Islamism as Wedge

[Major K.]

I saw this video, and it actually poses a *somewhat* compelling case for tolerating Western capitalistic hegemony:

The video is on Youtube and is called "Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology", and the channel is PragerU. I'd share the link, but I don't have enough posts.

After watching it, I felt like, 'well at least there's something of a bulwark against radical Islam with modern capitalism' (though I suspect there's some ties between capitalism and radical totalitarianism; i.e., the former actively supports the other when it means more militantly organized proles).

It's kind of like intellectual fear-mongering. I came out of that video feeling like making waves could just as easily (or maybe even more easily) lead to a brutal totalitarian revolution as it could a proletarian one, and that the ruling ideology can use these even more oppressive ideologies as a wild dog to unleash on any that don't fall in line by supporting strains of fascism and totalitarian to counterbalance them, kind of like how Czechoslovakia was fragmented by Western capitalist interest.

He also calls communism a totalitarian threat. I'm assuming he's talking about Leninism/Stalinism though.

Any thoughts?

Major K.

[John Nada]

Compelling case? It's a fucking hateful Islamophobic garbage. A search leads to a bunch of rightist Christians who's system I'd be even more afraid of living under. All those who whine about "totalitarianism" have no problem with how "totalitarian" capitalism is to the poor and oppressed peoples. That "free" capitalist society that has no qualms proping up Islamist puppets to rule the neo-colonies.

[Major K.]

By "compelling" I didn't mean I agreed with it btw. I was simply trying to communicate that the argument has weight and the institution seems, at a glance, reliable -- thus, "compelling".

"Islamophobia", to use your word, actually seems reasonable when (assuming the statistics from the video are accurate) such high percentages of its ideologues openly support things like stoning for adultery or getting a limb lopped off for thievery or killing members who renounce it. Sharia law seems pretty oppressive (yes, so is capitalism, but capitalism seems to me a different case, as, though oppressive, it's not as personally pervasive as fundamentalist Abrahamic religions can be).

That's actually what I'm most wondering here: how do socialists view Sharia law and growing forms of religious fundamentalism in general from a dialectical materialistic perspective?

Major K.

P.S. Also, though I agree with the heart of what you're saying, your argument comes off as "This seems like what a rightist Christian might believe, and those guys are the worst! therefore the arguments presented in this video that I may or may not have watched are invalid."

[John Nada]

Yes, if it comes out of the mouth of Christian extremists who're only Christian extremists and not Islamic extremists by fluke of history and accident of birth, it's usually bullshit. This is the learning forum, not opposing ideologies. Why are you trying to spread racist propaganda from a fake unaccredited conservative university.

[Antiochus]

Except Sharia and Islam in general are not stand-alone ideologies. They get subsumed by whatever ruling economic order exists when they "take over", the Islamists quickly have to "adapt" and so forth. An exception is ISIS, whose wholesale brutality is precisely why they cannot exist in the long run and instead exist ONLY in the context of the civil war raging there.

Trying to install Islamism in a modern Capitalist society simply won't happen. It becomes a caricature as laughable as Christians trying to burn witches in New York in 2015. Iran today has a lot more in common with South Korea than it does the Safavids.

Also, the comparison between Christian (I suppose you mean, Western Christians, not Christianity in say Liberia) and Islamic extremists is silly. The worst of Christian fanatics still presuppose liberalism (to an extent).

[Rafiq]

Did you acquire knowledge of the roots of Islamism in relation to "capitalistic hegemony" in the video, or might we assume we're all just in tacit agreement about the scary sand people coming from nowhere?

How do Socialists view Islamism? Good on the progressive peoples of the near east fighting them on their own. We'll fight our spawns of darkness and filth and they must fight theirs. We do not succumb to darkness and filth by opportunistic pleas against a great other. This is how the Israeli working class is perpetually doomed. We will not heed their example here in North America and Europe.

[#FF0000]

That's actually what I'm most wondering here: how do socialists view Sharia law and growing forms of religious fundamentalism in general from a dialectical materialistic perspective?

I don't know about a "dialectical materialist" perspective but I think anyone talking about radical Islam has to acknowledge a few things.

1) that what we call "Radical Islam" only because a political force because of Western intervention in the region in the first place. Religious radicals were constantly funded by Washington against secular democratic governments or movements, which were either non-aligned or close with the Soviet Union. Because of decades of western support (direct or indirect through Saudi Arabia or -- in the case of Hamas -- Israel) and the result is that its become an organized and powerful force that can actually take over when power vacuums exist.

2. Radical Islam is not an existential threat to "the West". Islamism will not spread to Europe or the United States. Sharia law will never be established in place in these places. Radical Islam is an opportunistic thing and, I think, works the same way any populist political movement works. It appeals to a lowest common denominator, relies on some kind of identitarian pandering, and really only gains traction in times of deep crisis. It's totally opportunistic and wouldn't catch on with the moderate muslims who live in the US and Europe outside of a handful of alienated individuals.

Radical Islam is "dangerous" to American and European interests, though, because they can't be controlled. That's it.

[Hatshepsut]

I saw this video, and it actually poses a *somewhat* compelling case for tolerating Western capitalistic hegemony:

No. There's never a reason to "tolerate" capitalistic hegemony. Realistically, the Revolutionary Left can't do much about capitalism right now. That situation probably won't last forever. Meanwhile, Islamic extremism poses significant threats but the Islamic radicals can't do much about the existing world order either, and their long-run odds are worse than the Left's because no one outside their peculiar brand of religion likes them.

[John Nada]

Also, the comparison between Christian (I suppose you mean, Western Christians, not Christianity in say Liberia) and Islamic extremists is silly. The worst of Christian fanatics still presuppose liberalism (to an extent).Funny you mention Liberia. Charles Taylor was supported by Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and tried to use Christianity to gain support.

Christian fanatics and other reactionaries in the west may presuppose liberalism at home, but no further. Repeatedly imperalist-capitalism has opposed even basic bourgeois liberalism abroad if it conflicts with their business investments. Even some liberals will try to argue corrupt autocrats like Sisi, the Shah and the Sauds are "enlighten desposts" who stand opposed to Islamism and that the people in the Muslim world are "not fit" for bourgeois-democracy, which is bullshit. Islamists themselves like the Mujahadeen once had the support of the Christian right in the US as a bulwark against Communists. It even has a similar religious interpretation as Evangelical Christians in that both espouse literalism and individual salvation.

So in the bourgeois "democracy" have repeatedly backed petty-bourgeois tyrannts or Islamists over liberal democracy which threatens the interests of imperalist-capitalism. But at the same time, the Islamists have presented themselves as an anti-imperialist force. It's a reaction of the landlord and petit-bourgeoisie, who's anti-imperialism is a sham to maintain their rule over the proletariat and peasantry.

This is something that currently doesn't have a basis in places like the US, thoroughly atop the imperialist system, because it has already happened. Christianity has already had violent religious fanaticism in the form of the Protestant Reformation. The Thirty Year War easily dwarfs anything the Islamists have done in terms of bloodshed.

But reactionaries like Ibrahim of that fake online college are idealists. He sees Islamism as the result of the wrong religion, and exalts the supposed virtues of the White Protestants. His solution is a crusade and subjugation of predominately Muslim countries to the West. Those that Islamism most affects should be attacked and oppressed by imperialism in his view. The solution of Communism is equally bad in his mind, because "totalitarianism". Which is why he joins in on the racist xenophobic attack on refugees and praises dipshits like Viktor Orban and Ben Carson. Totalitarianism is only bad if he disagrees with it, abroad and in service of capital he has no qualms with it.

[Antiochus]

Yes but Christians in the U.S supporting Sisi, the Shah and the Saud family tell you what exactly? That Christianity in the U.S is already fully subsumed by U.S business interests. Which is why Christian fundamentalists could, within the span of 20 years, go from hosting warlords in the White House to labeling the war on terror as a war between "cultures".


Christianity has already had violent religious fanaticism in the form of the Protestant Reformation.

A faulty analogy. The Protestant Reformation was a progressive thing in Europe. This is clearly demonstrated by proto-communist movements like the Germans Peasant's revolt and by openly capitalist sentiment with the "Protestant work ethic". No such thing will come out of Islamism because Islamist restricts basic Capitalist progress and off course, are anathema to any Socialist movement.

Like I said, its clear that Islamism isn't some stand-alone devil ideology. In many ways it is like the old "Christian" parties of Europe. The main point is that Islamism is no threat to the West, there won't be Sharia in Kentucky or some other idiocy like that. But Islamist is most certainly a retardant for any socialist movement in places like Lebanon, where many of the political currents already acknowledge a liberal democracy.

Lastly, the 30 years war can't be understood merely on the basis of a religious conflict. It simply wouldn't make sense for Catholic France to side with the Protestant world only to tell the Huguenots to fuck off a few years later. And given that there weren't any major religious wars after Westphalia, it makes far more sense that the period of violent "religious" warfare, can more accurately be attributed to the consolidation of nation states, primarily the poorer (but more capitalist) northern and Central Europeans against the more centralized, wealthier states of the south (Spain, Aragon, France, Florence etc...).

[ChangeAndChance]

Fuck Dennis Prager. He's your typical maniacal right-wing radio talk show host. His YT channel "Prager University" is his ego-boosting attempt to reach out to the younger generation with well-produced, well-funded videos that spout reactionary bigoted drivel.

http://debigotizer.tumblr.com/post/85735716782/on-prager-university