JessFranco
Posts: 2515
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: London
|
'Islamism' has its roots in economics, not simply because of the relatively egalitarian message that religion tends to espouse (see also radical Catholic activism in South America), but because it offers a power bloc that the economically disenfranchised can join. It's not just down to social or religious conservatism, the people backing groups as diverse as AK, the Muslim Brotherhood and even, to a degree, the Taliban in Pakistan, are doing so, in large part, because it offers an alternative to rigid systems of plutocracy and feudalism. In the case of the latter two, it looks externally like a pretty short-sighted alternative, but it has an appeal. People aren't just joining the Taliban because Pakistan isn't religious enough for them - half of them aren't under defacto government control in the first place - it's because they're looking for something other than straight-up serfdom. The same is true of the MB in Egypt - it's a lightning rod for people who want to dismantle the ancien regime, rather than simply an expression of religious fervour. Al-Assad and Nasser we're not 'secular leftists' in the way that Zizek is suggesting, they were autocrats backed by military power. I also think the characterisation of the Iranian revolution as, at heart, fundamentally Islamist glosses over a lot of complexities. It's true that the left was willing to line up with religious leaders in order to take down the Shah but the popular movements that led to the revolution happening - the general strikes, the protests, etc - had far more to do with economics than they did with an attempt to bring about theocracy. I don't think the striking trade unionists or left-wing agitators who were fundamental to the revolution were anticipating what was eventually to follow. The radical left doesn't have all the answers but cutting them out of the process of shaping what comes after Ben Ali and Mubarak comes with dangers attached. The real risk, to Egypt and the wider region, would be for one set of plutocrats to be replaced by another. A few token liberal reforms seized upon by an oligarchy to entrench their position. The replacement of crony-based autocracy with crony-based capitalism. They need to avoid what happened to Ukraine, for starters. Failure to do so would send a pretty clear signal to poor Egyptians and the neighbouring countries that 'democracy' isn't the answer to their plight. Fundamentally, the new rulers of Egyppt and Tunisia have a massive responsibility to get this right. The solution isn't state communism or planned economies, it's economic justice combined with geniune social democracy. I think Zizek's picking up on the fear that a self-selecting elite deciding who they will and won't work with, irrespective of who actually carries weight with the public, won't be seen as much more legitimate than what came before, rather than simply making a call to arms for old-school communism.
_____________________________
Even the French know better than to fuck with me http://closer-to-perfection.tumblr.com/
|