Re: Economics of Islam

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Colin,
     I have no disagreement with anything you
say here.
     I would note that part of the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism had to do with the perceived
failure of secular socialist movements to counter
domination by the U.S. and certain European
powers successfully.  Thus, several decades ago
secular and socialist Arab nationalist movements
were very strong (I realize that the Arab world does
not contain a majority of the world's Muslims).
This was symbolized by Nasser in Egypt, which
even today is more socialist than capitalist, if one
measures this by the share of the capital stock
that is owned by the state, even after a wave of
privatizations.
     Such regimes continue, at least officially, in Syria
and Iraq, despite their nationalist rivalry, both ruled
by wings of the Ba'ath party.  But, since the collapse
of the Soviet Union these regimes have lost ideological
steam.  During the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein made
subtle appeals to Islamic fundamentalists and scattered
alliances with them as well.  But the revulsion by Osama
bin Laden for him tells the story, despite the link between
them due to the placing of U.S. troops in Sa'udi 'Arabia
to keep Saddam out.
      A final sign of the shift is in the Palestinian movements,
where Arafat's al-Fatah and umbrella PLO have increasingly
been superseded by Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist
groups.  Al-Fatah and the PLO are remnants of the old
secular and socialist Arab nationalist movements, now weakened.
      BTW, there is an excellent editorial column in today's
Wall Street Journal by Bernard Lewis.  No complaints with
this one by me at all.  It also gives an idea why he is probably
the single most respected figure in U.S. academia on the
history of Islam.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Danby" <danbyc@xxxxxxx>
To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "Post Keynesian Thought"
<pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Economics of Islam


> Dear Barkley,
>
> >      By "the West" I mean specifically those powers
> > in the West that exercised colonial or imperialist
> > control in the Middle East (is this an acceptable term
> > for you?).  That would include UK, France, and the
> > United States, although arguably could include some
> > other powers as well.  I think it is a waste of time
> > to specifically list countries when a reference to
> > imperialist conduct clearly indicates certain countries.
> > The discussion involved "imperialist conduct," both
> > in Lewis' article and in my remarks.
>
> I'm sure we can both agree that the category needs to be handled with some
> care, especially when cultural attributes are attributed to it.  This is
> probably the most basic logical problem with Lewis -- the way "The West"
and
> "western civilization" are treated as obvious categories and never
seriously
> questioned.
>
> >     I am a fan of Said's book, _Orientalism_ and well
> > aware of its arguments.  But, just because Said
> > criticized the use of certain terms does not mean
> > therefore that they are useless.  His book is not
> > perfect either, brilliant as it is.
>
> Nor have I said it is.  Said has been very carefully and usefully
critiqued
> within the field of Post Colonial studies.
>
> >       Your remarks here suggest that you are capable
> > of a serious critique of Lewis's article.  So far, I have
> > not seen one.  You are welcome to try.  I agree that
> > "pretty good" is vague, but I disagree that it is empty.
> > I have already provided my own disagreement with
> > Lewis.  I think that the current Wah'habist fundamentalist
> > movements are not "anti-modern."  Rather, they
> > advocate what I and my wife have labeled in print, the
> > "new traditional" economy.
>
> We both seem to agree that traditional|modern is a misleading dichotomy.
I'll
> look for your work on this.
>
> > Would you like to read the
> > sources I provided on that and engage this in a serious
> > manner?
>
> If somebody wants to state a clear proposition relevant to PK theory I'm
happy
> to engage it here.  I have not found this list, in the past, to be a
useful
> place for discussing matters falling well outside PK theory, which is why
I
> have been a little circumspect in characterizing Lewis here e.g. I said
> "problematic" not "noxious."
>
> Let me sketchily suggest one area that might be amenable to PK analysis.
> Another logical flaw in Lewis' article is that arguments around
"imperialism"
> are dealt with by turning "imperialism" into a strange, caricatured
category
> -- half attitude, half past history -- which then lets Lewis demolish it
as a
> plausible issue.  What's missing is a sense of the way long-term and
ongoing
> U.S. support for what one might (loosely) call
> secular-military-developmentalist governments in places like Pakistan,
Egypt,
> and Turkey might have contributed to the way that oppositional politics
within
> civil society has drawn on political derivatives of Islam.  Part of this
story
> is surely the way these national economies have developed (most obviously
> Egypt's over the last 3 decades) under U.S. tutelage.
>
> At a broad level, we're arguably looking at the historical fallout from
> containment.  (There, I managed to link it all back to Russia!)
>
> > Or are you going to confuse remarks directed
> > at talk radio bigots
>
> I have no idea where this comes from Barkley.  I have indicated precisely
what
> I was responding to using the standard e-mail quoting conventions.  You
> persist in reading me into some other conversation.
>
> Best, Colin
>
> > with a serious article by a great
> > scholar like Lewis (and, yes, he is a great scholar, even
> > if one disagrees with him)?  Maybe this is not what you
> > intended to do.  But it certainly appeared that you did.
> > Barkley Rosser
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Colin Danby" <danbyc@xxxxxxx>
> > To: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>; "pkt"
> > <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Economics of Islam
> >
> > > Hi Barkley,
> > >
> > > >   I think the Lewis article is pretty good.  He
> > > > does not refer to "Islamic nations" as you imply
> > > > below, but to "Muslim nations."
> > >
> > > I did not imply that.  I was responding to the Mason Clark's post
> > > (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00493.html), and in my
> > response
> > > (http://csf.Colorado.EDU/forums/pkt/2001III/msg00501.html) I carefully
> > quoted
> > > the use of  the phrase "Islamic nations" *by* Clark, with a little
">".
> > How
> > > much clearer would you like me to be?
> > >
> > > > The former are
> > > > those that impose a shari'a form of Islamic
> > > > law as for example in Iran.  Lewis is well aware
> > > > of such distinctions.
> > > >       He did not mention the reimposition of the Shah
> > > > or the shelling of Lebanon.  But he did agree that
> > > > the West had behaved in an imperialistic manner
> > > > toward both the Muslim and Arab worlds.
> > > >       Most of the discussion in the article you cited
> > > > is directed at ignorami on talk radio, not Lewis, a
> > > > great scholar of Islam, whatever Said might say.
> > >
> > > Said's critique is directed at how issues are framed (among other
things
> > his
> > > work questions the very stability and coherence of your category "the
> > West").
> > > Said's critique does not preclude the possibility that Lewis knows a
lot
> > of
> > > things.  As I said in my last message this is not something that can
be
> > > discussed via soundbites, which is why I will not respond to your
empty
> > > "pretty good."
> > >
> > > Best, Colin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> ____________________________________________
> Colin Danby
> Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
> University of Washington, Bothell
> (425) 352-5285
> fax (425) 352-5335
> danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.bothell.washington.edu/IAS/danby/
> ____________________________________________
>
>
>