alliance of civilizations

[derrida]

This article
http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro04072007.html
seems to give credence to the idea that the term "Islamo-Fascism" is actually highly accurate in describing the ideology of fundamentalist organizations in the Muslim world, insofar as fascism can be defined as the deployment of a class-unifying myth combined with violent opposition to communism. abcdxxx can also furnish a plethora of links describing connections between European and Arab Muslim fascists.

The more important point, though, is the flawless record of support by the United States for movements with this particular ideology, starting with the Muslim Brotherhood in the 50's, that continued even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In all these supportive efforts by the U.S. and U.K. governments, the religious and cultural values of Islamic fundamentalists were not seen as an obstacle; quite the contrary. Religious fundamentalism in both Christian and Muslim civilizations was crucial to the development of the alliance between civilizations. As stated by an official document of the U.S. State Department, "the attractiveness of such Muslim movements is their messianic character, similar to the born-again Christians of the South in the U.S. Moreover, they are profoundly anti-communist" (The World Situation, 1978). Thus there was no conflict but rather a religious and cultural affinity between the leaders of the Christian and Muslim civilizations. This affinity of values, however, was not enough to establish an alliance. Why would the leaders of Christian civilizations support Islamic fundamentalists clearly oriented toward the use of violence in pursuing their objectives? The question posed by Huntington and Beck should have been, not so much what divides, but what unites the two civilizations. The answer is clear: What united the leaders of the two civilizations was class interests. These interests determined their objectives, their alliances, and their enemies. This is the reality behind the erroneous slogan "a conflict of civilizations." The alliance was forged on the basis of not just a commonality of religious values, but also -- and above all -- a commonality of class interests.

An alliance of this type first existed in Spain in the 1930s. Muslim Moroccan troops fought with the Catholic-supported fascists in the military coup of 1936, led by General Franco, against a democratically elected progressive government--in what the Spanish Catholic Church defined as a Crusade. The Muslim troops supported a Crusade against the infidels who denied God. And just as the Spanish Civil War was a prologue for World War II, introducing the cast of characters that would take the stage in that war, so the Afghan War in the 1980s--with Christian troops supporting Muslim fundamentalists--prefigured World War III, which we are engaged in today. All the forces at war in this new conflict were already there, in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Progressive lay forces (led by a Communist Party), with the support of the Soviet Union, carried out a series of reforms in Afghanistan--introducing land reform, a secular public school system, and gender equality, with extensive participation of women in the schools and universities). All of these moves were opposed by the dominant classes of Afghanistan, which supported Islamic fundamentalist groups funded by Saudi Arabia (among the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world), the government of Pakistan, and the U.S. government (led by President Carter, who, paradoxically, presented himself as the great defender of human rights). It was at that time that the U.S. government supported Osama bin Laden in a holy war against communism, which in fact was a crude defense of the class interests of dominant groups whose privileges were threatened by social reforms. As it turned out, the Islamic fundamentalist forces, armed by the U.S. and other governments, developed a dynamic of their own that the U.S. government could not control. But the conflict that now exists between the U.S., U.K., and other governments and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups should not obscure the origins of these terrorist movements and the class interests they have served and continue to serve.

[Big Papa Goat]

Poor communists! Just can't catch a break, can they?

[derrida]

It's not like they were taking money from people who earned it. And it really isn't just communists, it's anything that's secular. Although if you really wanna call vaguely defined socialism "communism" maybe you would prefer a theocratic dictatorship?

[Big Papa Goat]

Are all societies that have unifying myths other than the myth of progress theocratic dictatorships? I'm not being facetious, I actually would like to know.