 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
lotm, it very easily could've turned out worse than under Saddam. For instance, if folks like Cheney had their way we would've installed in power a Ba'athist like Alawi and split. Then the regime would have international legitmization (as in the case of places like Pakistan, Libya, Uzbekistan, and now the Sudan) and the people would still be extremely oppressed, combined with increasing the ranks of the Islamist movement further. And it still might be worse than that if the administration continues to butcher the occupation and sets off a civil war and/or foreign intervention (by, say, rejecting Sistani's demands over elections or continuing to isolate the Sunnis or giving too much or too little autonomy to the Kurds).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
PARSE!!!!!
The argument HRW is raising here is not one based on international law, but whether the invasion of Iraq can be justified on humanitarian grounds, which is what Berman is trying to do. HRW says that the invasion of Iraq fails to meet the test of a humanitarian intervention, irregardless of international law. If it was not a humanitarian intervention, does Berman then have a valid point? At least as regard Iraq, I would argue no.
Further, I disagree with Berman's characterization of the reactionary political movements in Islam as fascism. It shares certain characteristics of fascism, but its class nature is different and its goals are different. Facism is both a forward and backward looking philosophy. It seeks to justify itself in past glory, but it seeks to create a new type of society. It is based largely on declassé workers and ruined middle class types. It is a fundimetnally capitalist movement.
So-called Islamofascism rejects modernity and seeks to return society to a previous (but non-existent) society. It is based largely on the remains of feudal and tribal classes: preists, sheiks, peasants. Unlike fascism, it is neither nationalist nor racial. Finally, it rejects completely capitalism, seeking to restore pre-capitalist relations.
This means that these movements need to be confronted differently. Reactionary clerico-feudalism (my wordy term) needs to be confronted by the left, but that doesn't mean we need t do it by embracing our class enemies in the US government nor allying with the repressive Israeli government.
Both fascism and clerical feudalism are responses to the failure of capitalism to produce an acceptable standard of living. They are both symptoms of capitalism. The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem. This means expanding democracy and rasing standards of living. The left is waging this fight. The misnamed anti-globalization movement is this fight. We show solidarity with the people of the Third World not by dropping bombs on them, but by standing with them against our own government's military and economic attempts to dominate them. |
the problem is not the US government, by and large
instead it is the multinationals, which we have allowed to grow and flourish
these parasites do most of the damage, and the only thing strong enough to take them on now is goverments like the US
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
If the Islamist want to reofrm those lands that are islamic, that is not the same as bringing new lands into thier fold, which is what I see as expansionistic.
|
Im quite sure you understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist. Islamists are a body of people who want to establish Islamic govt, with Sharia at the root the political system. A very large number of muslims oppose this. Within the Islamist community (some of whom may be moderates) a significant minority, who I refer to as Salafi/Jihadis (there is some question as to whether all Salafi muslims really fall into this category) want to establish a pan-Islamic state, with a particularly strict version of Islamic law, which would ban alternative forms of Islam (shia, Sufi, etc) and which would reduce christians and jews to the status of tolerated minorities IE Dhimmis) These folks controlled Afganistan from 1996 or so to 2001. They had substantial influence over the govt of the Sudan prior to 1999. The degree of their past influence over the govt of Pakistan and their current influence in Saudi is a matter of dispute.
When Germany invaded Denmark, was that not expansionism, becuase the Germans saw the Danes as Aryans??? When Italy intervened in Spain, was that not expansionism because Spain was Catholic and Romance speaking, and had a native fascist rebellion going on??
your charecterization of the jihadi movement as "reform" is just silly. (unless you are referring to those islamist who purport to oppose the jihadists, to who I was not referring - their relationship to the jihadist is much like that of some right wing catholic "democrats" to fascists in the 1930s - and just as in the 1930's situation, reasonable people may disagree about them)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well the job HAS been done badly, and yet an arguement can be made ( i hope i dont have to make it in this thread) that the results of the policy will still on balance be positive, though at a greater cost than had the job been done well. And that should we now elect a Democrat who was supportive of the policy (Edwards or Kerry) BUT who will do the REST of the job right, then the odds of a postive outcome increase dramatically. |
democrats have not the stomach for these things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
When Germany invaded Denmark, was that not expansionism, becuase the Germans saw the Danes as Aryans??? When Italy intervened in Spain, was that not expansionism because Spain was Catholic and Romance speaking, and had a native fascist rebellion going on?? |
The danes did not self-define as germans, the facist Spaniards welcomes Italian Intervention, so both your counter-examples don't work. Moderate Muslims still define themselves as Muslims, thus this is a battle within the community of Islam as to which modern interpretations of Islamshould islam follow.
quote:
your charecterization of the jihadi movement as "reform" is just silly. (unless you are referring to those islamist who purport to oppose the jihadists, to who I was not referring - their relationship to the jihadist is much like that of some right wing catholic "democrats" to fascists in the 1930s - and just as in the 1930's situation, reasonable people may disagree about them) |
To "re"form means to change: fine, maybe I should have used a word more commonly associated with violent and dramatic change, but the point is that they seek to change what they condier to be 'THEIR' societies, not to expand their societies-which would be expansion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
PARSE!!!!!
The argument HRW is raising here is not one based on international law, but whether the invasion of Iraq can be justified on humanitarian grounds, which is what Berman is trying to do. HRW says that the invasion of Iraq fails to meet the test of a humanitarian intervention, irregardless of international law. If it was not a humanitarian intervention, does Berman then have a valid point? At least as regard Iraq, I would argue no.
LOTM - i think its more complex than that on both the hrw SIDE, and on Bermans, but i'll let it be as i dont really want to argue the nuances of HRW's position
Further, I disagree with Berman's characterization of the reactionary political movements in Islam as fascism. It shares certain characteristics of fascism, but its class nature is different and its goals are different. Facism is both a forward and backward looking philosophy. It seeks to justify itself in past glory, but it seeks to create a new type of society.
It is based largely on declassé workers and ruined middle class types. It is a fundimetnally capitalist movement.
So-called Islamofascism rejects modernity and seeks to return society to a previous (but non-existent) society.
LOTM - Do you consider Francoism a form of fascism??? That was anti-modernist in a way Italian and German fascism were not. Berman takes the Fascist identiy of Francoism for granted and argues from there. I admit there is some weakness in his argument. I would also suggest that there were some atavistic-mythical elements in German and Italian fascism as well, and of course Islamism has no problem with modern technology - and as you said, the past they seek is mythical (IE its not based on any actual historical muslim society) the difference between islamisms mythical past with technology added, and say Nazism appeal to paganism laced with pseudo-science seems to me a distinction without a difference.
It is based largely on the remains of feudal and tribal classes: preists, sheiks, peasants.
LOTM - there are no priest in islam, and the appeal of the jihadist is largely NOT to tribal sheiks and peasants (outside of the rather bizarre case of the Pashtuns) It is largely to the traditional urban merchant class, which in muslim societies strongly overlaps with the clergy (or ulema - there are parallel social structures in traditional judaism, BTW) and to alienated, underemployed students, and also to under and unemployed urban youths. The differences between the youths and the more conservative ulema have shaped the evolution of the movement and conflicts within it . It is largely an urban phenomemon, esp in Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, etc.
Unlike fascism, it is neither nationalist nor racial.
LOTM - Berman addresses this explicitly, explaining (again using the analogy of Spain) why in some societies fascism would take a relgion based form, rather than a national or racial form)
Finally, it rejects completely capitalism, seeking to restore pre-capitalist relations.
LOTM - it seeks to restore early Islamic relations, which are hardly feudal in the western sense of the term, since trade never died out in the islamic world as it did in the west in the dark ages. It seeks "capitalism with justice" which is not all that different from the purported aims of European fascists. If they have not betrayed the petit bourgeoise to large industrialists as did the Nazis, thats largely because they live in state where the latter are either absent, due to poverty or socialism or both, or where the latter are firmly allied with pro-Western regimes.
The answer is not to attack the symptoms, but attack the problem. This means expanding democracy and rasing standards of living. |
LOTM - worthy goals, but in the meantime the islamist are attacking economic infrastructure - in Egypt they fought a war against the tourist industry, in algeria their success has held back development, etc. encouraging economic developement and democracy cannot be seperated from using force in select instances.
Guevara, you really ought to read Bermans book itself.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2004 00:09
|