Re: marxism-digest V1 #4029

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:38:19 -0400, Mike Friedman wrote:
>Whose class aspirations are embodied in these or
>any "manifestations" of Islamic fundamentalism?
>By the way, a good look at E.P. Thompson's "The
>Making of the English Working Class" might be in
>order if you're interested in whose class
>interests were involved and expressed in the
>various religious, millenarial and 'cultural'
>movements of late 18th and early 19th century
>England.

I am not sure it makes sense to compare England and Afghanistan. It
helps to look at the concrete economic and social circumstances of
each situation. England was a nation forged over a half-century, with
a common language and traditions. The more I read about Afghanistan,
the more I learn that it is not much of a nation. It has distinct
linguistic groups, etc. This was the main explanation for the
internecine warfare that consumed the country after the Russians were
kicked out. It was also the main reason the Taliban were welcomed,
although highly critically. As members of the Pushtun nationality,
they provided a kind of national identity. Of course, there was a lot
of bad baggage that went along with it. But I suppose any group of
orphans educated in religious high schools in Pakistan who have
experienced nothing but warfare for the entire life would fall short
of an example like the Fabian Society.

>But, as I read it, Islamism as
>practiced in Iran, Aphganistan, Saudi Arabia,
>etc., is a vehicle for the colonial bourgeoise
>to express its aspirations and assure stability
>for its reproduction, at the expense of women,
>trade unionists, other religious groupings,
>minorities, etc.

The only problem with this analysis is that excludes contradictions
between the colonial subject and the oppressor nation. In a very
uneven fashion, radical Islam is expressing the class resentments of
people in Pakistan, etc. Let me repeat from Saturday's NY Times, who
seems to be tuned into this even though some of us are not:

>>This crowd also appeared different from previous ones. It was not
trucked in, for effect, as some past crowds had been, but seemed to
filter in from all over the city.

Some came straight from work as janitors, cooks, vendors, furniture
makers and more, a cross section of working men who said they
believed that Mr. bin Laden was a champion of Islam, if not more.

"Osama talks to Allah," said Midrarul Haq, a janitor.

Mr. Haq said he hated the United States. "Why are they so upset?" he
asked of the Americans. "Five thousand, six thousand killed. How many
did you kill in Iraq? Do you think only Americans are people? We are
people, too. But we are poor, so you do not treat us as people."

But what some people in the capital had feared might ratchet into a
major confrontation between anti- American demonstrators and the
Pakistani police passed without any significant violence.

One man in the crowd, Abdullah Saeed, picked out Americans and warned
them. "You have two days," he said, but would not elaborate. "We will
live with Osama," he said. "We will die with Osama."

Such demonstrations begin with noon prayers, and usually finish in a
few hours. Here, the demonstrators lingered until 5 p.m. Only then
did the streets return to normal.

Vendors sold dates and pastries, instead of pictures of Mr. bin
Laden. Steel riot doors that had been slammed down to guard shops
when the demonstrators gathered clanked open, for some late Friday
business. Men and boys squatted on the asphalt, poking through piles
of cheap watches, cassette tapes, jewelry.

It was as though the demonstration had never been. The only things
clutched in the fingers of little boys were cobs of roasted corn,
sesame cookies or a father's hand.<<

> Historically, to the degree
>that such ideologies (nationalism)
>sought to defend their 'national' accumulation
>of capital vis a vis imperialism, they
>encompassed progressive demands, demands in the
>interest of working people, such as freedom of
>organization. But, remember that Islamism has
>gained a foothold either on the bankrupcy of
>neocolonial bourgeois nationalism or in a
>vacuum., its inability to consolidate "the
>Nation." Bin Laden's demagoguery (and he needs
>all the support he can get, of course he's going
>to appeal to the masses) notwithstanding,
>Islamism has nothing of the broad social content
>of the earlier bourgeois nationalism.

In fact radical Islam has risen because bourgeois nationalism in the
region stretching from Algeria to Indonesia has not really performed
very well. The bankruptcy of the FLN in Algeria to the Indonesian
generals has incited popular revolt. Not in the name of progressive
or socialist values, but a cry from the masses nevertheless. If we
can't identify the class nature of this revolt, then we will be in a
poor position to provide alternative leadership.


--
Louis Proyect, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx on 10/08/2001

Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org


=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message