nature of reality. Orwell called 'dialectical materialism', 'doublethink' in 1984 and he had a point; you can justify almost anything with it because you can shift the boundaries between objective reality and subjective belief. This helps undermine politically constructed senses of 'reality', but the claim that truth is politically partisan can lead to outright falsifications of real events.

Communists don't oppose atheism on the grounds that god is not real (that is assumed based on materialism), but on the oppressive effects of religious morality. Communists (ussually) don't oppose liberalism on the grounds of restricting political freedom, but on the belief that because liberalism stops people owning the meaning of production so that cannot realize their freedom and it is an abstraction only. Communists don't oppose nationalism based on rational grounds but on the humanistic aspiration of ending wars and establishing world government.
Each one of these requires a subjective-psychological component to make a person work for them; Marxists might be atheists, but that doesn't mean they don't have some sort of faith in their ideals originating from their emotions.


How exactly are you going to inspire this religious devotion to your new Communism in the proletarian masses? Put the enemies of the revolution to the sword? So you want to turn Communism into something like Islamofascism? It could work, but first you need a prophet and a holy book more inspiring than Marx and his Manifesto! As a work of literature, I haven't come across any particularly inspiring work by communists, so I agree with you there! :lol:

From a Marxist point of view, communism is not driven by individuals "inspiring" the masses into revolutionary upheaval. This has distinctly fascist overtones of turning ordinary people into the instruments of the will of an individual based on the apparent power of their ideas (which then of course becomes the state) i.e. it will not make people free.

A belief in communism is not simply the product of a person reading the work of intellectuals (although it is helpful to the process). Rather, it is personal experience (or "practice") of the socio-economic conditions of capitalism, primarily the experience of the antagonistic relationship between capitalists and workers, that leads to this 'class consciousness'.

The historical conditions overwhelmingly favor the capitalists at the moment; the apparent strength of neo-liberal ideology is probably the superstructure of an economic basis which has commercialized virtually all aspects of social life under the guise of 'liberty' and 'choice'. the left, both anarchist, communist and reformist socialist simply 'collapsed' by the end of the 20th century; there is probably an underlying reason for this but so far no-one has gone into it (primarily because the left would have to swallow it's pride and admit they were wrong/failed and will have to start all over again).

If the communists cannot gather a mass movement to support their aims under these conditions, what makes you think that the Islamists will fare any better? In much the same way communism has become part of a consumerist counter-culture [you, know, the "hey guys, check out my Che gurevara t-shirt!" bit], the power of neo-liberalism is such that behind the mask of 'freedom of religion' and 'individual choice', it can undermine the orthodoxy, integrity and morality of religious beliefs.



This is great stuff, but my point is that then you're no different than any religious fanatic/fascist out to conquer the world. Substituting the words "proletarian dictatorship" for "Caliphate" or "Reich", "Revolution" for "Armageddon", etc. is just superficial; psychologically and spiritually, you're tapping into exactly the same forces. Do you understand? Psychologically and spiritually, yes, communists are tapping into the same forces as Islamists; the feeling of oppression and anger at the conditions of global capitalism, particuarly the sense of powerlessness and isolation of a cold individualism.
However, the ultimate outcome cannot be determined purely by how an ideology makes us feel. they represent very different ideologies in terms of their social goals, even if the methods do overlap because of the similarities in exercising political power.
A Marxist proper would argue that the differences in these goals represent differences in the class character of the social forces mobilized behind those goals (but I'm not entirely in agreement with this as I am still pretty individualistic and want to be 'free', even if I'm not sure how to go about this).

I would ask therefore, whether you really support the Islamists because they make you feel empowered or because you agree with what they make you feel empowered to support?

The original goal of communism was to make men more free but instead it empowered a section of society as the 'vanguard of the proletariat' to make everyone else more oppressed. be careful not to make the same mistake.

If you want to be free, give yourself a chance to doubt what your being told! The fact your willing to read into Islamism and go against the grain of mass media's 'public opinion' is a fairly good measure of how much you must hate capitalism. however, intellectual orthodoxy's rarely stands up to someone who actively pursues the truth as a mean for their own self-empowerment rather than risk becoming the instrument of anothers power.

[Leo]

The AKP are still in power in Turkey, and Ennahda are still in power in Tunisia. It is hardly the end for them. Indeed I would expect The AKP to win an overwhelming majority in the next elections.

Also although the demonstrations in Egypt were large it seems a bit strange to describe what was essentially a military coup as a revolution. While saying everything is the same and nothing changed does, at certain times, provide an accurate prediction, I think for the moderate Islamic model the tide actually has turned. Yes, AKP is still in power in Turkey, yes Ennahda is still in power in Tunisia, yes in Egypt there was a military coup, not a revolution. Nevertheless the tide has turned, moderate Islam is no longer a legitimate model, its days of glory are over and I don't think these days will come back. The moment the Gezi protests assumed a massive character in Turkey, AKP's claim to be the leader of the Arab Spring, the sponsor of the democratic movements in the Middle East and the model for the Muslim world lost all its legitimacy. That such a mass movement happened, in the model country for all the North African countries where dictators had been overthrown; that the same masses who had protested against Mobarak now came out against Morsi in Egypt and against Ennahda in Tunisia and all the protestors in these countries were attacked by the police with the same viciousness killed the moderate Islamic movements claim to legitimacy. This doesn't mean these movements are completely dead and lost all their popular support although I think the tide has quite visibly turned and it will only get worse from this point.

In Egypt Ikhwan had its chance and they blew it. The army did them a good deal of favors by victimizing them and massacring their supporters, however even that will not be enough to get them back to where they were. In Turkey, it seems that the AKP so far lost some votes - about 10 to 20 percent of what they had - but if there was a general election tomorrow, yes, they would still have a large majority and get 40 to perhaps 45 percent. However there isn't a general election tomorrow and the next election to come will be the local elections. Municipalities have been, for years, the bastion of AKP's power, tools they used to provide aid to the poor to muster popular support. Yet then again, added to the recent brutality against the protestors is the fact that AKP municipalities, especially in large metropoles, are quite worn out and the opposition, if it plays its cards right can well win the three biggest municipalities (Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir) along with several others. What is more, AKP is now basically a house divided, and Erdogan, despite all the appearances, is alone in his own party with only men without any real power or qualities who owe everything they have to being extremely loyal to Erdogan, and nothing else. All the others who have power of their own as well as qualities are acting separately. Journalists who support Erdogan and journalists who support Gulen have been openly bickering in their separate newspapers and there are some apparently quite well-funded rumors that after the coming local elections, Gül and Arinc will go their own way with the support of the Gulen cult and for their own party. Even the buildings of the new party are rumored to be ready. Added to all this, the crisis is expected to kick in rather soon in Turkey.

The reason the tide has turned and moderate Islam is going down is simply because they overreached and they failed and no one wants to befriend a loser. Currently, Erdogan is playing at war with Syria, and even a child can see such a foolish adventure would lead to nothing but a bitter end for his regime, a majority of the population not being even slightly hysterical at the prospect of a patriotic and humanitarian invasion of Syria. What will happen? It seems to me that more radical Islamist groups are waiting on the sides to eat up the support base of moderate Islamists. The fact that radical Islamists like the Al Nusra Front are playing an increasingly influential role within the Syrian opposition, and the rise of the Salafists in Egypt show this. So Islamism is far from dead. Of course, more secular leftist and nationalist opposition will also have good chances.

Of course I may have been wrong in how I read the events, and the moderate Islamic model, although its days of glory are visibly done, may nevertheless be well, alive and accepted. I guess we will see it... today, actually, in whether Istanbul gets the olympics or not.

[Devrim]

You're posting this during the sunset period of political Islam. The AKP in Turkey, the Brotherhood in Egypt, and Ennahda in Tunisia, this was the apex of Islamism.

The mass movement in Turkey against Erdoğan, the largest demonstration in human history in the revolution against Egypt's Morsi, and the mass demonstrations against Ghannouchi in Tunisia and his assassinations of leftist leaders, this is the beginning of the end.

Islamism is dead.


The AKP are still in power in Turkey, and Ennahda are still in power in Tunisia. It is hardly the end for them. Indeed I would expect The AKP to win an overwhelming majority in the next elections.

Also although the demonstrations in Egypt were large it seems a bit strange to describe what was essentially a military coup as a revolution.
While saying everything is the same and nothing changed does, at certain times, provide an accurate prediction, I think for the moderate Islamic model the tide actually has turned. Yes, AKP is still in power in Turkey, yes Ennahda is still in power in Tunisia, yes in Egypt there was a military coup, not a revolution. Nevertheless the tide has turned, moderate Islam is no longer a legitimate model, its days of glory are over and I don't think these days will come back.

It was a bit of a throwaway comment to be honest in reply to the remark that Islamism is dead. It certainly isn't. Weather it is entering a period of decline is a different question.

I think it is fair to say that what you call 'moderate Islamic movements' have suffered a bitter body blow. I am not sure that the poster I was replying to was referring to just these movements in the first place. I would though place the centre of the blow that was struck against these movements in Egypt, and not in Turkey. Yes, the stuff that happened in Turkey has not been good for them, but at the end of it all the Islamicists are still in power. What I think has been damaged by these events is more the AKP's, and even Tayyip's own personal influence on 'moderate Islamism'. The damage that was done by the coup in Egypt to the aspirations of this current is much more severe. The message that I think this sends to the Ikwan is that there is absolutely no point in participating in the democratic process as even if you do, the army will just kick you out of office, and into prison.


What is more, AKP is now basically a house divided, and Erdogan, despite all the appearances, is alone in his own party with only men without any real power or qualities who owe everything they have to being extremely loyal to Erdogan, and nothing else.

How much this is true remains to be seen, and will be played out over the next two years before the general election. I find it difficult to believe that the AKP will dump a leader who has lead them to three consecutive general election victories.Ironically if they do replace him, it would in one way attest to Tayyip's victory in constructing a strong modern political party, precisely one that can replace a leader, and carry on ruling.

Even the most successful leaders of bourgeois political parties only have a certain shelf life. To look at the English example Thatcher served 11 years before her own party kicked her out, and Blair served 10 before he resigned. By this reckoning Erdoğan is moving towards the expiry of his sell by date anyway.


I guess we will see it... today, actually, in whether Istanbul gets the olympics or not.

Well Tokyo won, and Istanbul lost again. I don't think that it really means that much, and certainly the future of political Islam can't be derived from it.


In Egypt Ikhwan had its chance and they blew it. The army did them a good deal of favors by victimizing them and massacring their supporters, however even that will not be enough to get them back to where they were.

This line is terrible, and is reminiscent of the ICC at its worse. There may be a kernal of truth behind what you are saying, but the way you have phrased it is awful, and makes it seem like some sort of conspiratorial plot.

Devrim

[Leo]

It was a bit of a throwaway comment to be honest in reply to the remark that Islamism is dead. It certainly isn't. Weather it is entering a period of decline is a different question.Why? I am not even saying Islamism entered a period of decline. I am saying the tide has turned for moderate Islamism, not Islamism in general. Radical Islam, on the other hand, is quite a different story.


I think it is fair to say that what you call 'moderate Islamic movements' have suffered a bitter body blow. I am not sure that the poster I was replying to was referring to just these movements in the first place. Well, those were the examples he gave, but maybe not. In any case it isn't really relevant, is it?.


I would though place the centre of the blow that was struck against these movements in Egypt, and not in Turkey. Yes, the stuff that happened in Turkey has not been good for them, but at the end of it all the Islamicists are still in power. What I think has been damaged by these events is more the AKP's, and even Tayyip's own personal influence on 'moderate Islamism'. The damage that was done by the coup in Egypt to the aspirations of this current is much more severe. The message that I think this sends to the Ikwan is that there is absolutely no point in participating in the democratic process as even if you do, the army will just kick you out of office, and into prison.I think this is a bit too simplistic. The army in Egypt didn't make a coup because it disliked Ikhwan, and certainly a movement whining about how it got ousted from an office to which it was democratically elected didn't draw a lesson about not participating in democratic processes, such as elections. The army didn't make a coup when Ikhwan got elected first, they made a coup when millions of Egyptians were in the streets about to topple Morsi; in other words, they made a coup because Morsi failed - and that he did.

Additionaly I don't think Turkey's influence on moderate Islamic movements decreased at all. Their influence on the Egyptian Ikhwan is actually stronger than ever, being their only friends. They and Ennahda also supported each other in the face of popular unrest. Long story short, these movements supported each other when faced with difficulties. However with Ikhwan in Egypt gone, there isn't much moderate Islamism for the AKP to influence anymore, at least in power.

Yes, quite clearly Morsi isn't in power anymore while Erdogan still is, this is an empirical fact. However the Gezi protests in Turkey was a catalyst for the protests in Egypt against Morsi, which lead to the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood.


How much this is true remains to be seen, and will be played out over the next two years before the general election. I find it difficult to believe that the AKP will dump a leader who has lead them to three consecutive general election victories.It is not exactly AKP dumping him - it is certain powerful people within the party leaving because they are being pushed aside by Erdogan. Conflicting interests always cause splits. Just because it hasn't happened in the AKP doesn't mean it will not. We should remember that the AKP itself was a split from another party over conflicting interests.


Ironically if they do replace him, it would in one way attest to Tayyip's victory in constructing a strong modern political party, precisely one that can replace a leader, and carry on ruling.

Even the most successful leaders of bourgeois political parties only have a certain shelf life. To look at the English example Thatcher served 11 years before her own party kicked her out, and Blair served 10 before he resigned. By this reckoning Erdoğan is moving towards the expiry of his sell by date anyway. Well, yes, except they won't be replacing him but leaving the party themselves. Erdogan, by now, has too many people loyal only to his own self and he is acting within his party as in public with a typical dictator's complex. Him and his goons will easily block any opposition within his party, so AKP will remain his - he will rather end up deserted in his own ship with men who know how to praise and say yes, but not how to sail.


Well Tokyo won, and Istanbul lost again. I don't think that it really means that much, and certainly the future of political Islam can't be derived from it.Olympics is both symbolically and economically a very significant event. Istanbul was the big favorite until Gezi events, however the images of policemen brutally attacking young protesters must have damaged its chances so bad that the Olympics committee preferred a city near a nuclear leak.

If the Gezi events - and of course consequetively the Egyptian protests and coup - hadn't happened, Istanbul was expected to win, and it would have been the official acknowledgement of the success of moderate Islam. Now the preference of the city near the radioactive leak to Istanbul shows just how much legitimacy moderate Islam has left, and how much trust the central bourgeoisie puts in it.

Here's the accurate Olympics video of Istanbul (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxyk9JPS6mI)by the way.


This line is terrible, and is reminiscent of the ICC at its worse. There may be a kernal of truth behind what you are saying, but the way you have phrased it is awful, and makes it seem like some sort of conspiratorial plot.I'm not saying it was a conspiratorial plot, it may well be the foolish post-coup military reflex of drowning any opposition in blood, but what is wrong with saying what the Army's actions resulted in? Before its members started being massacred by the army, virtually no one cared about Ikhwan, because of what they themselves had been doing to demonstrators. A lot of people were in fact supporting the coup. And if the army acted less violently, no one would have sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood. They would hue and cry about being ousted after having been democratically elected, and power would have been tranferred to secular liberals who the masses would at least be more satisfied with, at least for a while and such a government would have quite a lot of legitimacy, and the army would even be praised for intervening when democracy was in danger and then peacefully transferring power to other democratically elected forces. Even now, with all the brutal massacres, the Americans and the Europeans are still more or less deaf to the plight of the Muslim Brotherhood - because they'd fucked up that bad. However at least thanks to being massacred, they can now get an ounce of sympathy for now being victims. I have little doubt their leaders are quite aware of what's going on, even if the army is not.

[#FF0000]

Man, that's just factually wrong. Of course they did have a mind for economic issues, which can easily be seen in the regime's concern with the relationship between the American and German rate of consumption (consequent projects of the Volkswagen, radio etc.).

Should've been clearer. Hitler had no mind for economics and there was never really any specific "Nazi economic theory", you know what I mean?