Islam, socialism, pan-Arabism and nationalism.s
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Posted by D
Dissecting Left has two links to books reviews which cover matter which one had intended to post on. The first is a review of a book which argues Jihad is central to Islam, that Islamic terrorism is not accidental as a consequence. That is a conclusion which some in the West have drawn with or without the benefit of scholarship.
There is one statement one disagrees with, underlined in the quote from he article:
But the Koran (Sura 9:29), Islamic history and jurisprudence all hold that there are three choices for the non-Muslim in a Muslim land: conversion to Islam, dhimmitude, or death:
“The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission.”
Koranic injunctions to fight are numerous, as they are in the various collections of Hadith. And Muhammad himself set the example of violent conquest. The idea of complete submission to Islam, even to the point of death, argues Spencer, “remains a vital part of Islamic theology”. Thus jihad is very much concerned with the concept of holy war, and even terrorism. And as Spencer notes, “Neither Christianity nor any other religion has ever had a doctrine like jihad”.
Marxist doctrine asserts (civil) war and murder is necessary to bring about the grand socialist future, since economic history, as the onward march to good commie man, is conflict between groups and sections inimical to each other because of the cancer of civilisation, a proposition put by that fuck up called Rousseau.
Fascism and Nazism are two types of the root religious belief which is socialism.Ultimately, socialism is nothing but a doctrine of, `authentic man’ is tribal man, an attempt to recover the mores of the tribe to which open, free markets are a barrier. Socialism is also , ultimately, a retreat into economic autarchy which, because it prevents markets bringing on the development of resources and products, reducing commerce to the mercantilist assumption it is a game in which there are only winners and losers, issues into two things, decline of capital entailing increasing reduction in capital ( savings) and with it incomes, labour intesive activities which are of low marginal value so incomes, standards of living decline further and lastly, because of the constriction of commerce, yields frictions which lead to war.
The last observation is central to the economic policies of the Nazi regime. In the first instance, assuming the Nazi govt. did not go to war nor intend to do so, Germany would have crashed into economic depression - the economic recovery occurred 1920-1933 and not as some assume, 1933-45. But warfare was a corrollary of the producer - centrally directed and planned economic policies of the Nazi, with capital markets all but eliminated, profits taxed to loss making, labour organised into gangs and terms fixed by centrally decided `accords’. The rustification policy of the National Socialist Party corresponded, labour intensive production with a slightly feudalistic edge to it. It is the socialist assumptions which underpinned those policies which were summarised into the notion of Lebensraum and to secure them, paving the way for war.
The second review contains an illustration with which one entirely agrees:
I was very struck recently by seeing Tom Cruise’s appalling movie The Last Samurai, where an American adventurer takes the side of feudal and tribal chivalry in Japan, presumably because of its self-annihilating authenticity, but realizes during the course of several destructive massacres that the samurai ethos will not survive in the face of modernity. What is needed, he concludes, is a fusion or synthesis between new weapons and old ideas. It’s bad enough that an American, even a Scientologist, could actually desire to see what Japan eventually got — in the combination of an imperial god-king with a large air force and navy, an evil empire and an absolutely calamitous war. Even more alarming was the cultural myopia that prevented critics and audiences from seeing that precisely this combination of medieval and atavistic ideas with borrowed technology is what threatens Eastern societies no less than our own.
What Hitchens should have added, the reality of life under the fuedal lords of Japan was nasty, short, brutish. What the film brings out, curiously enough, is the depiction of the denziens of the few commercial towns as selfish, cowardly and, well, bourgeois non-enties, in contrast, to the heroic, honourable and yet sensitive samauri .That attitude was not peculiar to the samauri, it was typical of European feudal lords, knights and other minor gentry, including clerical. That attitude underpinned the reasons why France nad Germany took the world to the the trenches of WWI : commerce is immoral, anarchic, undermines the higher morality inculcated by the traditional (feudal) heirarchy).
Taking the two arguments together some things need to be said. Firstly, in the second review, it is asserted anti-western sentiment of middle easterners is late, we can take the crusades as the period in which hatred of the west began to take root in the east. Not so, amplified by mentioning the Persian War launched against Athens. What can be said is socialism was an influence in the east, particularly the Nazi govt 1933 -1943/44.
Nazi Germany was viewd by nationalists and Islamicists in the middle east as successfully challenging the wicked east and waging war, and the expectation was the Nazi regime would defeat the allies.
The mention of middle eastern nationalists is crucial to understanding middle eastern politics today. Unquestionably their are many in the east who desire economic liberty and the rule of law. Against them are not only Islamicists but national socialists, not discounting either pan-Arabic nationalists also. The three- national socialists pan-Arab nationlists and Islamicists from the 30’s worked in loose alliances, fundamental to the overthrow of the former Shah of Iran and the emergence of the tyranny of the Imams. The explanation is chillingly consistent with what is set out in the review and one’s own comments above: belief in economic autarchy, resentment of open commerce, a selective acceptance of some restricted products from the west while remaining closed to all other exchange with the west. In short, two primitive and savage doctrines, Islam and socialism are asserted in tandem, fuelling the murderous inclinations of far too many in the East.
The above is a bare bones outline of the case, obviously, but they are central to middle eastern politics, illuminated by the domestic economic decadence and political dangers of jordan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt. To be sure, however, the Egyptian is rahter more committed to ending savage economic and political primitivism, even progress is slow.
And then the very large number of easterners who are civilised, desire the advance which economic freedom brings and an end to capricious regimes , examplified by hatred of Iranians of the Islamic regime on the one hand, and the complete ruination of Lebanon by Hamas, PlO, PLF and other Arab-nationalist-Ilsamicist affiliates.
And there are so many in the west who still wish to blame Israel for what are problems which rest actually at the feet of the Arabs and Islamicists themselves.
For the reviews, visit Dissecting Leftism
(Continued)