[lbo-talk] Anti-globalists Reach Out to Islamists

[Seth Ackerman]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

>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