[lbo-talk] Fighting Two Enemies at the Same Time? (was On Islamic radicalism and the left by Don Hamerquist)

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Thu Aug 17 13:29:04 PDT 2006


On 8/17/06, Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net> wrote:
> There may be parallels but also distinctions. Do you acknowledge a
> difference in the situation of a post-revolutionary government/society and
> making common cause in the face of an onslaught by a brutal ruler/invader?
> SR

In most cases, it is not practical to fight two enemies at the same time. One of the few cases where secular leftists succeeded in doing so is Yugoslavia: Yugoslav Communists fought against fascists and Chetniks. But Yugoslav Communists' success, too, owes itself to a brief triumph of the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle of tactical alliance: after 1943, the Allies switched their support from Chetniks to Partisans. See, while the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle isn't always right, it isn't always wrong either.

Those centrists who emerged victorious in three-way fights, whether they are Communists or Islamists, had a clever, opportunistic way of doing so: e.g., Stalin, blocking first with the Left to liquidate the Right and then liquidating the Left; and Khomeini, blocking first with the Left to overthrow the Shah who was supported by the empire, and then liquidating the Left when the Left rebelled against the Islamist program. Today's secular leftists in the Middle East might take a page from their book -- e.g., block with Islamists to defeat the Tel Aviv-Washington axis and then defeat Islamists after the victory over the axis -- _if_ they enjoyed the level of mass support that would allow them to do so.

But the fact of the matter is that there are few secular leftists in the Middle East and that there are incomparably larger numbers of people in the Middle East who support anti-imperialist Muslim leaders like Hasan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than those who support secular leftists. That is why still existing Marxists (e.g., the Lebanese Communist Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and other secular leftists generally end up becoming junior partners to Islamists (and, where Islamists have not become strong, they end up becoming junior partners to secular nationalists, as in Syria today -- the past examples include Iraq under Saddam Hussein for a period of time). That's the reality.

Take a look at the Palestinian elections this January. The Palestinian people could have voted for secular leftists (I'm speaking of "leftists" in a broad sense), but _most of them didn't_:

Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) 42,101 votes 4.25% of the vote 3 (3/0) seats

The Alternative (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine + Palestinian People's Party + Palestine Democratic Union) 28,973 votes 2.92% of the vote 2 (2/0) seats

Independent Palestine (Palestinian National Initiative) 26,909 votes 2.72% of the vote 2 (2/0) seats

The Third Way (led by Salam Fayyad and Hanan Ashrawi) 23,862 votes 2.41% of the vote 2 (2/0) seats

Etc.

Compared to sad showings of secular leftists, Hamas's 44.45% showing is, well, massive.

It's time for leftists in the West to recognize the non-existence of the powerful secular Left in the Middle East. I don't say we should be happy about it. Just quit being in denial about it. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list