Re: Turkey and Islamic Capitalism (with an addenda on the Balkans)

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <Gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Turkey and Islamic Capitalism,
el 30 Jul 00, a las 14:02, Julio Pino dijo:

>
>    In the hope of learning more, Insha Allah, I want to say something
>    that
> I hope stirs up debate. Don't you think that labels such as "left"and
> "right", "liberal" and "conservative", "modernist" and
> "anti-modernist" are useless oversimplifications, or worse yet
> "Orientalist" when it comes to discussing Islamist movements in the
> Third World?

Ah, Julio, but you know the answer beforehand! "Left" and "right"
(meaning progressive, even revolutionary, and conservative, even
reactionary) are rather clear cut categories in central countries,
where struggle against a foreign country is not the central issue of
politics. But down here in the Third World things are so different.
The essential and basic feature here is national struggle, that is
the main divide is between those who are decided to struggle against
foreign control of the country's economy, culture, and State (the
"national" camp) and those who are decided to strengthen that control
(the "antinational, imperialist" camp).

It is WITHIN these two camps that we must search for the Left and the
Right. Formally, one can find a pro-imperialist "left" and a pro-
imperialist "right", as well as a national "left" and a national
"right" in every and each Third World situation. We are Leftists,
even Marxists, so that we tend to believe that we, the Leftists, are
the only torchbearers of Revolution. But are all "Leftists" actually
Leftists (no inverted commas) in such a situation as prevails here?
No, not so. Those "Leftists" who support imperialist intervention
play the game of imperialism, that is are, at best, the "Left of the
Empire" (people who, once they "win", discover that their dreams
never get fulfilled, a bitter but reiterative experience). As to
those "rightists" who belong to the "national" camp, they have an
opportunity to become "leftists" in that if they follow their
struggle to the end, they must confront any force, including those of
the local bourgeoisies. If they don't, then they will turn coats and
move to the pro-imperialist camp.

In this sense, it is very important to understand that the
"imperialist" camp is a closed one, that is, a camp that should not,
by any means, be expanded in order to include people who are of our
dislike. The imperialist camp is that which is led by Western Europe,
the USA and Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan. Any other "expansionist
power" may be anything, but it will certainly NOT be imperialist.
Countries in the Third World that have a possibility to become
hegemonic and to amalgamate opposition against imperialism are
usually termed "imperialist" or "subimperialist" by --the imperialist
press!

This happened with Argentina under Perón, with Egypt under Nasser,
with Brazil under the dictatorships of the late 60s and the 70s
(which, as compared to their Argentinian counterparts, were much more
independent from the will of the USA in the deep sense of politics,
as it came to be demonstrated during the 80s and 90s), and, of
course, of Milosevic's Serbia. This "Serbian imperialism", an
imperialism without a strong currency, an imperialism without an
occupation army, an imperialism without the control of the main
technological advances in the world, an imperialism without goals of
planetary dominance, an imperialism which, during the age in which it
succeeded in "controlling a colonial backyard" had the queer result
that the "colonies" were better off than the center, this kind of
thing is a red herring, dear comrades. And I am telling so even
though this red herring is advanced by such a respected comrade as
Anton Holberg, who has given this point of view on L-I.


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
NUEVA DIRECCIÓN ELECTRÓNICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000
NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx