|
Chief Wiggum -> RE: Egypt Protests (2/2/2011 1:30:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JessFranco
I wouldn't agree with Zizek 100% but i think he's pretty perceptive in highlighting secular Socialism as a release valve for antagonisms that might otherwise play out as radical religionism and the danger that, should the Egyptian revolution succeed, but only in widening the privileged inner circle to encompass more of the middle class, you're going to see a lot of people lining up to join the MB. The protests are about democracy but not simply in the abstract - it's democracy as an agent of economic change. If that economic change simply means that Mubarak's clique's billions are spread a little more widely, it's not going to be enough. The radical left can't be cut out of the conversation.
true it is primarily about economic change, but with Egypt already having a large part of its economy nationalised before, I really don't think that the young want to go back to a situation with planned economies. The protests are, apart from the removal of Mubarak, calling for the growth of opportunity in Egypt. this is not achieved through left wing economic policies. To kick start the economy they will want to increase the amount of foreign investment and capital coming into the country, which would require a decent tax regime to make pumping money into Egypt a viable investment plan. let us not forget that the majority of the protestors are well educated unemployed, rather than the poor rural, or the working class labourers that radicalists typically try to influence.
The reason that Islamism and Secular Left politics go together is because the economic policies of the Left are fairly close to those of Islamism. urgo, you promote one, you promote the other
quote:
ORIGINAL: JessFranco
quote:
Secondly, his call for the Radical left to get involved to save the region, is also not a new call and it still isn't a great idea, Soviet advisors (i.e. good old Communists, the radical left epitomised) offered assistance to Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya they didn't turn out as flourishing democracies. And let us not forget the involvement of the Iranian Communists and left in general in bringing in the Theocracy where priests get to decide who can or cannot stand for election, how would this benefit the move toward democracy across the Middle East?
Most Iranian left-wingers would argue that the revolution was betrayed by the fundamentalists, who happened to be better organised and more able to consolidate power. Thousands of socialists were jailed or shot and the main left-wing party, the NDF, was outlawed shortly after Khomenei came in. I also think there's a massive gulf between today's Egpytian socialists / trade unionists looking to turn Egypt into a social democracy and the political power-plays of the old Soviet Union. They're not comparable.
Yes, the Protests are primarily about economic change, many of the protestors are educated graduates that are decrying the lack of opportunity in such a tightly controlled economy. This is not the cries of a mass movement of trade unionists arguing for the redistribution of wealth and nationalisation of all industry, it's the shout of an unemployed youth movement trying to get their foot on the ground and economic growth in Egypt started. This cannot be achieved with nationalised industry and the planned economy of the radical left, not the moderate left the RADICAL left which is who the author of the peice suggested would be a good movement to get involved.
In terms of the Iranian Revolution, most of the reading I have done into the subject suggests that the Left knew full well that they were joining a pro-Khomeni movement and that Khomeni's regime would be Islamist in nature. They still supported the movement under the idea that anybody was better than the Shah, and got it massively wrong.
You do have a point when it comes to the Soviet union's powerplays not being comparable, so how about, these secular left bringing forth Islamism
Nasser with the nationalisation of Industry (Left wing) giving rise to the Muslim Brotherhood's radicalisation with Al-banna
Syria - Baathist are secular and socialist (economically) - however here too had the Muslim Brotherhood radicalised to the point of trying to assasinate Hafez al-assad.
Semi-autonimous region of Kurdistan - there is a strong tradition of secular leftism with these guys, yet this was the one place in pre-2003 Iraq where Ansar-ul-islam operated from, plus you also have the PKK
the rest of the examples that I can think of tend to involve the Soviets in one way shape or form.
Islamism isn't a reaction to the right, it is normally a reaction to the enforced secularity by a regime on a population that doesn't want it. Look at Turkey, again a place with an extremely strong secular tradition, did this stop an islamist party being elected? did it fuck
|
|
|
|
