Statement on Islamism

Not sure that this belongs in 'Announcements'. It's worthwhile as a discussion about how to fight against the influence of religion on the working class, making it clear that we are against all divisions and that all forms of religion are reactionary today. I would be against any 'campaign' type approach which specifically targeted Islamism as the problem, even though you are quite right to say that Islamism expresses and practises contempt for the working class. We need to attack the philo--Islamism of the left while also being aware that there are mirror image campaigns being organised by the right.
I work in a college where the majority of students are influenced by religion, including the most thoughtful ones who are most critical of our present society. This applies to both the Christian and Muslim students - it is quite possible for them to hold the most reactionary views about evolution or the conflict in the Middle East while still being open to discussion about what's wrong with our present system. Very often they reject the official version of events only to buy some other false vision, especially conspiracy theories of one kind or another. We have to be able to relate to such people without compromising on any principles.

Islamism can be attacked in a less "racist" way than just again connecting Islam to terrorism (which is just a rehash of EDL propaganda). It's much better to point out what Islamist parties and govts. (where that apply) have attacked, used and abused the working class. Or for that matter how Islamist cadres work in trade unions and the like. Islamists do not believe in a class divide (we are all equal under god) and in union work will often argue for class collaboration and peace with the employers.

Then there is the issue of how Islamists try to co-opt/use or use working class movements/protests. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a good example.

As long as Islamism is attacked (which is, btw, not a homogenous ideology) it's fine, but the issue is whether this can be done without attacking all Muslims. It's a slippery slope (just look at EDL).

I agree with what you write about Islamisicism, but wonder why there is so much focus on it. I'd imagine that there are more fundamentalist Christians in the UK than Islamicists yet people aren't going on about them all the time.

Devrim

I don't think attacking Islam in general for being anti-working class (which it clearly is, along with all other organized religions) makes you EDL.
In fact you come close to doing that yourself when you say that "Islamists do not believe in a class divide (we are all equal under god) and in union work will often argue for class collaboration and peace with the employers." Surely the same can be said of "moderate" Muslims/Christians/etc.
I am not suggesting an obnoxious "new atheism" style hate campaign against Islam (or religion) as the biggest and only evil in the world (which would be irrelevant and idealist), but clearly Islamism and fundamentalism in general do not exist in a void, and must be criticized not as "extreme" aberrations, but as logical conclusions of the "moderate" religious establishment, be it Muslim, Catholic or what have you.

I see what you get at, but I would say that moderate Muslims/Christians would argue for capitalist peace more based on ideology rather than an actual political programme, which is what some Islamists do. As I am sure you know, there is a huge difference between Islamism and Islam. The former being a distinct political expression of Islam (yes, Islam originally was by default political, but is a very different thing today). Islamism is certainly a logical expression of Islam, but there are also working class expressions of Islam that can be equally logical.

I don't know enough about Irish republicanism to comment. But it's a very specific example. If you'd asked "would you connect Saudi Wahabism to terrorism?" then I would've said yes. Point being that Wahabism is a specific expression of Islamism, and probably the most poisonous one.

Attacking Islaisms as terrorist in Muslim countries won't get you far, but it will sure win you friends in the West.

a political program has to be ideological by definition though, no?
In what sense are Fatah or the Turkish Jusice and Development Party (Devrim or someone else can bring in further details; I know next to nothing about Turkish politics) not political for example? If you add nationalism to moderate religious conservativism you pretty much have a political program I'd say.

I would not have made the argument that Islam was political from the beginning anyway, because whatever politics actually meant in the 7th century is irrelevant to what they mean today. Nevertheless I don't think the difference is that huge. Certainly from a religious POV the biggest differences between Islamists and moderate Muslims are of degree rather than kind.
Politically, it may be a distinct expression of politicized Islam, but I don't think it's worlds apart from its moderate conservative rival. I don't believe for a minute that Al Qaeda actually want a stateless global caliphate no more than I believe that national socialists actually want socialism (I realize that this is a problematic parallel but I'm obviously not suggesting that the Taliban are nazis).
Islamism is definitely supportive of, and relies, on capitalism and the existence of a class society, which means that as with religious matters, in political matters Islamism differs only in degree from its pseudo-secular counterpart.

Honestly I don't think religion can serve as a medium for radical ideas today; at most it can survive as a useless appendage, something which some militants may not want to let go of for purely personal reasons, which is obviously fine by me. But from that to organized religion as expression of class solidarity there is a a wide, and in my opinion, unbridgeable, gap.

I wouldn;t paint them as being instrinsically linked. Terrorism is simply what happens when a political ideology becomes simply the bastion of a minority.
In irelands case this was always due to republicanism being linked to a specific national identity, though now the attacks by splinter groups are increasingly those of an even more isolated minority who simply lash out at everyone who doesn;t go along with their vision, calling them collaborators and so on as demonstrated recently in that mental pizza delivery attack.
Islamism by contrast was not specifcally nationalist originally, (its aim being a pan-arab islamic super state) but its followers turned to jihadism and terrorism when the masses in arabic countries didnt rise up and proclaim a caliphate, see algeria for a classic exampe of this. First the jihadists blamed the ruling classes, then they started blaming the masses for not rising up, then finally they turned on each other.

Wahabism is a sect within Islam. Other movements are different, the South Asian Jamaat-i-Islami is probably better seen as a political movement with a religious label, if that distinction makes any sense.

Devrim, I understand your point, but actually people here on Libcom don't go on very much about Islam/ism - there haven't been many discussions around it as far as I can see so I think it's a reasonable topic. Unfortunately, having had a look at some of what's gone before here, I think the discussions haven't been of a very high quality.

There is a nifty little booklet about the history of Islamism newly published by the Quilliam foundation (no I don't agree with their politics) and it can be found here:
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/

No, I don't think they do. It isn't an unreasonable topic for discussion. I don't think there is anything wrong with putting it in context though.

Can you give us an example?

I think a Caliphate is a state anyway.

Devrim

A caliphate is certainly a state, a 'benevolent' despotism. It's quite a good weak point in the arguments of the students who think we can find salvation in the caliphate, providing they are already a little bit susceptible to the critique of the state

I can agree with the statement - as long as we make it clear that islam is NOT islamISM.. The first is a religion, no better or worse than other religions; the second is a reactionary political ideology, based on a very specific interpretation of that religion. Also, I think Devrim's warning is very relevant: we should keep a sense of perspective, islamism is only ONE of the dangerous fundamentalisms around, and not the most influential.

Yes off course you could. Irish republicanism is an ideology that sees the single nation state as being what unites people who happen to be born within the borders of that nation, regardless of class. Violence was a tactic that Irish Republicanism used in the past and some splinter idiots still do. However the criticisms of republicanism remain the same whether the are employing the failed tactic of armed struggle or the failed tactic of parliamentary democracy.

I'd say anyone who works recieves wages/salaries.