[lbo-talk] Support Bloomberg and Rafsanjani? (was Re: Rafsanjani to lead key Iran body)

[John Thornton]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> On 9/17/07, wrobert at uci.edu <wrobert at uci.edu> wrote:
>   
>>> Tariq Ali is wrong. For socialists Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
>>> should rightly be considered modalities of repression to be opposed.
>>> They are superstitions which have nothing to offer in guiding modern
>>> society. The only question is how opposition to such superstitions is to
>>> be incorporated into strategy. In many cases it should play a very minor
>>> role but in other instances a much more prominent role could be favored.
>>>       
>> No doubt, Yoshie will respond to this, but I thought I would toss in
>> my slightly less articulate two cents.  To me, this kinda reads like
>> Chris Hitchens lite.  Fundamentally, Ali's point is that attacks on
>> Muslims (and Islam) within Europe and the United States are
>> fundamentally racist and xenophobic and these need to be responded to
>> as such.  I think that it is a fairly serious mistake embattled
>> subaltern religious groups (for example a Muslim Student Union on a
>> university campus) with a highly funded and powerful Christian
>> religious right.
>>     
>
> John's comments remind me of not Hitchens Lite but a joke from the 50s
> that Carrol sometimes mentions: "What's the height of arrogance?
> Answer: a flea approaching an elephant with intentions of rape."  Even
> embattled Muslim communities are far larger than "communities" (or
> rather mostly a collection of minuscule sects and loose cannons) of
> socialists in the USA, let alone the balance of forces on the
> international level.
>   

Sometimes I wonder why readers seem to project their own prejudices into 
others writings rather than taking them at face value.
I don't give a shit about the size of socialist, christian, muslim, etc. 
communities. I'm not trying to convert them to atheism and I don't see 
the role of socialists as currently engaging in this task either. That 
doesn't mean however they should curb their criticisms of religion. I 
can oppose religion and subsume that opposition for strategic reasons 
when necessary. Just like I wrote above.


>   
>> As a Spinozist, I tend to agree with Doug that I wish that we lived
>> in a world without these modes of mystification, but as an organizer
>> I don't see the point of alienating potential allies who have
>> similar beliefs as me, despite their need for transcendental
>> mystification....
>>     
>
> I rather think that liberalism and secularism, particular forms which
> commodity fetishism has assumed in the West, are the most powerful
> mystification, more insidious than any transcendental mystification,
> and it's that mundane mystification that needs to be criticized first
> and foremost, as far as those of us who live in the West are
> concerned.

Commodity fetishism is not intrinsically tied to secularism in any way. 
I can easily be a secularist and ruthlessly criticize commodity fetishism.
And if you believe that liberalism is in any way responsible for the 
level of death, despair, and destruction that religion has wrought 
you're daft.

John Thornton