I've already addressed the point about anti-imperialism (hence my focus on the question of materialism in my replies to Dennis) -- it's not enough to take an anti-imperialist stance; similarly, the stance that is not anti-imperialist is also not enough (at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070409/007264.html> among others) -- but you are basically ignoring what I have been saying on this point (or others for that matter) and repeating the same one point as if it had never received any response. It's like you are a broken record.
> if they
> hold women to be inferior beings and want to establish a theocratic
> empire - positions that the Muslim Brotherhood seems to support. I
> can see how you might want to change the subject, though.
Doug, have you had a chance to read the articles by Joel Beinin, Hossam el-Hamalawy, Sherif Hetata, Ken Silverstein, Joshua Stacher and Samer Shehata, Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke, Nathan J. Brown, Amr Hamzawy, and Marina Ottaway, etc. Those come from a variety of perspectives, from left to center. Do they believe that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is trying to establish, or capable of establishing, a theocratic empire across the Middle East or even a theocratic dictatorship just in Egypt? If they don't, why don't they?
Are they "useful idiots," as the Right might claim they are? Or, maybe, just maybe, they are better informed than you are? As for the Brotherhood's view of women, I've posted its program here. How does it compare with the Mubarak regime's practice (the regime that incorporates sharia and has a tight relationship with Al-Azhar) that it and its allies are seeking to replace?
Maybe you are trying to argue implicitly that socialists should never make a tactical, let alone strategic, alliance with those whose position on women (or any other key question) are to the right of ours, even if the alliance is accompanied with an honest criticism of various conservative positions held by such allies, as is the case with Egyptian socialists' relation with the Brotherhood, but in that case socialists might as well forget about making any alliance with those from other political currents, let alone winning over ordinary apolitical people, even here. Such a go-it-alone approach might still work in a country where socialists are numerous and can entertain a hope to take power on their own, but in a country, such as Egypt, where they are likely to remain in a small minority for a long time to come, it's self-defeating to adopt it. More to the point, that's not a principle that you apply here yourself in US politics, so why recommend it to the Egyptians?
On 4/13/07, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Yoshie wrote:
> >Perhaps you don't understand politics in Egypt
>
> If you say perhaps one more time, I'm going to start to wonder what
> exactly you mean by it.
What I mean by it is that what's going on in Egypt, with the Brothers and socialists working together against the Mubarak regime, is hardly a case of an alliance based on only anti-imperialism, (nor was it the case in Iran during the revolution for that matter, though for a different reason), though you and Doug suggest that it is. The Mubarak regime's political corruption, economic liberalism, denial of civil liberties (sometimes using Al-Azhar, the religious authority that is a state institution, for that purpose), and so on are the main problems they have in common, though the regime's pro-Tel Aviv and -Washington stance also fuels their opposition (if not all the domestic critics of the regime) as well as general discontent of Egyptians (most of whom, especially middle and lower classes and strata, are more sympathetic toward the Palestinians, Hizballah, etc. than those above them and more critical of Cairo's stance toward them), too. (if anything, the older generation of the Brothers are rather weak on the question of imperialism, as Hossam el-Hamalawy's report on the Brothers in Egypt during the Intifada days and liberals' take on the Brothers, as well as the Brothers' history during Nasser's time, suggest.)
In general, there probably isn't any case of any political current, singly or in coalition, coming into or remaining in power based upon anti-imperialism alone, in the South or the North, but in the South anti-imperialism is often (though not always) a key component without which no significant social, political, and economic progress can be made (sometimes, domestic ruling classes strongly allied with Washington allow significant progress, especially in economy -- South Korea is a good example of that -- but more often than not domestic ruling classes that are very pro-empire are obstacles to progress).
Even Kifaya, a movement for democracy in Egypt that was once widely hailed by the US media when Washington had a larger ambition of remaking the Middle East (before it got bogged down in Iraq), appears to understand that at least in rhetoric (which may be another reason why Washington appears to have decided to stand by Mubarak). Kifaya's manifesto begins:
<http://harakamasria.org/node/2944> We, the undersigned, are citizens of Egypt; are part of its rich social texture; and are active in its public life in different arenas: intellectual, civic, political, cultural, and unionist. We come from different walks of life and together represent Egypt's rich political diversity. We believe there are two grave dangers which beset our nation today. They are two sides of the same coin, each nourishing the other, and neither curable alone:
First, The odious assault on Arab native soil through:
1. The US occupation of Iraq; 2. The Zionist devastation daily wreaked on the Palestinian people bordering on a holocaust; and 3. The designs, including the Broader Middle East Initiative, to recast the chart and fate of the Arab region and people.
All civil and political efforts must be massed and coordinated to ward off this peril to the future survival of the Arab peoples and society.
Second, The repressive despotism that pervades all aspects of the Egyptian political system and want for democratic governance. Political reform constitutes:
1. Termination of the current monopoly of power at all levels, starting with the seat of the President of the Republic; 2. Effecting the rule of law as the supreme source of legitimacy; 3. Ermination of the current unfounded monopoly and squandering of the wealth of the nation; and 4. Regaining Egypt's legitimate and significant, if now lost, place amongst the family of the nations.
> Perhaps you do understand more about
> politics in Egypt than I do, but I figure Tariq Ali understands a
> thing or two as well.
I also know a thing or two about Tariq Ali. Ali doesn't go as far as Lenin's party (i.e., the party of which Richard is a member) and its Egyptian comrades, but he is committed to democracy enough to say people will learn through their own experience, so "let the people decide," even if the result is Islamists in power.* He wouldn't advocate the kind of alliance that some Egyptian socialists are practicing, but he won't stand in its way, if such an alliance can win people's support. Would you be willing to go with that position? If not, perhaps you could advance a realist case that sometimes democracy ought to be overridden, if there is even a chance that Islamists might come into power, but it seems to me that you as well as Doug don't want to go there either.
* <http://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/581/32547> Tariq Ali discusses Islam, democracy and anti-imperialism
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Q] Do you think a wave of democratic processes in the Muslim world will be a welcome change?
[A] Yeah.
[Q] What if people like Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt come to power as a result of democratic processes?
[A] This is what the American ideologues try to call the paradox of democracy — if you elect a government that you don't like it is a problem. But this is not a problem for imperialism in the West where centre, centre-left or centre-right parties have the same neoliberal economic agenda and all support US imperialism by and large. They have a common manifesto: the conservation of capital.
But in different parts of the world, this is not the case. If there are elections for instance in Iraq, why would the Shiites win? Because they were provided money and arms over the last twenty years in order to build an opposition to Saddam Hussein. If they win the election, let them take over — let the people decide.
In Iran, after thirty years of Islamic process, all the young people hate the mullahs. They are trying to rediscover the pre-Islamic period, not because they are reading my books but because of their own experience. If Iraqis have to vote for Shias, let them. If Saudis want to elect Wahabites, let them. If the Muslim Brotherhood did form government in Egypt as a result of elections, let it. People will learn.
On 4/13/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> > Yoshie wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps you don't understand politics in Egypt
> >
> > If you say perhaps one more time, I'm going to start to wonder what
> > exactly you mean by it.
>
> It's a signifier of condescension, of course.
There's nothing more condescending toward people, politically and intellectually, to think that one already knows what's going on in a country far away without making at least some efforts trying to learn about the situation from various informed sources that come from different political orientations. To be sure, that's a common practice in the American government, but look where that got them in Iraq.
Then again, if you actually read informative sources about Egyptian politics, though, you might still hold exactly the same opinion as you do now, for your having read or listened to Hamid Dabashi and Valentine M. Moghadam among others does not appear to result in any more nuanced understanding of Islam (there's nothing to be said for that, and people should just keep it private if they can't drop it, though dropping it would be the best), Islamic feminism (it arguably exists, but it's insignificant), and so on.
Sometimes, politics overrides knowledge, as is the case with Fred Halliday and others like him, who can't be accused of not knowing facts.
You apparently think (unless you are just putting on an act) that the Muslim Brotherhood is really seeking to establish a caliphate across the Middle East (for you said that several times), perhaps not an uncommon thought even on the Left in the USA nowadays, and others to the right of you probably think -- or rather pretend to think -- the same thing about it, too, and in addition they also believe -- or rather pretend to believe -- Hamas and Hizballah want to push the Jews into the sea, Iran is about to make a nuclear bomb and may drop it on Israel, and so forth. Communication between the Brothers and socialists in Egypt over points where they differ may be difficult sometimes, but I rather doubt that it is more difficult than either of them communicating with people who worry about the coming of a caliphate or what have you. -- Yoshie