Religious Fundamentalism and Imperialism

On the blog Red Diary, Vidrohi writes:

Imperialism succeeded in pushing back the Left through an expensive smear campaign against the Leftist forces trough out the world - a campaign that was not limited to mere words, but involved systematic suppression of Communist Parties. However, it could not eliminate the roots of the Left, which lie in the misery and poverty that Imperialism inflicts due to its inherent nature. Thus, in the absence of Left, it was all the more expected from the people to be attracted to any force that gives voice to their grievances, even if they do not provide a coherent program as an alternative to capitalism and Imperialism. This phenonmenon may not be the reason behind the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, for no one denies the working of Imperialism behind their birth, but it surely constitutes as a major cause in their continued existence (even without the enormous U.S. and Saudi funding that they received during the Cold War).

This entry posted in Syndicated feeds. Bookmark the permalink. 

10 Responses to Religious Fundamentalism and Imperialism

  1. 1
    NotACookie says:

    I’m pretty sure that “systematic suppression of communist parties” isn’t the reason that communist regimes collapsed in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and ’90s, and isn’t the reason for the steady increase in Chinese capitalism.

  2. 2
    Decnavda says:

    Okay, so we have a modern application of, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” one of the few things Marx said that made sense. Another recent application is the discussion generated by the book, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Nothing new here, but its okay to be reminded.

    This stuff should also be brought up when Elightenment leftists get into arguments with modernist and post-modernist leftists over whether Islamic fundimentalist terrorism is caused primarily by religion or specific Western imperialist policies. These are not mutually exclusive causes, and they can re-inforce each other.

  3. 3
    Decnavda says:

    NotACookie is right. Marxism failed simply failed on empirical grounds: It doesn’t work. Having elites plan the ecconomy is not only immoral and a recipe for oppression, they can never gather and respond to all the necessary information in a timely manner. This was the primary insight of F.A. Hayek that I think most ecconomists have now accepted to be correct. He was wrong about many other things, but on that he was right.

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Yeah, I’ve got to admit, communism doesn’t seem to have done good things when it’s been implemented.

  5. 5
    J3 says:

    Please be advised, the actual quote and context of Marx’s misquoted ‘opiate of the masses’ goes:

    “Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

    Just thought that should be known considering the discussion.

  6. 6
    Helen says:

    The “collapse of communism” argument, while correct, misses the point, I think. Isn’t the thesis that the oppressed people in colonialised states turn to fundamentalism because the option to agitate for a more equal society has been taken away from them – either by repression or by attacking the Left?

    They wouldn’t have to be aiming for a textbook Marxist society for this to hold true.

  7. 7
    NotACookie says:

    The “collapse of communism” argument, while correct, misses the point, I think. Isn’t the thesis that the oppressed people in colonialised states turn to fundamentalism because the option to agitate for a more equal society has been taken away from them – either by repression or by attacking the Left?

    I think it’s probably correct that Islamism is filling a void left by the collapse of communism. But I’m not sure what follows from that. Marxism, for better or worse, doesn’t work. It’s dead, and can’t be resurrected.

    I don’t regret its passing. I think Islamism is a much less serious threat: radical Islam has much less potential to spread worldwide, is less likely to win adherents in the west, and based on its dismal record in Iran and Saudi Arabia, isn’t likely to last all that long.

  8. 8
    Ben-David says:

    Helen and NotACookie:

    Isn’t the thesis that the oppressed people in colonialised states turn to fundamentalism because the option to agitate for a more equal society has been taken away from them – either by repression or by attacking the Left?

    I think it’s probably correct that Islamism is filling a void left by the collapse of communism.

    How many of the Arab nations that gave birth to fundamentalist Islam were previously functioning socialist republics?

    It’s safer to say that colonialists funded – and therefore sustained – already-existing oligarchic systems whose authority remains inextricably bound up with Islam. Hosni Mubarrak is not a great fan of democracy, and neither was the Shah of Iran – and Syria and others who nursed at the Soviet teat did not run communist or socialist regimes in any real way.

    They were just using foreign funding to perpetuate the traditional feudal systems – old feuds and dynasties enacted using the forms and levers of modern Western-style statehood.

    Any discussion of Muslim fundamentalism should focus more on the fact that this culture has no history of separating religion from social/political doctrine – and power.

    “Fundamentalism replaced communism” – only at the level of funding for up-and-coming oligarchs.

  9. 9
    NotACookie says:

    How many of the Arab nations that gave birth to fundamentalist Islam were previously functioning socialist republics?

    Few, granted. But functioning socialist republics are, well, rare everywhere. I think the more serious question is how many times have socialist opposition groups been succeeded by Islamist opposition groups. And I think there are several examples of that. I’m thinking of Algeria, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria.

    Any discussion of Muslim fundamentalism should focus more on the fact that this culture has no history of separating religion from social/political doctrine – and power.

    I think that’s also misleading. True, church-state separation is not really a muslim doctrine, but neither is it an Orthodox Christian doctrine. There was no church-state separation in Russia until the Soviets. Yet somehow Orthodox Christian autocracy has never been that powerful a force.

    “Fundamentalism replaced communism” – only at the level of funding for up-and-coming oligarchs.

    Mmm. There’s also the aspect of which doctrine up-and-coming oligarchs wrap themselves in when they’re looking to justify themselves. I think Zarqawi probably did consider himself a pious Muslim — but his like would have been doctrinaire Marxists a few decades before.

  10. 10
    Jim says:

    “Yet somehow Orthodox Christian autocracy has never been that powerful a force.”

    There for three or Four centuries the Russian Empire was quite a force to be reckoned with.