|
WB: A Different Kind of Cluelessness, Part II
Billmon:
Like all polices, our relentless promotion of stability in the Middle East had a price, and now we’re paying it.
In that sense, if no other, America is "responsible" for the rise of what Shrub likes to call Islamofascism. His own rhetoric about democratization (a.k.a. the "forward strategy of freedom") implicitly recognizes this. It’s an effort, albeit a hopelessly naive and contradictory one, to address a problem that Will has decided simply doesn’t exist — that is, outside the blogosphere’s "fog of paranoia."
A Different Kind of Cluelessness, Part II
@John Francis Lee:
Myrdal says what I have been trying to say on other threads more eloquently.
But then there is also this:
It is evident that Moslem – Islamist if you want to express it that way – groups have taken the lead in large areas of the world. To a large part it is because important segments of the intellectual Left decayed as revolutionaries (their social background was often from the middle classes), became co-opted to the Compradore class and lost their legitimacy as representatives of the oppressed masses. But remember that the present Islamist movements conduct the struggle against United States imperialism for religious reasons. That has to be understood.
Here Myrdal either misses, or sanitizes, the point. Myrdal frames the choice for revolutionary change as having to come from either religion or the “intellectual left” — but that is a completely false choice, for it misses the actual class relations of revolutionary struggle.
It is equally as true that many of the chattering heads of the so-called “intellectual left” had some sort of connection with revolutionary movements, as it is true that the neo-cons started out as Trotskyites. But to rise in the ranks, to become noticed, all of these so-called “intellectual leftists” has to become co-opted by power — for it is that very co-optation that makes one attractive to the centers of capital. These are the intellectuals today that Edward Hermann calls the “Cruise Missle Left,” the type of intellectuals that run around waving nonsense like the Euston Manifesto, the Marc Coopers and Todd Gitlins of the world.
But revoutionary change NEVER came from that bunch of bumpkins. It always came from below, from the workers and laborers, from the unionists.
There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism.
Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers’ organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized.
Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds.
In other words (until Bookchin offered a modern alternative to understanding class interests), there were essentially three main alternatives to capitalism, and all of them had their roots in organizations of workers, and later, trade unionism. And it was these organizations, this unity among workers, that was so much of a threat to the interests of capital.
Let’s look at the US, and the case of Eugene V. Debs. Debs was a unionist of a fairly conservative union, as all the railroad unions initially were (cf. Edgar Nixon, mentor of Martin Luther King*), who was jailed for his part in the Pullman strike. It was only in jail that he began reading and became a socialist. He ended up running for President five times, once garnering 6% of the total vote. How did the government treat such a man?
On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I, and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted, sentenced to serve twenty years in prison and disenfranchised for life.
Debs made his best-remembered statement at his sentencing hearing:
“Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
His final run for president was in the 1920 election, while in prison in Atlanta, Georgia. He received 913,664 votes (3.4%), the most ever for a Socialist Party presidential candidate in the U.S.
The same situation exists all over the world. It is unionists, by and large, that are persecuted, not pompous intellectuals. Look at the cases of Greece and Italy after WWII, when the US was concerned that the communists would win control — they went after the unionists. The same throughout Central America. And today, the country with the most killed unionists — almost half the world’s total — is the stalwart US ally, Columbia.
And how did the the capitalist elite seek to neutralize the power of labor? It has always been the same solution — through alliances with faith-based religons of all sorts: nativist, fundamentalist, charismatic, evangelical,and millenial.
What Bush is doing, in the cynical alliance between business and wing-nuts, is not original in the least; he is following tried-and-true examples. Again, look at the alliance between the fascist and post-fascist Italians and the church.
Let’s get back to the rise of Moslem – Islamist movements. These movements are complex in nature and have many motivations. But at their core, whether we ascribe the motivations to religion or not, they all represent a rejection of the capitalist model of development.
This is the point where a cynical alliance which has worked successfully throughout the ages in so-called “developed” countries, has backfired in the less capitalized countries.
With the general persecution of trade unionists, religion has functioned as a safe harbor where the very same forces could shelter themselves, cloak themselves in the sentiments of the masses, and gain the moral stature that only religion can confer.
It is in this sense that one can see many openings for resistance to capitalism with the so-called “Moslem – Islamists.” And Nasrallah, always the pragnatist, proves that he has learned the lessons of the struggles of Central America and “Liberation Theology” in his recent interview.
Let us examine the case of Iraq. From Wikipedia:
Saddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi’ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant. Stable rule in a country rife with factionalism required the improvement of living standards. Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba’ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country’s major domestic problems and expanding the party’s following.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq’s oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam Hussein oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country’s oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 world oil shock, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the “National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy” and the campaign for “Compulsory Free Education in Iraq,” and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). [12] [13].
To diversify the oil-dependent economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq’s energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Before the 1970s, most of Iraq’s people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970’s as the country ploughed much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused intensely on fostering loyalty to the Ba’athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[4] The Ba’athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government’s commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels Saddam had hoped for.
Saddam became personally associated with Ba’athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of “carrot and stick” tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy.
Saddam’s organizational prowess was credited with Iraq’s rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.
In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. At the time Saddam was considered an enemy of communism and radical Islamism. Saddam was integral to U.S. policy in the region, a policy which sought to weaken the influence of Iran and the Soviet Union.
All of Saddam’s socialist, or pan-arab Baathist tentencies were countenanced by US capital interests as a way of countering the influence of the Soviet Union in the region. At the same time, Saddam was ruthless towards Iraqi communists, and unionists who contested his power.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, Iraq’s development was no longer needed as an attractive counter to Communist tendencies. Instead, the Iraqi model of development became a threat to Western interests leading to the Gulf War, the embargo, the invasion and the current state of affairs.
After the Gulf War, Saddam hung on to power in the same way that Bush does, by appealing to religion:
Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions, together with the resulting postwar devastation, laid the groundwork for new rebellions within the country. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi’a Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam’s government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi’a southern and central parts of Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed. In 2005 the BBC reported that as many as 30,000 persons had been killed during the 1991 uprisings [19].
The United States, which had urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, did nothing to assist the rebellions beyond enforcing the “no fly zones”. U.S. ally Turkey opposed any prospect of Kurdish independence, and the Saudis and other conservative Arab states feared an Iran-style Shi’a revolution. Saddam, having survived the immediate crisis in the wake of defeat, was left firmly in control of Iraq, although the country never recovered either economically or militarily from the Persian Gulf War. Saddam routinely cited his survival as “proof” that Iraq had in fact won the war against America. This message earned Saddam a great deal of popularity in many sectors of the Arab world.
Saddam increasingly portrayed himself as a devout Muslim, in an effort to co-opt the conservative religious segments of society. Some elements of Sharia law were re-introduced (such as the 2001 edict imposing the death penalty for homosexuality, rape and prostitution, the legalization of “honor killings” and the ritual phrase “Allahu Akbar” [“God is the greatest”], in Saddam’s handwriting, was added to the national flag.).
Now, let’s examine Saddam’s, and Iraq’s, relation to communism:
What is a significant, and mostly overlooked, aspect of the Iraqi political landscape is the relatively strong revolutionary communist parties in Iraq. As one of the most highly educated countries in the Middle East Iraq has been a breeding ground for Marxists since the days of Kassem. The Ba’ath Party came to power with American approval precisely because they were an anti-Communist organization, and have taken strong action to fight Communists in Iraq over the years. The Communists of Iraq have historically presented some of the strongest opposition to the Saddam regime.
I believe that one of the major, and unspoken, elements of American policy towards Iraq is, and has been, that the last thing that America wants is a natural regime change in Iraq that comes from within the Iraqi borders, because there is a significant chance that regime change could mean the formation of a Democratic Communist government in Iraq.
Saddam has been wary of this as well, and it is one reason that he changed from his secular approach to government to one that supported fundamentalist Islam.
Iraq has traditionally been one of the most, if not the most, secular country in the Middle East. This is one reason that Osama Bin Laden has been largely at odds with Iraq and Saddam over the years.
Some of the most advanced opposition groups to Saddam’s rule are now the communist parties of Iraq. You never hear anything about this in American coverage though. Certainly no one wants to give the impression that we are going to Iraq to potentially liberate communists.
A primary, and unspoken, issue that America has with Kurdish support is that there are significant Communist factions within the Kurdish people. To a large degree many of the democratic ideas present in the Kurdish ranks come not from American role models, but from Marxism.
This is one of the reasons why America’s support of the Kurds has been dubious.
This is also, I believe, a reason why the Bush administration and the PNAC, have decided to take a leading role in the transformation of Iraq. They want to make sure that the new Iraqi government is formed to fit Americans ideals, not Communist ideals.
In many ways, Iraq is the Germany of the Middle East. Those who understand German history will know what I mean. Prior to WWII it was apparent that Germany was the key to Europe. If Germany went Communist, then it was likely that all of Europe would have been swept with a wave of Communism. If Germany went fascist it was felt that Europe would go fascist, which it did try to do.
I think that there is an element of the same fear here. Iraq is certainly a key to the Middle East, at least it was prior to Desert Storm, but it still is.
Now that Iraq has been trampled by 12 years of sanctions Iraq is in the position that Cuba was in when Castro took control of Cuba, with nowhere to go but up. This means that if a democratic communist party took a significant role in Iraq with the fall of Saddam that America could be looking at a new rise of communism.
Of course many will say that this is doubtful and that I’m stretching here. Possibly, secular communism would certainly have a hard time against the rising Islamic tides in the Middle East, but a religiously tolerant communist system really would not have a hard time.
What is even more important about this is that the Kurds represent a significant population in Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. The rise of Kurdish political power is seen by Turkey at least as a threat to its own interests, and as an ally of the United States Turkey’s interests in the Kurdish situation have always been taken into consideration in America’s dealing with the Kurds.
What is more important is that if a democratic communist Kurdistan were to develop, its likely that a rising tide of communism would become significant in Syria and Turkey.
So, I believe that the Bush administration, and anyone else who is anti-communist but actually savvy in Middle Eastern politics, has an interest in America taking a hand in shaping the new Iraqi regime. This means of course that the Iraqis won’t be left to develop their own system, and that it’s likely that America will continue to play a significant role in the Iraqi political system for years to come. It’s also likely that there will be significant anti-communist actions taking place in Iraq once American regime change takes place. This is a reason why many Iraqis are not fond of American involvement and want America to leave immediately. Not just because of communism, but also those that are Islamic fundamentalists. Both know that America will not represent their desires.
What is likely to make a resolution of the political situation difficult in Iraq is that we now have basically 30 years of pent up political oppression in Iraq. This means that many radically different groups are waiting for their chance to make their impact and have their say. It’s not likely that America will entertain these notions. I think that anyone can guess how much of a fair treatment America will give to Communist Party leaders during new government establishment and reforms processes.
Of course Islamic Fundamentalism is also something that American policy makers want to make sure does not work its way into a new Iraqi government, but Islamic Fundamentalism is not as strong in Iraq as it is in other Middle Eastern regions, though it is still a significant political force in Iraq.
The Statement of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq on the Fascist Baath Regime
With the entry of American and British troops into the center of Baghdad at noon this day, the fascist Baath regime has uttered it last words. Now, regime is ousted, a major obstacle has been rubbed from the way of masses’ liberation in Iraq, but the expense is a gloomy future that the masses encounter in Iraq.
The collapse of this barbaric regime has not been an outcome of the struggle of working masses and toilers who are after welfare, life, freedoms, and happiness, but an outcome of the US missiles and bombs, the most barbaric massacre and the operation of mass annihilation whose victims are thousands of the innocents children, elderly, women and men who all have no guilt in what is happening. Millions have been displaced and have held their breaths for weeks due to devastating and ghastly horror. The collapse has occurred on the expense of destroying the infrastructure of the society and its economic pillars and edging it toward the whirlpool of chaos and insecurity. Such an outcome will not achieve the noble masses’ expectations which they have shed blood to enjoy for decades.
The USA is not the “ liberator” of masses in Iraq. It is not the masses’ “ savior”. The collapse of the Baath regime is a yield of a reactionary war waged by America to enthrall the world and impose its hegemony on it. This collapse can not be considered a victory for the masses in Iraq. The USA and its allies have brought this regime to stand against communism and workers, freedom and equality, left and radicalism, and the efforts for a better life during the Cold War. They had backed him and strengthened his espionage and suppressive institutions. They had trained his criminal gangs. They had disregarded his crimes, operations of annihilation and bloodbaths. They have aligned in the regime’s trenches against the struggle of the masses in Iraq for liberation and equality. They had helped it live longer by imposing the economic sanction on the masses in Iraq, fettered their will and blown all their struggle efforts to present them handcuffed to the teeth of this barbaric regime. The USA is responsible of the death of more than a million of peoples in Iraq due to the oppressive sanctions. Getting rid of the USA, its ominous role, its existence and the total of its plans and projects are an obvious goal declared by emanicepatory masses in Iraq and all over the world for decades.
Because of its excessive recklessness, the USA blatantly talks about a military interim government to rule Iraq and openly deny the masses’ right of determining their political destiny and their expected political rule. America does not refrain from supporting nationalist, religious tribal and sectarian militias and groups, ex-hirelings of the fascist Baath regime and its ex-generals such as Al khazrajy, Al Samerrae and Al Jobory and nominates them as the bases of future government in Iraq disregarding the masses’ opinions and against their will. The USA has no problem in handing the responsibility of ruling Basra and Amara to sheikhs whom society had swept since decades. The government, the pentagon is after, is not the representative of masses in Iraq as much as the case with the Baath regime. It enjoys no legitimacy and must unconditionally and immediately withdraw.
The Worker-communist Party of Iraq seeks to build a socialist republic by establishing the authority of masses’ councils and calls on the masses to organize in councils to take the initiative. At the same time WCPI demand the US and UK troops withdraw immediately from Iraq and that the UN is held responsible of security in the Iraqi cities, the safety of civilians and ensuring a free political circumstances that give masses in Iraq the capability and freedom to determine their expected political rule.
WCPI calls on all libertarians all over the world and humanity advocates – ahead of them the million forces that have taken to streets against the war on Iraq to defend the banner of the Party, support the masses’ demands which are establishing a just, free and equal society and the priority is the right to choose their political alternative freely.
No to the US and UK troops in Iraq!
No to the US alternative!
Yes for the socialist republic!
The Worker-communist Party of Iraq
April 9,2003
Iraqi Political parties:
http://www.politicalresources.net/kurdistan.htm
For more on the Iraqi and Kurdish communist parties see:
The Iraqi Communist Party:
http://www.iraqcp.org/framse1/
Worker-Communist Party of Iraq:
http://www.wpiraq.org/english/
Kurdish Women Communist Conference
http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/kurd-l/1996.Nov/0016.html
The Kurdish factions which we support are the most fascistic, those who spent years fighting the forces of communism and socialism within their own ranks.
It is notable that with the American invasion, the persecution of trade unionists and communists only increased:
A trade unionist is murdered. But where are the voices of the left in condemnation?
A campaigning left is the only force that offers real hope on some of the biggest issues confronting the world
Johann Hari http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=544
The Independent
7 January 2005
source
When he was 21 years old, Hadi Salih was seized from his home in Baghdad by Saddam Hussein’s secret police and summarily sentenced to death. His crime? Forming a trade union and campaigning for decent wages and basic health and safety conditions.
Amazingly, Salih survived. After five years in an Iraqi dungeon, his death sentence was commuted to permanant exile. He never gave up campaigning against Baathism and – although he opposed the recent war because of the civilian casualties it would cause – he headed home the moment Saddam was toppled.
Salih quickly became the leading figure in the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), one of 12 trade union organisations formed in Iraq over the past two years. He knew that no society has needed trade unions more than Iraq does right now. Trade unions are a secular space where it doesn’t matter if you are Sunni, Shia or Christian; they provide an opportunity to bridge sectarian divides and unite in a common democratic cause. Even more importantly, trade unions are the only way for Iraqis to resist the IMF programme of “shock therapy” and corporate rule being imposed undemocratically (with the support of the British and US governments) on their country.
Speaking a few months ago, Salih expressed his hope that trade unions could play the same role in regenerating Iraq that they played in post-war Japan. “The labour movement in Japan has been fighting for their country and for social justice for 50 years. If they can do it, we can too. That is why, despite everything, I am enthusiastic.” He had already recruited over 300, 000 members.
On Tuesday night, a masked gang broke into Salih’s home in Baghdad. They bound him hand and foot and they blindfolded him. They beat and they burned his flesh. Once they had finished torturing him, they strangled him with an electric cord. As a final touch, they riddled his body with bullets.
Salih’s close friend Abdullah Muhsin, the international representative of the IFTU, told me yesterday, “He was an ordinary but a very decent man. He worked in the print industry in Iraq and in exile, and the passion of his life was Iraqi workers and their desire to live as free people. And now I hear people describe his murderers as ‘the resistance’. Resistance to what? To trade unions? To a decent man who loved his family and loved Iraq and wanted his country to be free? They cannot silence Salih. They cannot silence the Iraqi trade unions. Not again.”
The IFTU has reported a pattern of attacks on trade union offices and trade union members. The murder of Salih bears all the hallmarks of Saddam’s Mukhabarat – the Baathist KGB. Whatever you thought about the justice of the recent war in Iraq – and there were plenty of good reasons to oppose it – the only decent path now is to stand with a majority of Iraqis against the murderers of Salih and dozens of other Iraqi trade unionists.
Yet – I can’t believe I’m saying this – a significant portion of the left is not standing with them. John Pilger – who says he has “seldom felt as safe in any country” as when he visited Saddam’s Iraq – now openly supports the resistance on the grounds that “we can’t afford to be choosy”. The Stop the War Coalition passed a resolution recently saying the resistance should use “any means necessary” – which prompted Mick Rix, a decent trade unionist, to resign from the STWC on the grounds that this clearly constituted support for the murder of civilians. George Galloway has attacked the IFTU as “quislings” and described the tearful descriptions of one of their members of life under Saddam as “a party trick”.
A few months ago, Subdhi al-Mashadani, a representative of the IFTU, came to speak at the European Social Forum in London. This is a really important gathering of left-wing campaign groups who fight on issues nobody else in the political spectrum stands up for: defending refugees, opposing the sale of weapons to tyrants, ending the international drug patenting rules that are killing hundreds of thousands of Africans, and much more. So you would expect the international left to welcome him and hear him politely.
But he was an Iraqi who didn’t restrict his comments to the need for occupation troops to leave once a democratic election has been held. He also insisted on talking about the nature of the Sunni “resistance” – one of the most reactionary political forces anywhere on earth, consisting of homicidal misogynists, homophobes and supporters of Sharia law. The audience at the Social Forum booed and hissed him so loudly that he had to leave the stage.
I know that right now the international left is a relatively small force, and it might seem odd to dedicate valuable space to the direction of this movement when much more powerful forces are ravaging Iraq. But I believe that, in the long term, a campaigning left is the only force that offers real hope on some of the biggest issues confronting the world: man-made climate change, nuclear weapons, extending worker’s rights and meaningful democracy, and reforming the disastrous IMF and World Bank, to name just a few. If this force is hijacked by the likes of Galloway and those who vilify trade unionists emerging from the rubble of a tyranny, then there really is no hope at all.
Some of the most honourable and consistent left-wing opponents of the war have already spoken out about this. Peter Tatchell, for example, explains: “Sections of progressive opinion are wavering in their defence of universal human rights. Many leftists now support a ‘resistance’ that would bring to power Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists. Is that what the left should stand for? Neo-fascism, so long as it is anti-western?”
The Labour MP Harry Barnes knew Salih. He told me yesterday: “This brutal murder is a wake-up call for any on the left who still have illusions about the ‘resistance’. It was one thing to oppose the war, as I did on every occasion in the Commons – but we have moved beyond that debate. We may not like how we have got here but those on the left who do not give urgent and increased solidarity to the Iraqi trade unions will be damned by history.”
It is time for this decent left to reassert itself. The situation in Iraq is extremely volatile, and even small political shifts can have a large impact right now. For example, the (mostly peaceful) Shia rebellion managed to bring the elections forward. A strong trade union movement could help to make the result of that election meaningful.
And there is something practical that everybody who cares about Iraqis can do about it. The TUC has set up an online donation service for the Iraqi Trade Unions at http://www.tuc.org.uk/international. If just 5 per cent of the people who marched against the war supported the Iraqi labour movement now with their wallets, we could strengthen the hands of Iraqi democrats at a turning point in their country’s history.
This isn’t about supporting the occupying forces. It’s about supporting ordinary Iraqis trying to get beyond Saddam and beyond the occupation. Do it for the Iraqi people. Do it for Hadi Salih.
Of course, it is much more probable that the attacks on Unionists are to be blamed on false-flag death squads under the direction of Negroponte’s stormtroopers, employing the same “El Salavador” option that they employed on trade unionists throughout Central America, than it is likely that the persecuted religious Sunni tribalists of Ar-Ramadi and Al-Fallujah of the “Sunni Triangele” are mounting an organized campaign against unionists. That doesn’t make sense.
Yet this myth has suceeded in dividing the left, much as it has divided people here.
Nasrallah recognizes this, and he recognizes the potential damage that such a rift could pose to the resisitance to the interests of global capital.
He very wisely seeks to pro-actively defuse such a rift, while enlarging the movement of resistance with his latest statement.
He seeks to wrest religion away from being a cynical tool of capital — and then marry these interests in a partnership with the true left. This is a very powerful and winning combination.
Myrdal should recognize this marriage for the force it represents — a force strong enough and broad enough to beat back the depredations of global capital, and not denigrate the religious component.
The same left that once warmly embraced “Liberation Theology” in Central America, now racistly rejects any role for religion in the Arab world.
This is wrong.
****************
* One could say that the catastrophic move from rail-based transportation to road based in the US was in part an attempt to undercut the power of the rail unions in fostering social change, and replace them with the corrupt and far more controllable teamsters.
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 18 2006 15:17 utc | 34
I’m glad that’s what it means in German. Where I come from it generally means you ate some bad food and people should give you some space.
I just re-read what I posted. I can’t believe that it took me so much space to make a few simple points. Anyway, I still agree with most of what I said.
I think the closed system problem is resolvable. The militant wing is absolutely closed, as you say. But everything I’ve read about the diplomatic/political wing indicates that it is quite open to making all sorts of practical alliances. This is one area where they have my respect.
On empowered humans giving themselves up for a cause, there is this quote from Malraux’s “Man’s Fate”:
“You know the phrase: ‘It takes nine months to make a man, and a single day to kill him.’ We both know this as well as one can know it… May, listen: it does not take nine months, it takes fifty years to make a man, fifty years of sacrifice, of will, of… of so many things! And when this man is complete, when there is nothing left in him of childhood, nor of adolescence, when he is really a man — he is good for nothing but to die.”
Life is finite, and we are, all of us, giving our lives up for a cause, whether we realize it or not.
In the West, the cause is purposefully hazy and ill-defined, but it might be stated as somewhat like this:
“I take for granted that I live in an environment of abundance.
I reserve the right to take for myself whatever I want, whenever I want. Often, this will consist of things I believe I need to ‘complete’ myself, or to temporarily sate my endless craving which this environment of abundance perpetually induces: A trip to Nepal, a set of Scottish Dress Tartans, the shiny new car I dreamed about, another child, the daily newspaper, a cellphone, plastic doo-dads, a pound of cherries in winter.
Each moment is a craving, and each craving is an opportunity for self-realization through satisfaction. This is the cause to which I will devote my life.
I understand that this cause is a game of my own invention, but I also understand that realizing this does not make this cause less of a game to devote myself to.
Not spending time pursuing these random cravings will be construed as depression; as failing to live for the cause, failure to play the game.
I reserve the right to spend most of my time in varying states of unconsciousness — drinking, watching TV and movies, masturbating, dieting, exercising, reading fashion magazines, being self-involved — because the endless pursuit of gratification IS exhausting, unsateble, and ultimately, meaningless.
I reserve the right to remain willfully ignorant about the consequences that my quest may have on others, in the first, second, or third worlds, directly or indirectly.
Any awareness of these consequences, any knowledge which enables me to see beyond the dimensions of my box, may be infinitely painful.
Therefore, I reserve the right to invent a religion which will justify my actions, my complicity in this game, and numb this pain. New Age beliefs like, “I am responsible for my own happiness and prosperity” are particularly effective because they maintain and justify my enveloping self-involvement, and put the onus on other’s failures for their own suffering and immiseration.
I understand that life is finite and infinitely precious, but I will set aside this knowledge so that I can pursue this game with all my heart and all my soul, until the moment of my death.
In this way, I will be giving my life up to the higher cause, and society will greatly respect me for playing this game as hard as I can.”
I am only being slightly facetious when I suggest that this is the cause that most of us live for in the West.
Compared to that, any cause which puts aside our own gratification for the benefit of others is completely freeing, yet unifying and meaningful. The Buddhists call this the “Bodhisatva vow,” understanding the insatiable nature of craving, and putting aside own enlightenment for that of others.
The struggle, the search, the real meaning of the word jihad, is not in some ultimate final victory — that is the lowest level of understanding — rather, it is in this PROCESS of searching, of giving, of struggling, of overcoming the self, and uniting with the greater world.
This is not only A vital function, it is THE vital function of life — overcoming our limited selves, our past, and uniting with others.
Western capitalist society throws us a real curveball by elevating self-gratification above all else. They often call it self-reliance, but what are we relying on only ourselves for, if not self-gratification?
So, its hard to overcome. It takes the large part of a lifetime for most of us. Malraux portrays this tragically, but he leaves the door open for the other reading, the more hopful one, the mystical one. Only after the struggle and the sacrifice, when there is nothing left of his past, when “he is good for nothing but to die,” is man also free and ready to truly live, to give his life for a greater purpose then his own gratification.
Hindus used to have a tradition whereby a man would marry and raise a family. Then, at about the age of fifty, the family having been raised ond on their own, the man would be free to enter an ashram and search for god, for self-transcendence, something beyond the self.
Well, I find myself on the cusp of fifty these days, and thoughts like these hold particular resonance.
The fanaticism only comes from being attached to a goal — give up the goal and yield to the search, and it is infinitely exciting, and far more existentially sound than the alternative.
Posted by: Malooga | Aug 20 2006 5:05 utc | 36
|
