From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: AUT: Reply to Harald
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:50:09 -0500



Harald wrote:
Chris, that Islamism in several aspects is more reactionary than U.S.
imperialism, as much as it is, in part but only in part, a product of
it, is just to state the obvious. What needs to be explained is why some
many leftist are willing to deny what stares them in the eye. Is it
ignorance or something more irrational. The urge to explain _everything_
out from U.S. foreign policy becomes pretty "mindless" and religious.
Islamism, fascist to its core, is also very much an expression of a high
degree of irrationality: a poisoneous combine of the worst of an Islamic
past and modern capitalist alienation, as well as imperialist project in
itself. The failure to come up with a political critique of Islam as
such, and silence such critique from revolutionaries from regions where
this still is life and death question, only to put forth a gallery of
Imams as the true voices of the working classes in this parts, speaks
loud. It is a celebration of silence confronted by anything we might
find difficult uncomfortable to address. I am only awaiting an
proclamation declaring that the present Pope, as all the previous,
always were true revolutionaries. One of the greatest failures of the
post World War II "left" is the lack of any real effort to address
Rwanda. France was all to blame, were they? No other understanding is
needed, even if the French were not the ones who actually carried out
the genocide. It is like saying that the Holocaust can all be explained
by British imperialism and the VersailleTreaty. The world cannot be
reduced to the United States of America. Harald

I can also understand where the accusation of Strasserism is coming
from, however misplaced in a reply to your post. The person replying
surely was reading what he had heard from other "leftist" into your
post. That said, I also found some of your critque of News & Letters
pretty odd. There surely lies a real danger in rationalising the acts of
September 11 too far. In many respects "mindless acts" is an all too
fitting description. This was an act of madness, if there ever was one.
The question is rather what are the roots of this particular
manifestation of _modern_ madness.

My reply:
I have never denied that Islamic Fundamentalism is reactionary.  I find it
funny that even though I have stated my point rather clearly on this that I
continue to be treated as if I am defending the Taliban.  Your piece mixes
Islamic Fundamentalism, which is a specifically Modern and capitalist
ideology pulling on a supposed 'traditionalism', with Islam, which has all
kinds of messed up stuff in it.  But as I have said before, and as I think
we agree on, no worse than any other religion.  I want to know when we
started soft-pedalling the critique of religion. At the same time, I think
we absolutely have to differentiate Islamic Fundamentalism from the mass of
Muslims, just as I hope no one here would confuse Chsritian Fundamentalism
with most Christians or the Pope with most Catholics.  I am defending the
mass of people who would never have supported this horrific act.

Second, my refusal to agree to calling this irrational is that it is the
phrase of choice being used by the capitalist media and politicians.  It is
quite clear that this was not irrational, even if, as I have repeatedly
said, it is monstrous.  At least, it is no more irrational than any other
act of its kind by some section of capital.  And that is
what we are fundamentally dealing with here: a section of capital that is
not happy with globalization as the current restructuring of the world, of
US presence in the Middle East (the US made us a target because the US put
bases in Saudi Arabia, provides massive support, etc.)  There are very good
reasons that it was the US and NOT SOMEONE ELSE.  How hard is it to grasp
this, that the US is THE obvious target for Middle Eastern terrorism?  This
does not rationalize terrorism or the absolutely anti-working class,
reactionary nature of this act, but it refuses to allow the US off the hook
and reduce this to mindless madness with no political intent or direction.
If you want to claim this as irrational and mad, then at least have the
clarity to say that this madness is part and parcel of capital.

Is this more mad than Dresden?  Than Hiroshima?  Than Dien Ben Phu? Than
Cambodia?  Than Iraq?  Than allowing the cynaide gassing of the Kurdish
peoples by Turkey?  I really want to know who the hell thinks
this act is a worse act of terror than the acts I have listed, all of them
carried out by secular states.

Not too long ago, I would have expected a little more from revolutionaries.
Jean Barrot, among others in the libertarian Left tradition, had the courage
to say that when it came to revolution Democracy and Fascism were two sides
of the same coin, that anti-fascism was liberalism and no threat to fascism.
And now I feel as if I am being treated to the flight from that idea, to the
point where we have an 'evil Other' in the face of Islamic fascism.  Well,
if this is Islamic Fascism, friends, then we should be pointing out that
Democracy is no defense and no critique because both of them want to
recompose the working class and restructure society for a new regime of
accumulation, and both are imposing heavily violent, impoverishing, brutal
methods.  Frankly, I am not worried about the Taliban imposing a
dictatorship in the US, but I am worried about the loss of civil liberties
here and an increasing police state.  Should I blame the Taliban?  Did Osama
bin Laden make Bush and Co. do this?  Or was he the pretext, as much as
Israel, US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the bombing of Iraq are
pretenses for bin Laden?  Of course, if I was in Afghanistan, I would be
anti-Taliban for obvious reasons, but I would also be
anti-US/anti-NATO/anti-UN.  After all, who is going to bomb me even more?
Two sides of the same coin, two competeing strategies in the reorganization
of the capital-labor relation in North Africa/Central-East-South Asia.

This is why this act has to be understood as no more mad than anything else
carried out by capital in its attempts to usher in a new composition of the
capital-labor relation.  Madness?  Yes, but not as counter-posed to US
madness or British Madness or Western Madness or Rwandan madness.  We have
to absolutely condemn each and every wing of capital, whatever strategy they
pursue, as mad.  The "West" did not 'cause' Rwanda, but colonialism, as the
imposition of capital upon Africa, and its after-effects, played a role.
The de-industrialization of Africa, the massive flight of capital, etc. have
played a role.  So have the indigenous ruling classes and their various
scramblings for access to capital and control of exploitation.  The guilty
party here is capital, which is insane, not simply these bombers as such.
Therefore I have refused to accept these kinds of descriptions as anything
but racist.

And this is my point above all else.  We need an actual analysis.  In the
end, whatever you call people is less relevant than having a thoughtful
analysis that will let people grasp why this happened and connect it to the
rest of the world.  That is why I find it very important to specify its
relationship to globalization and class composition.  Without that, whatever
we say is mere moralizing.  That is why the pieces I have liked best are the
Zizek article, the Caffentzis article, and little else.

Third, since you understand the Strasserism reference (I know they do not
mean Hugo Strasser the composer, but the Strasser Bros. who founded the
Nazis), please feel free to elucidate.  (I know you are not saying it is
fair in reference to me, but I am curious what is understandable about
this.)

Thanks Harald!

Cheers,
Chris




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---