From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Dec 30 2004 - 17:57:31 EST
Jerry Re Paul C's comments: it is misleading to suggest that the 'Islamic radicals' are _the_ "voice of the dispossessed." They certainly don't represent the needs and aspirations of (non-fundamentalist) women, do they? And, what kinds of solutions do they offer for the needs of peasants and workers? What sort of "hope" do they offer for those millions? Ultimately, they simply fall back on a "pie-in-the-sky, you'll- be-rewarded-in-heaven-when-you're-dead" perspective. Marxists can offer *real* solutions. Paul I think you confuse christian with Islamic radicals. The latter offer a social and economic program based on sharia. This involves redistribution through obligatory charitable donations and the abolition of interest payments. As such it contains an anti-capitalist element. As a Marxist, I dont think that this program is sustainable, in that under a system of generalised commodity production, interest will tend to re-emerge in covert forms even it it is legally abolished. But that argument is relatively sophisticated and we should not ignore the potential popular appeal of simple solutions like abolishing interest. Jerry ----- The experience in Iran does not, I think, prove your point. Indeed, the trend seems to be -- slowly -- towards the direction of a secular state in Iran. And, as for how the 'Islamic radicals' (who were only a part of the revolutionary movement) became the 'voice of the dispossessed, let us not forget the ruthless repression of the Left and the trade union movement following the overthrow of the Shah. (A Bonapartist reaction?) Paul ---- That may be true enough, but look at Iraq where the CP appears essentially to side with the US occupation, whereas it is the Islamists and Bathists who are actively fighting imperialism. Under those circumstances one has to ask who will appear to be a more plausible voice for the dispossed?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 02 2005 - 00:00:02 EST