>The united front is more on the agenda today than before, because both
>sides -- Islamists and socialists -- are more focused on the overall
>question of democracy, less focused narrowly on ownership of means of
>production, than before, the trend you can observe beyond the Middle
>East, from Nepal to Venezuela.
>
>
I actually go part of the way with Yoshie - but really, Yoshie, you go
too far.
I think there are signs - more like little glimmers, actually - that some Islamist movements like the MB contain germinal elements that could allow these groups one day to evolve into something along the lines of the postwar German Christian Democrats. The latter were the political descendents of various prewar movements that could often be quite ugly - militantly anticommunist, anti-semitic, anti-feminist, antidemocratic, etc. There were a few progressive strands in those movements that seemed isolated and anomalous at the time. But after the war the CDU/CSU built on those strands and formed into a party with a strong Christian Socialist wing, a rhetorical (and sometimes real) focus on social justice, a firm rejection of antisemitism, a deep commitment to democracy and a somewhat more open stance toward modern sex relations.
If the "left" is to have any position at all toward groups like the MB, it should be to *hope* that this evolution happens and to criticially engage with those elements (if they exist) who are actively trying to push forward in this direction. But to wholeheartedly embrace Islamists *before* that transition happens makes no sense. Put aside the ethical question of solidarising with people who are militantly opposed to womens' equality. Practically speaking, what kind of US "left" could possibly make common cause with those forces? Those just aren't our values. Potentially sympathetic people would turn away from us in revulsion.
Seth