I’ve recently been reading John Ralston Saul’s The collapse of globalism and the reinvention of the world and I think he’s got something relevant to say about globalisation and Islam that seems appropriate given the events of the week and threads on LP about the Iraq war, Hilali etc.
The interesting thing about JRS is that he’s actually critiquing globalisation from a fairly orthodox economics perspective – he’s no raving Marxist and he’s not a neo-con. His take (my interpretation of) is that JRS thinks globalisation is a managerial aberration, not an organic expression of what he might regard (my words) as *pure* capitalism.
He basically blames the G7 (or G8) and the Davos group for most of the sh!t that’s gone down. But what I want to highlight in this post is a couple of pages where he talks about globalisation and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the west. His case example is recent European history, but IMHO his ideas are pertinent to Australia today.
I pick up JRS’ argument on page 95 where he’s critiquing the managerial obsession with technological progress [emphasis is mine]:
Today’s version of the old technological determinism take place within a much broader assertion – that of global determinism. This is presented as relentless modernity – uncontrollable technology driving mere humans…this version of modernity is little more than a prolongation of the original Industrial Revolution idea of technology as an argument for exclusion.
He then goes on to discuss how this exclusionist policy came to be part of the political consensus in Europe from the mid-1970s. When Europe’s “technocratic leaders suddenly realised that their national working classes had disappeared,” (p.96) the response was not a sensible (from the POV of capital) “rethink and reorganisation of that part of the economy dependent on a traditional working class,” but a policy of importing labour from the fringes of the world economy.
“The technocracy decided simply to create a new working class by bringing in hundreds of thousands of guest workers, from the Mediterranean basin. Most of them were Islamic.” (p.96)
Because this imported labour army was destined only to be employed in the least attractive and lowest paying jobs that the local proletarians had deserted, the rich cultural traditions of the guest workers could be ignored – for example training and qualifications were not recognised, language and culture were marginalised and disrespected:
That those brought in came from the poorest, least-educated part of the population allowed the managers to pretend that these rich origins did not need to be taken into account. The technocrat’s model was old-fashioned utilitarianism mixed with abstract management theory. it was a radical reworking of late-nineteenth century Taylorism, with its consicous confusing of men and machines. (p.96)
I would argue that this brief historical account provides a fairly good (though perhaps partial) explanation for the situation across Europe today – rioting across the working class districts of Paris and other French cities, outrage in Scandinavian countries over a series of shallow and badly-drawn cartoons, the murder of a Dutch film-maker, the phenomenon of “home grown” terrorists in Spain, Britaiin and possibly other places too.
Thirty-five years later, 17 million Muslims, including guest workers, many now retired, their children, grandchildren and newer workers, are caught up with 450 million other Europeans in the ethical, human contradictions that this global managerial approach has created. Many of them can now become citizens. Many now are. But the whole process toward inclusion has been based on a utilitarian maze of exclusion. The result tends therefore not to be the joy and pride of belonging, but tmuch more complex feelings on all sides. Many differences have become unscalable mountains instead of rich opportunities…If nationalism of a negative sort is reappearing in Europe among both old Europeans and new, it stems in good part from this managerial approach to the reality of human lives.
At the heart of the problem lies the Globalist idea of viewing society through an economic prism. (p.97)
JRS writes that today there are more than 120 million migrant workers and their families across the globe, with about 20 milion in Europe. He compares this to the level of familial and human displacement that occurs during “wartime or [an] immediate post-war situation”. Rather than denoting a period of relative stability and growth it resembles “other eras of extreme economic change, which in general have led to periods of greater social instability and violence.” (p.97)
The technocratic managerial class, says JRS, are “so unfamiliar with history that they are unconscious of the effects of their utilitarian methods”. (p.98) This is a reversal of “classic free trade economics” in which the import of cheap labour replaces the import of cheap goods. JRS’ explanation of this might be controversial and I think my spin on it might be too (warning bampots, Marxism ahead!)
“The early Globalist managers altered [classical free trade] theory by importing not cheap goods but cheap workers. Why? To maintain their old model of buy-sell balance. How? By compensating for rising social justice [and wages/consumption] within their own borders. How? By creating a new working class, one that could not rise socially. Why? Because like the working class of the nineteenth century, it was bereft of citizen’s rights. Behind a modern technocratic discourse, the aim was to preserve a nineteenth-century idea of how markets must work, an idea dependent on the existence of a working class – better still, a disenfranchised working class…this highly original abstraction of human lives would become the foundation for a revival of Western racism, something we thought we had defeated in 1945.” (p.98)
JRS is one of those unique bourgeois thinkers – an organic intellectual of the ruling class – who is able to see beyond the ideological mist and offer a rational critique of what’s going on. I disagree with him about globalisation being an abberation. In my view it’s the logical extenstion and modern/post-modern manifestation of the continuous drive of imperialism – the need for capital to remake the entire world in its image.
However, I absolutely think he’s right to highlight a dimension of class in this analysis. The economic position of many migrant communities (and their indigene offspring) within the heartland nations of capitalism is most often at the bottom of the pile, well below the “ladder of opportunity”. When this is linked to the cultural isolation engendered by negative nationalism (the *values* debate for example) it will inevitably produce anger and frustration. Thus, there is going to be a striking out against that oppression – whether this takes the form of collective action (rioting in France) or individual revenge attacks (suicide bombers in Spain and London) is a key question.
The riots in France are much more politically engaged and can actually lead to the development of organisations beyond the mosque and beyond the control of ageing, out-of-touch Imams. In this environment the burqa and the Qu’ran become less central to the lives of those involved. At least that’s the potential – a move towards class organisation and an ability to build links of solidarity with secular non-Islamic workers organisations – such as unions and left parties.
This is a theme explored by Chris Harman in his pamphlet,The Prophet and the proletariat, which I recommend for those interested in exploring these ideas further. This is Harman’s take on where Islamic youth are at today:
The Islamist youth are usually intelligent and articulate products of modern society. They read books and newspapers and watch televisions, and so know all the divisions and clashes within their own movements. However much they may close ranks when faced with âsecularistsâ?, whether from the left or from the bourgeoisie, they will argue furiously with each other â just as the pro-Russian and pro-Chinese wings of the apparently monolithic world Stalinist movement did 30 years ago. And these arguments will begin to create secret doubts in the minds of at least some of them.
On some issues we will find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists against imperialism and the state. This was true, for instance, in many countries during the second Gulf War. It should be true in countries like France or Britain when it comes to combating racism. Where the Islamists are in opposition, our rule should be, âwith the Islamists sometimes, with the state neverâ?.
But even then we continue to disagree with the Islamists on basic issues. We are for the right to criticise religion as well as the right to practise it. We are for the right not to wear the veil as well as the right of young women in racist countries like France to wear it if they so wish. We are against discrimination against Arab speakers by big business in countries like Algeria â but we are also against discrimination against the Berber speakers and those sections of workers and the lower middle class who have grown up speaking French. Above all, we are against any action which sets one section of the exploited and oppressed against another section on the grounds of religion or ethnic origin. And that means that as well as defending Islamists against the state we will also be involved in defending women, gays, Berbers or Copts against some Islamists.
When we do find ourselves on the same side as the Islamists, part of our job is to argue strongly with them, to challenge them â and not just on their organisationsâ attitude to women and minorities, but also on the fundamental question of whether what is needed is charity from the rich or an overthrow of existing class relations.
The left has made two mistakes in relation to the Islamists in the past. The first has been to write them off as fascists, with whom we have nothing in common. The second has been to see them as âprogressivesâ? who must not be criticised. These mistakes have jointly played a part in helping the Islamists to grow at the expense of the left in much of the Middle East. The need is for a different approach that sees Islamism as the product of a deep social crisis which it can do nothing to resolve, and which fights to win some of the young people who support it to a very different, independent, revolutionary socialist perspective.
One final observation. The current furore over Hilali strikes me as an opportunity for this dialogue to be opened up. The nuanced course suggested by Harman is important if we are to prevent the hardening of fundamentalist thought among Muslim youth in Australia. Any opening that allows for a discussion with disaffected Islamic youth who are appalled by Hilali’s comments will be lost of the numnukasauruses of the right, such as the Bolts and Sheehans, are allowed to poison the well with their racist diatribe that *all Muslim males* are somehow tainted with the opinions of Hilali.
The last thing we should be doing is pushing any secularist Muslim youth towards the hardliners, we need to be encouraging political engagement with progressive forces, not a retreat into individual terror tactics.
I am waiting for Saul to turn to Paul and thus understand capitalism
I think this is a vast over-simplification. And it is also incorrect in important detail.
There is no single “nineteenth-century idea of how markets must work”.
1. This description of 19th century markets is contradictory of the British experience. In fact, in the run up to the Great War in 1914 (the end of the so-called “long 19th century”) British trade, industrial and financial policy favoured open markets. The British, since the repeal of the corn Laws in the late 1840s, accepted geographical shifts in economic activities and did little to preserve British industries under pressure from foreign competition.
2. While Saul’s description is more accurate of German trade policy after Unification, it would be incorrect to assert that the German working class was in any way disenfranchised. The Social Democratic Party was the most highly developed workers’ party in Europe, and to Lenin’s rage extracted large concessions from the state in the form of pensions, and conditions of labour.
It is true to say that Bismarck’s German, statist model became the archetype of national development policies around the world after WWI. This trend wasn’t bucked until the end of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s. The guest-worker phenomenon arose between the end of WWII and the end of the Bretton Woods system. By then, the demography of Europe had been permanently altered. And in that respect, I agree with Saul.
FWIW, I believe that mainland Europe’s problems stem from a much older problem: the cultural definition of nationality. Nationality is widely asserted to originate not from a contract between an individual and the state, but to arise from an organic link of blood with the indigenous folk (volk), from which newcomers are asserted to be permanently disqualified.
This latter fantasy has some currency in Australia. It would spell trouble were it to become widespread.
To be fair Katz, JRS says “a” model, not “the” model
.
Your historical accounting is true and more detailed than JRS provides, but if you move German history forward a decade from the heyday of social democracy, we get to Adolf and virulent racism, atomisation of working class organistion and a violent expression of nationalism. Ditto in Yugoslavia in the 90s and Russia (and satellites) today, eg: Chechnya, Uzbekistan, etc where ethnic tensions have exploded and the mosque has become the centre of cultural and political life for many groups.
“The economic position of many migrant communities (and their indigene offspring) within the heartland nations of capitalism is most often at the bottom of the pile, well below the âladder of opportunityâ?.”
In America Asians and Jews are on average wealthier than anglo-celtics. Since these groupings mostly started off on the bottom rung I’m not sure that “below the ladder of opportunity” is anything other than empty rhetoric.
There are class divisions in most ethnic communities and there’s a world of difference between a Jewish single mother seamstress and a wealthy New York social x-ray.
Mayor Guiliani was a wealthy Italian, but that doesn’t mean every Italian in the Bronx is a multimillionaire.
For every rich American of Asian descent there’s a thousand chopping vegetables in some Chinatown fry-shop.
Taking a false average is nothing more than…empty rhetoric.
JRS should have said “German” or “Continental”. I have recognised the pervasiveness of Bismarckian principles of nation-building throughout the world between 1945 and 1974.
Re Hitler, Yugoslavia, and the former USSR, my point about cultural nationalism holds here. To make the more general point: Bismarckian nation-building in Europe, in which the working classes were incorporated into “the Nation” by enfranchisement, social welfare policies, generous definitions of workers’ rights, etc., were widely attractive in Continental Europe only so long as the national working classes were seen to be “of the blood of the nation”. Hitler was able to exploit the presence of a very small alien group (Jews) to unleash a torrent of cultural nationalistic fanaticism in Germans. A related, though less virulent, process stigmatised Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Letts in Norway and Sweden.
As a contrast, compare the British attitude to Irish. The British were much worried by Irish during the 19th century. Popular anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment ran high in Britain at different times. Yet, after Catholic emancipation in 1829, there was never any official attempt to stigmatise or to cut off Irish immigrants to Britain from the benefits of British citizenship. In fact, the Irish played a large part in the making of the British Labour Party.
Attitudes to nation are the independent variables. Class is a dependent variable.
Interesting points Katz, one question pls explain the last bit about independent and dependent variables.
While Irish migrants to England in the 19th & 20th centuries were not discouraged from making the trip. They usually ended up in low-paid work, the whole “navvie” stereotype. My great grandfather was one of those, he went to Yorkshire to work in the industrial north.
On the other hand, the British military occupation of the north did disenfranchise the Catholic community and led to years of bitter and bloody civil war, which also had a class dimension: Bernadette Devlin, for example was openly a socialist as well as an Irish nationalist, a contradiction that she eventually could not resolve. These similar political trends existed within Sien Fein and the IRA as factional differences that were more or less secular, even though most of their support was drawn from Catholic working class Irish.
Your thoughts?
1. Minorities were treated according to prevailing ideas about race and nation, not according to their position in the class system.
2. Ulster was an aberration in British public policy in that it retained for political reasons many of the attributes of the whole of Britain pre-1829. The Ulster Parliament was a stronghold of the Protestant Ascendancy, as were most of the City Councils. This ascendancy was cemented by gerrymanders and Catholic under-representation. When the British abolished the Stormont Parliament they were abolishing one of the major engines of Catholic oppression.
However, the British Government couldn’t countenance relinquishing British sovereignty. Moreover, the British Army became a de facto Protestant militia despite the wishes of Whitehall. All attempts to “normalise” Ulster to the prevailing public policy of Britain foundered on old hatreds and Irish nationalism.
I’ll bet your Great grandfather joined, and was welcome to join, a British labour union.
Well Katz, I’m not sure about great grandad’s politics, but given my own predilictions it wouldn’t surprise me.
You’re right that ethnicity, national identity and religion overlays class; this is one of the powerful mimetic codes of bourgois ideology. When they came to power (confirmed by the late 19th century as a global ascendency) it was in their class interests to in fact perpetrate a grand narrative of nation and race in order to disguise and deflect class struggle politics.
I guess this is my central point about the left’s attitude to Islam today. If we don’t have a good understanding of the relationship between class, nationalism, religion and race, we could end up in a trap where we cannot make any effective arguments to bridge the cultural divide and find common ground – for example between the trade unions and young Lebanese workers from Lakemba.
If that happens (or more correctly continues to happen) then their frustrations and anger could be channeled into totally destructive actions and further alienate them from the working class organisations that are really able to help steer towards a more positive outcome.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the small revolutionary sects that are around today can attract the disillusioned Arabic youth in their present form, I’m thinking more of the broader labour movement, including the ALP left and the better unions.
I wouldn’t doubt that there is high unemployment and underemployment among Lakemba’s Muslim males.
I believe that the days are long past when trade unions play an assimilative role for unskilled persons.
Do young Muslim males become jihadis because they can find only low-paid work? The cases of the London bombers would suggest otherwise. I don’t have any information on that at all.
I would tentatively suggest that a more important motivating factor is a sense of alienation from the mores and symbols of the dominant society. How much money and what sort of job would cure all but a tiny number of young Muslim males of this sense of alienation? The reason why this is such a difficult question to answer is that it is difficult to measure the effects of economics on deep-seated sentiment.
Moreover, Lebanese Muslims appear to be the most aggressive and recalcitrant. Perhaps the explanation lies not in Islam but in the history of Lebanon. For example, Lakemba is a Sunni mosque. Most Lebanese are Shiite Muslims. Lebanon was traumatised by a vicious civil war and by invasion and occupation by Israel. These experiences alone mark the Sunni Muslims of Lakemba off from other Muslims.
Again, tentatively, it would appear to be prejudicial to treat all Australian Muslims as if they were Lebanese Sunni Muslims.
Yep, I think that’s all pretty accurate. The nationalistic and ethnic links of the Lebanese community in Lakemba are much stronger than any identification they might have with unions and with Australian culture. One counter-example might be the presence of the popular and talented Hazem el Mazri on the Canterbury Bulldogs NRL team.
We haven’t had anything like Wogs out of work to familiarise/sensitise *Skip* culture to the strength of Lebanese or Islamic culture.
Many years ago I remember being on pro-Palestinian marches with thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese people, in those days the divisions within the community were overtly political, though religion was there obviously in conflict between the Christian and other militias in Lebanon. A friend of mine told me recently that in Sydney the secular Australian left was almost invisible at the Lebanese-led demonstrations against Israel’s incursions.
Part of the reason for this is two-fold:
1. the collapse of the far left, and
2. the isolation of the Lebanese community in the aftermath of various incidents and negative reporting
Unfortunately you’re also right about the sad state of union politics. The shift to the right by leading figures in the ALP and the labour movement to accomodate to the current ideological contours of capitalism and the weakening of rank-and-file organisation has stripped the unions of any power they once had to be a real influence in community life.
Maybe this will change with time. We are yet to see any real bite from WorkChoices [puke], but if there is any sort of real fight back it’ll be difficult.
You’re also right about ethnic divisions within the Islamic community. Whether or not we’ll see any positive developments coming from that angle,I don’t know either.
“the collapse of the far left”
It tells us something rather chilling that the “far left” collapse was precipitated by the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
No Steve, that’s just your spin. Some sections of the left were not demoralised by the collapse of Stalinism having never actually thought the USSR represented any form of socialism (we’ve had this discussion before, so let’s not bog down this thread with it).
The unemployment rate amongst Lebanese Muslim’s in the Bankstown region is staggering. Racist wingnuts will attempt to establish a link between their religion and this phenomenon, yet the reason for this isolated pocket of trouble has nothing to do with either their religion or ethnicity.
In 1975 in the wake of the horrendous civil war destroying Lebanon, the Australian Government relaxed it’s immigration intake criteria in an initiative known of the ‘Lebanese Concession’. About 16,000 took advantage of the initiative and fled to our sunny shores. Later during the 80’s, the Hawke Keating Government further relaxed criteria by allowing families of the original refugees into the country.
The so-called relaxation of immigration criteria resulted in most of the intake speaking no English. The consequences of a large group of people fleeing for their lives to a foreign land, yet being unable to speak the language are obvious. With total lack of support, these new Australians did what you and I would do under such circumstances. They stayed within their own communities, and failed to ‘assimilate’. Quite clearly if you can’t speak the language, it’s very difficult to find work, and a welfare dependant culture will develop.
I’m totally supportive of humanitarian immigration, and a staunch defender of multiculturalism. However, it’s important for the Government of the day to support these new Australians to settle into their new environment by providing the services necessary for them to learn the language.
Below is an article (HTML format) by Abdullah Saeed Director of the Centre for the Styudy of Contermporary Islam at the University of Melbourne which gives a lot of statistics on the countries of birth, location, languages spoken at home etc of Muslims in Australia, taken from the 2001 Census, as well as the history of Muslims in Australia and lots on Muslim beliefs and practices.
http://www.amf.net.au/PDF/religionCulturalDiversity/Resource_Manual.pdf
He paints are far more complex and interesting picture than just Lebanese in Sydney which is all we ever seem to read about in the MSM.
Someone who says:
“[The technocratic managerial class are] so unfamiliar with history that they are unconscious of the effects of their utilitarian methodsâ?.”
and who also says:
“it was a radical reworking of late-nineteenth century Taylorism, with its consicous confusing of men and machines.”
deserves nothing but derision.
Taylor published in 1911, and his ideas were picked up and developed in the US and the USSR from the 1920s.
What the hell does “late-nineteenth century Taylorism” mean? Nothing, that’s what. It’s like talking about the impact of television on the course of the French revolution.
Excellent post and a valuable thread. Cheers.
I think SJ has slightly missed the point of what JRS was saying about Taylorism in the 19th century. While Taylor may have published his book in 1911, the methods of industrial work design are much older, the “piecework” idea of the division of labour is at least as old as Adam Smith – his example was the manufacture of pins in which each component part of the process was broken down into individual, simple tasks.
Taylor systematised time and motion studies as a *science* of management, but the division of labour in 19th century manufacturing is well established.
In relation to the thread SJ, your point is?
It does indicate some sloppiness on the part of Ralston Saul, though. That’s his problem – he’s better at the big sweep than the detail.
The specific importance of Taylorism was the displacement of craft work within manufacturing. For instance, until the end of the first decade of the 20th century, car panels were still being shaped and beaten by hand within factories. You can have division of labour without deskilling. It’s important to be precise about these things.
“This is a reversal of âclassic free trade economicsâ? in which the import of cheap labour replaces the import of cheap goods.”
This trend seems to be in reverse these days – China is exporting deflation and lowering prices for manufactured goods. Until the yuan is allowed to appreciate this will continue.
Jobs are being exported from many countries as they lose out in the skills and wages competition for example from Australia to India.
Do you think there will be a future movement of people like the guest workers in Europe in the 60s and 70s? I’m tending to think not and that in future immigration will be more controlled and supervised .
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,442649,00.html
Link to article from Speigel Online.Talks about new underclass in Germany.
No, I think I understood his general thrust. I was criticising his use of ahistorical terminology while simultaneously whingeing about other people being ignorant of history.
“Taylorism” is something I’d normally associate with the post WWII industrial expansion. To refer to something that happened much earlier (and pre-Taylor!) as “Taylorism” is absurd.
That’s if he even actually meant the late 19th century. Maybe he really was referring to honest to goodness Taylorism, which would mean he was referring to some unspecified part of the 20th century? Who can tell?
Greg M said “Below is an article (HTML format) by Abdullah Saeed…He paints are far more complex and interesting picture than just Lebanese in Sydney”
I must have read a different link! What we got was a tax payer funded, simplistic, white washed version of “Islam for Dummies”. Besides the prose…and lucy left with a smile on her face ..blah blah..The paper addressed none of the real issues with Islam in Australia and provided no new or even old insights.
What is left out is more telling, a quick whitewash of polygamy and not a mention of poor old (oops young) Aisha. Perhaps the defining statement that men and women are equal in Islam would be better explained …eer nope…
Not withstanding that there is need for a definative study of Islam in Australia. This ain’t it. Yet the smh is accused of bias and this primary school reading trollop is not?
I do look forward to the review of government funded television by David Marr, it will be more balanced than the above.
For Oigal:
A Saeed, Islam in Australia. Allen and Unwin 2003.
A Saeed & A Shahram (eds), Muslim Communities in Australia. UNSW Press 2001
For a more positive feeling: a comment from an Australian Muslim
If you can’t be bothered, this is part of the transcript of a 60 Minutes *forum* on Islam in Australia from 10 November 2002:
SJ
Your second point is valid enough, but probably semantics. I would also suggest that post WWII is generally referred to as the “Fordist” period where assembly lines based on FoMoCo of Detroit were the dominant model. Some would argue that we’re now in the *post* Fordist period, but that’s too post-modern for my taste.
“Someone has to make the Tamogochi”
OK, so my second point (no different from my first point, really), dealing with terminology, is “valid enough”, but “probably semantics”, i.e. terminology. How wonderfully big of you for that concession.
Taylorism and Fordism are synonyms.
Tell me how it would make sense to talk about “late nineteenth century Fordism”.
That’s not strictly right, SJ, though they’re often used as such.
Fordism refers to a mode of regulation of the workplace and political economy where the mode of production is Taylorist. That’s post-Marxist jargon from the French Regulation School (the same mob who invented the term “post-Fordism” which Eric doesn’t like – but it’s not denying that there’s still material production but rather that this is less important as a source of valorisation and of the circuit of capital than it once was).
But put simply, what Ford added to the mix was (relatively) high wages. So Fordism refers to an accumulation strategy that (before Keynes wrote) saw the creation of effective demand through the acceptance of a slightly lesser share of GDP going to capital, setting up a virtuous cycle where mass production would meet a mass market for consumer goods – usually within a relatively autarchic national economy.
For my sins, I did two years’ postgrad study in political economy, by the way.
I think semantics are important and it’s for that reason, as I also argued above, that I think Ralston Saul is flatly wrong on this point.
Whether or not that affects his broader argument is another question.
I’m content to defer to you on this point, Mark.
Right, so does the broader argument hold water?
Basically, the argument is that the importation of cheap labour into Europe from the margins – in this case large numbers of Islamic workers from poor and mostly agrarian/semi-rural backgrounds – has created the conditions which we now find almost overwhelming *us*.
I think JRS is basically right that exclusionist social policies have led to the creation of alienated pockets of ethnicly and religiously identified workers who are also shut out of the union movement (to a large degree) and who are visibly different because of how they dress (the burqa etc) and because of poorly-understood religious practices.
My original point was that how the humanist left responds to this (from ALP leftwards) could make difference. If the ground is left to the right then I think the situation will get worse, not better.
Yes, Eric, I think the broader argument is basically right.
I haven’t read the Globalism book – Brian and I went to hear him speak about it last year and weren’t massively impressed, and I don’t have the same opinion of his intellectual acumen as you do – for me he misses too much with his very broad brush.
For instance, the argument about the union movement is much more relevant to Britain, the US and France and Germany than Australia.
Some Australian unions hired Italian, Greek and Vietnamese speaking organisers in the 70s.
I think you’d find there are a lot of low paid Muslim workers in the FMHU, for instance.
In Australian conditions, it’s more likely (for a range of reasons) to be Vietnamese workers in small manufacturing shops who are effectively shut out of unions (by employers I hasten to add).
This must be the post with “Islam” in the title that has the most civilised comments thread ever. Interesting…
But the question is: difference for what?
The part of the Left spectrum you refer to here don’t have identical visions and hopes for the futures of their societies.
The liberal, egalitarian Left are interested in maintaining and extending if possible current policies of tolerance, acceptance, acculturation and social harmony. In a very real sense these folk are deeply conservative. And why shouldn’t they be? They have dominated public discourse and public policy in many areas of life for forty years.
On the other hand, the revolutionary Left are deeply dissatisfied with current arrangements. They see the liberal left’s accommodation with global capitalism as a betrayal of leftist principles. They’d prefer to see as broad-based a movement ranged against capitalism. They fear Rightist manipulation of ethno/cultural/religious differences to undermine and divide the forces of the Left.
Meantime, this element of the Left has real problems in approaching “out” groups such as Muslims proclaiming their respect for difference, yet suggesting that these differences are less important than their supposed more abiding affiliation with exploited groups of different races, nationalities, religions, and cultures.
It is therefore incorrect to talk about the left as if it were homogeneous.
Eric,
Sorry for the late reply and thanks for the refences although maybe kinda hard to get in my present location. You will have to forgive me then in asking “Whats your point?” (and I really am not being rude here, its a fair dinkum question)
oigal: my point is basically related to Katz’ most recent post: What is the broad left (recognising differences, but also that there has to be some common ground) going to do in the face of a very reactionary religious current that provides us with a number of problems (again I dips me lid to Katz):
Reactionary, fundamentalist Islam is a deeply conservative ideology – we see this everyday in many ways and the religion’s attitudes to women are the most obvious and visible point.
Reactionaries in the West point to fundamentalist Islam and basically argue that it has to be crushed – the whole *clash of civilisations* discourse. The practical manifestation of this is, of course, the current CoW policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq and the terror war fear and smear campaign.
The response of many Muslims to this assault (the ideological as well as the military) is to draw the curtains even closer and dig in to their fundamentalist belief system.
This is the message of Hilali and others. It has a strong resonance in the mosques (such as Lakemba, but also other places) because it appears to offer a solution to the racism of the West (I’m generalising, but you get the point).
As a consequence, the liberal-humanist left, which is anti-racist, in favour of religious tolerance and pro-women’s rights is therefore in a quandry.
It cannot side with the Imams who preach intolerance, terrorism and the murder of rape victims. On the other hand, it cannot, either, side with its own ruling class ideologues who are basically preaching their own brand of religious warfare and intolerance.
The right has successfully *wedged* this issue and IMHO the Labor leadership doesn’t know where to go. It supports a withdrawl from Iraq (at least verbally), but argues for a deeper commitment in Afghanisatan.
Thus for the Labor left (and small – one might say insignificant- organisations to its left) the problem is how to cut through both types of fundamentalism and the spurious *Australian values* debate to connect with the deep dissatisfaction and anger in the Islamic community in a productive way that builds political bridges based on a common opposition to racism, intolerance and the very real (see JRS on this) contradictions of global capitalism that create exclusion and marginalisation.
As the pamphlet *Prophet and the Proletariat* (linked in my original post) argues, this is a difficult, but necessary, political step that will help the dissafected Islamic community to recognise their common ground with other oppressed and marginalised groups; engage them in a common struggle which will help breakdown their ideological reliance on the Imams and help overcome much of the prejudice that exists in the heads of their natural allies in a struggle against capitalism – the working class.
This is a common problem, not just one of the Islamic community. Marx’ comment that religion is the opiate of the masses applies equally to Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Family First etc.
I’m not saying I have all (even any) of the real answers, but here’s one small example: I have a Bosnian Muslim student in one of my classes. He gave a very good presentation on the problems with Huntington’s thesis of a *clash of civilisastions*. He is devout, but also politically progressive. It is these people who the secular left must connect with.
Yes, interesting Eric.
Clearly the broad Left has a common interest in combatting anti-Islamic reactionaries when they attempt to use religious defamation as a wedge to justify persecution of Muslims.
And again, it is worth considering the complexity of motives of reactionaries who attempt such a thing.
There are those reactionaries who believe that Islam is a peculiarly evil form of religion which should be expunged, if possible, from the face of the earth.
And there are those reactionaries who have nothing in particular against Islam, except that the religion may be a convenient out-group against whom a populist frenzy might easily be whipped up.
Opponents of reaction need to tailor their rhetoric and political action to the form of reaction they confront.
At the same time, as you hint, the Left is faced with their own problems: what elements of Islam ought to be welcomed, what elements ought to be tolerated, and what elements ought to be deplored and combatted? For it is true that, as you say, there are some intolerable aspects, from an equal rights and humanitarian point of views, of Islam as it is often currently practised.
Now, as you hint, many sectors of the Islamic community in Western countries have become suspicious and embattled. They are convinced of a program of oppression. This renders accommodation with the Left somewhat more difficult.
It is true to say that particular care must be taken not to reinforce Muslims’ sense of embattlement.
And this is where the Left itself becomes vulnerable. For their sensitivity and concern for hurt feelings can be portrayed by the noise machines of the Right as proof of the naivete or even disloyalty of the Left.
And it is this aspect of the wedge play of the Right which is perhaps the most insidious and dangerous because it turns into a liability that quality that should be the greatest asset of the Left — its ability to empathise with the point of view of the oppressed and marginalised.
Clearly the broad Left has a common interest in combatting anti-Islamic reactionaries when they attempt to use religious defamation as a wedge to justify persecution of Muslims.
Meanwhile, the Two Dannys are up on Star Chambers charges for “vilifying” the RoP.
The left yawns.
That was well argued, Katz. However, I disagree with this bit:
No it ain’t.
At this point, the distinctions between the liberal-humanist left, the labour left, the revolutionary left, etc. disappear. Those between the left and the conservatives do, too. The “anti-fascists” are the real opponents of what’s going on now. It ain’t some problem for just us “lefties” to deal with.
And in deference to Kim, who said:
I guess I should swear at you or something like that. How’s this:
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries! (warning, sound)
The crazy and hilalious alliance between Islam and the left continues: yes indeed, women should cover up or be raped.
That’s Suzanne Bassette,
National secretary, Australian Democrats.
SJ, in the long run, you may be correct. However, it is clear that Howard, Downer, Ruddock, and Nelson are quite happy to kick the Islamist can for political advantage.* And it is clear that this tactic has not impeded their ability to capture the marginal vote.
And where are the voices of decency within the Coalition? They are few and far between. Interestingly, Abbott has acted with some decency. And Georgiou has been a beacon of light.
Your assertion becomes absolutely true only when Georgiou’s stance is the dominant stance in the Lib/Nat coalition.
_________________
* Note that I believe that these gentlemen are not inveterate Islamophobes. They are merely populist opportunists, as per my taxonomy in an earlier post.
What about the Christophobes of Victoria? We need a Katz taxonomy for Bracksy & Co!
Just this week Dr Tanveer Ahmed was a guest on The Religion Report on Radio National speaking on the issue of the left and conservative Islam vis a vis social justice. It IS a very tricky area no doubt about that, but the only option is engagement, honest critique and dialogue inho.
In regards to womens rights there are clearly some teachings regarding Domestic violence (see: Rights of a wife over a husband link on the Islamic Female Association Australian website (the link wont take i’m afraid – google it if interested) where a link to “the right of a wife over a husband” explains that a husband can pre-emptively hit or confine his wife for disobedience), reflecting the patriarchal nature of conservative islam.
Yet i worked with a number of progressive Islamic women fighting hard for social justice and equity for women, and i think one of the best thing non-Islamic women can do is play a strong role in empowering and supporting these women in their work.
For those who may be interested in this area there is a good conference on this weekend in Bris put on by the Immigrant womens Support Service:
Carole one of the organisers is a friend of mine, and she may be able to squeeze you in!
“…on the issue of the left and conservative Islam.”
Female Australian Democrats power-broker agrees with “Sheik” Hilali that women who dress inappropriately are asking to be raped.
The left today: totally bonkers.
Thanks Eric,
Fair enough, although later comments such as “However, it is clear that Howard, Downer, Ruddock, and Nelson are quite happy to kick the Islamist can for political advantage.* And it is clear that this tactic has not impeded their ability to capture the marginal vote.”
Can’t you just leave it alone for a second..
Moving on, lots there but I would be interested in what the Left would suggest is a solution? The mad Mufti should be left alone to preach that sort of thing in the name of free speech or the government should not make a comment?
It is fair to say that people like him and many others seek fundamental changes in the Australian Society. To my way of thinking, that leaves only two options, restrict and repress (not preferred) or outright challenge at every level. Withdraw the shield of “It’s not their fault or you must respect the beliefs of another culture” and these viewpoints collapse in their own stupidity and dark-age mentality as well they should.
“Carole one of the organisers is a friend of mine, and she may be able to squeeze you in!“
I don’t know if that was for me cowgirl but sorry not available. I am already living in a Muslim country and we are busing enough fighting a rear guard action against moron’s approaching my partner telling her how she should dress, demanding access to our children to ensure that they receive the right spiritual guidance, oh and the ever fun official raids to inspect your family documents in case you are living in sin (not a huge issue, a cash donation is usually also required). Of course, formal complaints to the local school are met with the „If you don’t like it leave“ comment. Which I must admit, from my point of view has a lot of merit and perhaps Oz should learn from it
Free speech means you can’t be criminally charged for saying something (unless it’s intended to incite violence). It doesn’t mean that other people can’t make a big bloody fuss when you say something stupid. Or sue for defamation.
So this or that mufti can say what he likes, but if it’s really offensive and matently wrong then he won’t be asked for his input into anything any more, so his organisation better distance themselves from him and his words or be shut out.
So maybe as an atheist I shouldn’t just give a weary heard-it-all-before shrug of the shoulders when I get the firey pits of hell no aterlife for you routine?
Still, better than the Gold Coast.
Hmm I appear to have partially ascended into comments heaven.
Oigal reveals his cunning plan…
outright challenge at every level.
Problem solved!
Well if it was up to me yes, I see no redeeming features in making allowances for that kind of statement, among the many others. But if maintaining the “tolerance, acceptance, acculturation and social harmony” then GOD FORBID (pun intended)of course we should all readily accept that uncovered women are just pieces of meat as a viable point of view. I was just culturally insensative when I take offence when one of indoctrinated approaches my partner in the street and tells her to cover up.
Do tell Katz ..what should I do? I am assuming a punch in the mouth is not culturally correct
I think you may be mis-remembering what happened. The five people arrested over the alleged “boot full of petrol bombs” were also refused bail:
Only one of the five was charged, and the accusations didn’t stack up in court:
Note that he hasn’t been given a “slap on the wrist”, the charges are still pending. But also note that none of those charges include possession of a “boot full of petrol bombs” or anything like it, because a pack of condoms in the glovebox and a jerry can of petrol in the boot simply isn’t anything of the kind. I doubt that there’ll be any serious evidence produced by police that he’s a neo-Nazi, either:
Hey, that’s not fair. You’ve put my latest response to Eric prior to Eric’s comment. There’s something wrong with LP’s clock.
Eric, why the hell should people discuss Islam with “decorum”? You sound like a convert.
I would have thought that “a punch in the mouth” fits well within the capacious confines of a policy defined as “outright challenge at every level”.
I’m simply suggesting that “outright challenge at every level” would on the face of it allow and recommend anything and everything, including a “punch in the mouth” and taking the children of imams hostage until they say politically correct things.
In other words, your policy is both incredibly ambitious and incredibly unfocussed.
How can one be vilified by a reference to a place that no atheist believes exists anyway?
Though we are used to being condemned to hell by Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Eric,
How so? By quoting from the koran? Then, according this assessment, the koran itself vilifies Islam. No one in their right mind would consider prosecuting the koran for vilifying itself, yet Judge(?) Higgins unwittingly reaches this conclusion and proves his incompetence and ignorence of the subject he judges.
Yet the Sheik clearly and knowingly licenses Aussie Islamists to carry out the judgement that their Allah has already aimed at Christians (in his words ‘polytheists’), which is that they should go to hell.
Then he procedes to blame 90% of Aussie women for rape, and hands his male converts an escape clause for the same repugnant act. What difference does it make how many Islamists are invited, even if not incited, to violence? How many does it take?
In moderation! Can we have a discussion and say ‘Isl*m’, or ‘M*slim’ without having to go into moderation? Is it OK to say Christian, or Jew, but not those other words. That must say something!
Interesting! I made a comment a few minutes ago, on November 3 at 11.07, and earlier comments were thrown forward into November 4! This thread has time travel capabilities, or is it just my browser?
“Iâm simply suggesting that âoutright challenge at every levelâ? would on the face of it allow and recommend anything and everything, including a âpunch in the mouthâ? and taking the children of imams hostage until they say politically correct things.”
That a whole world beyond silly, I never suggested anything like that, and its insulting that you suggest I did. Nor did I say you should punch someone (go back and read the post and its context)
To “challenge at every level people who make those kind of comments” to taking the “taking children of imams hostage” and trying to link me to that is unbelievable! Grow up
Oigal reveals his cunning plan…
Problem solved!
France is often cited as a case in point regarding tensions between Islamic migrants & the so called ‘proletariat’. In my experience living in Europe I found that most old migrants barely speak the lingo of the nation they’ve moved to…they’re nostalgic (understandably), seem arrogant when in fact they’re just knowledgeable oldies refusing to kowtow…sometimes the oldies from the recently FOCUSED ON culture enjoy playing the GREMLIN & pissing the locals off deliberately, sometimes the LOCALS do the same…it’s all part of the GAME. Mostly innocent, filled w/ a few grumblings…but LIFE goes on.
But in comes a group of racist, political, ambitious sh*t stirrers…sometimes these are the same people who have been spurred by a lover of a different nationality…sometimes they try too hard to be liked by their embittered parent…sometimes they hate…kill cats…hope to find another victim…& sometimes a SICK F*CK has a metting offering free food & wine & tells these disparate, yet sad individuals that they can find UNION in a common cause…a COMMON ENEMY.
And they learn to express their dysfunctional, neurotic HATE thru strategies such as:
mugging a backpacker who looks different…burning a migrant out of their HOME…kicking the life out of a coloured homeless person in a carpark…or park…bashing a cabbie because he speaks in hesitant LINGO & cause they’re looking for an excuse to prove their solidarity, their connectedness, their LUV for each other…sometimes outa fear so as not to look weak…be picked on…
and sometimes they are called upon by their ambitious LEADER to construct an event that could change the face of their NATION…make their lives worth more than a pittance…FALSE FLAGGING:
(source: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/index.php)
Sometimes the world wobbles…ride w/ it.
N’
I like it Eric…good points…but they also need to know that we are beginning to see the BS that is being committed upon them by dark forces of the night…even in the day. Until we do we aren’t really listening, no empathy, no real understanding of their plight…they might seem paranoid…but they have probably got good cause.
The sh*t stirrers are everywhere…some desire good ratings, advertising dollars from it. As was the case w/ radio jocks supporting a bunch of current affair’s assassins trying to CONSTRUCT the scenario that Logan is riddled w/ Islander gangs who live by the LA GANG sword.
The CH.9 crew were caught on surveillance camera paying kids to look tough & do gang signs. OUTED!
We stopped them for now dividing a society…but how many more BEFORE…& in the FUTURE?
CL not too far back:
There is a distinct difference I think, while the Mufti’s comments have been roundly condemned, he was not – as the more rabid bampots (not at LP) have whinnied, *inciting* rape.
The *Two Dannys* have actually been vilifying Islam, which is against the spirit (if not the letter) of the federal anti-discrimination legislation.
That’s the legal, technical point. The broader issue is that they have the social weight of the *christian* faith behind them, while Muslims in Australia are in a very small (though growing) minority. The cultural backlash against Islam and against Arabic *looking* people (the infamous suspect who is of “Middle Eastern appearance”) is a virulent form of racism and religious intolerance.
The double standards of the media over the Cronulla riots is a case in point. Neo-Nazi fucknuckles with a boot full of petrol bombs and weapons get a slap over the wrist, Lebanese youths get jail and no bail.
Thanks to Katz and others who have maintained the decorum of this thread and engaged thoughtfully with the arguments.
Then learn to write what you mean to say. Grow a brain, Tool.
The Sheiks’s remarks:
Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.
clearly vilify Christians and Jews (as well as athiests) in describing them as the worst of God’s creation and in saying that they will end up in hell for eternity.
What is the relevance of whether, as you claim:
The logic of your argument is that because Muslims are a small minority they should have license to vilify others and that the Left should support them, or at least not condemn them, when they do so.
To hold such a position about the right of any group, where defined by ethnicity or religious persuasion, to vilify others is to apply an appalling double standard and is a path to creating an environment of racial and religious intolerance which you claim to deplore.
Need a bit of help with elementary logic, do we?
The Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 will help.
Section 8 provides:
8. Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of
another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred
against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other
person or class of persons.
Note: “engage in conduct” includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or
transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct-
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions
over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.
The views and beliefs of the person or class of persons being vilified are not relevant to whether they have been vilified.
The Sheik’s remarks about Christians, Jews and athiests passes the test in Section 8 in spades.
Need a bit of help with elementary logic, do we?
No no GregM that’s not logic that’s information.
If you’re suggesting that all religions should offer no questions asked afterlife salvation and equal regard for the faithful vs faithless then Valhalla I AM coming. It sounds like something I could really get behind, do you need some cash for the court case?
Frankly I think you’re on firmer practical (but not necessarily legal) ground for vilification for calling women sluts who deserve what they get.
No Anthony I don’t think that all religions should offer unbelievers a free get-out-of-hell card. What I believe is that there should be no anti-religious vilification laws and that we should be free to slag off at all religions to our hearts’ content. Freedom of expression goes hand-in-hand with freedom of belief.
What I have objected to is Eric B’s argument that because Islam is a minority religion it should be given a privileged position over religious beliefs held by the majority.
Since I have never called women sluts who deserve what they get, I am on no ground at all for vilification.
If your remark is just badly worded and what you are trying to say is that to say such a thing would be better grounds for accusing someone of vilification then yes on the whole I would agree. And I think that the Sheik’s reported comments went very close to doing just that. I hope that the HREOC and its NSW equivalent are giving his sermon close study.
Well why didn’t you just say so then GregM, then we could have avoided all this tenuous oh-yeah-but-what -about hoo ha?
Now I’d like you to look in my eyes and tell me that there was even the remotest chance in the world that I was referring to you in the frankly comment.
There that’s better.
Man, that Section 8 business is one scary-ass “law”. Have you folks lost your minds?! Who decides what “severe” is? And you’ve also bravely gone and outlawed “revulsion” and “ridicule”, is that right? (Leaving aside that I understand “revulsion” to be a more or less involuntary reflex response, viz. I have a “revulsion” to vomit and poo, etc.) Government-as-college-campus-brain-police! Perhaps you can outlaw unhappiness next.
Mr. Graham Bell — where’s your outrage over eroded civil liberties?
Mr. “Blair” — what have you got to say about all this doubleplusungood badspeak? Or does this fall under the excusable “revolution is not a tea party, underpaid McDonald’s employees should hang their bosses from the lampposts” category?
In the US military code, “Section 8″ covers the grounds for discharge by reason of insanity. Seems perfectly consonant with this case.
Oh diddums, did I upset the poor little thing..((
So much for civilised..
Well pay close attention, if you can! I never said the things you tried to link to me and if you are not mature enough to ackowledge that, so be it.
As for learn to write and tool..gee shucks I is so hurtz by that.. I rest my case GROW UP!
In the real world not all of us will fit into your straw man scenario. If you are incapable of debating or talking without drawing obvious bullshit and obnoxious extremes then take a bex and lie down instead.
I do gain some amusement at your pathetic attempts to attribute extreme and erronous views to me as compared to the well documented views of the mad mufti. Isn’t that some thing you normally accuse your reason for living howard and downer of?
Sorry it must be my poor educmication agains..I can’ t thinks of the word..Hysercitter ..no Hypercreature..Hypercritr..never mind.. I am sure such a edcmahcated person of your letter would recognise the term, every time they looks in the mirror
BTW ..Words by weight don’t make value.. bullshit by the ton is still bullshit