>>Islamic supermacists are, in fact, trying to take over Pakistan, just as
>>they have tried to take over Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They did take over Iran
>>for a long time. This is not to defend any of those regimes, but to argue
>>that to just flick off the reality of Islamic supermacist exapnsionism is
>>absurd.
>
>By Islamic supremacists, do you mean those who believe in the
>institution of religious law? Would you say Islamic supremacism is
>always expansionist? By expansionism, do you mean that these
>movements don't concede the legitimacy of nation-states?
What Chip calls "expansionism" I'd call internationalism. The secular Left used to have real networks of international solidarity, through which leftists (both revolutionary leaders and nameless grassroots organizers) moved from one nation to another, engaging in good fights everywhere they found themselves.
Despite the vaunted "globalization," however, secular leftists today enjoy less solid connections with one another across national boundaries than in the past, I think, notwithstanding the internet, sporadic Seattle-like protests, etc. For instance, secular leftists outside the Middle East (perhaps with the exception of Edward Said & the like) have no direct channels of communication with those who live in the Middle East that would allow us to directly participate in their political affairs in ways that matter. In contrast to secular leftists, Islamists have real-world networks through which money, people, ideology, weaponry, etc. are circulated.
To compete with & supplant Islamist networks, secular leftists have to re-build our own networks of international politics. That's the long hard road we have to travel. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>