tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13622622.post1399803311541608980..comments2023-12-22T08:44:24.389-05:00Comments on threewayfight: Islamic fundamentalism and the three-way fight: an exchangeMatthew N Lyonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15664330735255207352noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13622622.post-82227213034223301532007-10-20T00:07:00.000-04:002007-10-20T00:07:00.000-04:00Hm, I had been sort of assuming that the three-way...Hm, I had been sort of assuming that the three-way-fight type of analysis was incompatible with thinking that the 'third pole' was 'just a hyper-reactionary version of capitalism'. What makes it a third pole rather than just part of the capitalist pole is that it's not, no? But maybe not. <BR/><BR/>Because one thing that struck me when reading that exchange: Is 'political Islam' neccesarily the same thing as 'the Islamic right'? Matthew and Bromma (who I wouldn't assume is a 'he') end up using the terms interchangeably, but, is there possibly an actually exiting political Islam that is not right-wing? I'm not sure. And this leads us into talking about what right-wing means exactly; we are used to thinking that anything 'right-wing', like anything 'capitalist' is necessarily our enemy, and I _think_ I still believe both of these things, but I'm not sure I believe that anything religious is anymore. I have lately been thinking that generally many of our traditional shortcut binary categories for determining friend from enemy may not be as reliable as we assume. <BR/><BR/>But I think Bromma makes a pretty good point that take on gender and male supremacy is a marker that continues to be centrally important (as it has in fact been for 100 years, if not much much longer). <BR/><BR/>NilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13622622.post-61726930006900422492007-10-19T17:27:00.000-04:002007-10-19T17:27:00.000-04:00This is a great contribution to the site and to th...This is a great contribution to the site and to the ongoing discussions of the three way fight. I find myself generally agreeing with Matthew’s analysis, but I like a couple things about Bromma’s contributions. In particular, he astutely reminds us that “the fundamentalists already have a pretty good take on the 3-way fight and the pivotal role of gender within it. They calibrate their tactics toward the other two poles with considerable intelligence. They are way more sophisticated politically than we are.” This is important to remember. Equally important, it seems to me, is the longstanding willingness of the State and capital to play various antagonists off against each other. This is just a variation on old-school COINTELPRO strategy, utilizing the ancient wisdom of killing two birds with one stone. <BR/><BR/>But there’s a problem with Bromma’s formulation, I think. “Fundamentalists” as such aren’t necessarily a separate pole from the hegemonic structure of global capital. We can see this when we look at the prominent role played by fundamentalist Christians in the US, and the same thing seems true of the power held by fundamentalist (Orthodox) Jews in Israel or by fundamentalist Muslims in Saudi Arabia and even Iran. These forces are multifaceted, to be sure, but mostly they’re just trying to get theirs, within an overall system whose parameters they don’t really challenge. (A similar argument can be made against those who think of Chavez’s “Bolivarian revolution” as a fundamental challenge to capitalism or even imperialism, but for the most part those of us interested in the three way fight idea come down, as Bromma does, against the cult of Chavez.)<BR/><BR/>At the root here is an unresolved disagreement among those of us committed to the three way fight approach. Is “fascism” – or whatever else we want to call the third pole we are attempting to call attention to – a hyper-reactionary version of capitalism, or is it actually (or potentially) anti-capitalist? I take the latter position, but I know some people here take the former position, possibly Bromma included. From where I sit, the three way fight involves hegemonic global capital, a challenge from the revolutionary and libertarian left, and a challenge from a revolutionary but authoritarian right. Some fundamentalists (Christian Identity types, the Taliban, among others) seem intent on a revolutionary upheaval that would replace capitalism with something fundamentally different and in many ways far far more brutal. But other fundamentalists, like the Iranian regime, are more interested in tweaking certain aspects of capitalism, but still seem to me more akin to the first “them” – global capital – than to the revolutionary aspects of al-Qaeda or the Taliban.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, the three way fight is a useful device for reminding us that, as many have put it before, “my enemy’s enemy is not my friend.” I guess what I’m challenging is the idea that, on a global level at least, the Iranian regime really is the “enemy” of global capital.Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155374363606822164noreply@blogger.com