Leftism in muslim countries - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14856841
With the return of history and the decline of left wing politics in western countries, is there anything we leftists can learn from the leftists in Muslim countries like Turkey or Iran?
The relativism of the left seems not to have been touched them as much as in the west it seems.
What are your thoughts about this?
#14856849
The Islamic World was a bastion for leftism for some time. Part of the history that the imperialists always forget to mention is that the religious extremists were propped up by the great powers to fight the left. The legacy resulted in another tool, the narrative that the Islamic World is barbarian and full of backward zealots (created, paid, and financed by the British and Americans).

So far as relativism in the left, I might need more context as to what you’re referring to. But it’s very possible that the left in the Islamic World grows as an alternative to the West and its Frankenstein monster.
#14856899
@The Immortal Goon @Reichstraten

The reason why the left in the Middle East is much more "better" than that of the West is due to several reasons.

First, liberalism in the ME has a common and defined enemy which is extremist or political Islam. The largest intellectual debate in the ME is whether or not there should be a seperation between religion and the state. This is a very broad fight and encompasses many liberal ideologies from anarcho-capitalism to communism. In the West however, the enemy is very undefined and may not even exist. The two dominant lines of political thought in the West, both the left and the right, don't know what they're fighting for anymore. They have lost a goal and vision while liberals in the ME have a clear set of goals that they need in order to thrive.

Second, the left in the Middle East is small. This may seem to be a disadvantage of the left in the ME but it really isn't. The left in the ME is small but politically powerful however what gives it an advantage over the left in the West is that it's small enough to form a tightly connected network of liberals and intellectuals and, therefore, form a united front against it's common enemies and for it's common interests. Such a thing does not exist in the West.

Third, and most importantly, liberalism in the ME is open to new ideas with each of those ideologies being on friendly terms with one another, something you definitely don't see in the West. In the ME, you can see a communist and a libertarian being on friendly terms politically and even agreeing with each other somewhat and even engage in the rare event known as "friendly debate". You can see people with ideologies completely opposed to one another share ideas and agree with one another. Why? Because the ME has a completely different history with liberalism than the West has had. In the West, liberal ideologies aren't simply ideas anymore, liberal ideologies have become essentially slightly more flexible religions or dogmas to be followed and even to die for. There is so much violence between different liberal ideologues in the West that some of them cannot even stay in the same room with a person from another school of thought let alone someone with an opposing ideology.

Western liberal ideologies have in-fighting within in-fighting and no one is willing to make compromises with each other. In the ME, liberalism represents a set of practical ideas for improving society and it's effectiveness rather than representing a set of beliefs or a moral standpoint. A communist in the ME is a communist because he thinks that communism is the best fit for his country meanwhile a communist in the West is often a communist because he believes it's morally right. That's not to say that a communist in the ME won't believe in communism because it's morally right or that a communist in the West won't believe in communism because it's a good fit for his country but rather that these things are second to their main concerns.

Basically, liberalism in the MidEast is a tool to be used to gain results. This was originally the case in the West but after ideology became the biggest thing since sliced bread this changed radically. And this leads me to my second point. Because liberalism in the MidEast is seen as a tool, the left of the ME accepts pretty much every liberal idea out there. I have seen strange ideas such as anarcho-monarchism, networkology, kritarchy, futarchy, and even anarcho-primitivism gaining acceptance and even popularity in the left here in the ME. This is because it doesn't matter what an ideology is but what it can do.
#14857370
@The Immortal Goon

A core aspect to liberalism in the MidEast not present in the West is it's unspoken ideas on democracy and ideology. Another reason why Middle Eastern liberal ideologies aren't in conflict with each other outside of a common enemy and open-mindedness is because most liberals in the Middle East assume that they're ideologies will be pit against each other fair-and-square in a democratic election as parties. The jist of this is that, after political Islam is overthrown, Middle Eastern governments will form a democracy and liberal ideologies such as libertarianism, communism, anarchism, futarchy, technocracy, etc. will be represented by parties which will be then voted on by the population. After an election the party that one will be able to make it's mark on the country and shape it into their own ideal while considering the opinions of the populous. Then, every 2 or 3 or whatever years there will be another election and the same thing as before happens again.

This is obviously naive but an ideal does show how a future liberal Middle Eastern state (which is going to happen at this point and very soon in my opinion) might deal with democracy and ideology representation. A watered down, more federalized, and less corruptible version of the system I have described might work.
#14857459
Oxymandias wrote:If any of you have more questions about liberalism in the Middle East, please let me know.


What I'd like to know most of all: what's the current situation of leftism in Iran? Is it in decline just like in the west?
#14857639
The Immortal Goon wrote:The Islamic World was a bastion for leftism for some time. Part of the history that the imperialists always forget to mention is that the religious extremists were propped up by the great powers to fight the left. The legacy resulted in another tool, the narrative that the Islamic World is barbarian and full of backward zealots (created, paid, and financed by the British and Americans).

So far as relativism in the left, I might need more context as to what you’re referring to. But it’s very possible that the left in the Islamic World grows as an alternative to the West and its Frankenstein monster.


To one terrorist might be the other. Islamic values are unique to Islam, what you call terrorism they call Martir's. ISIS, AL Qaeda, Boko Haram, they always existed, their practices are no different from Mohammad's actions. What we call terrorism always existed, specially in the Middle East.

What you fail to address is that unlike ETA, FARC, Communism or Nazism, Islamic terror never ended, wont end unless everyone decides to submit to Allah.

Here is the thing, WW1 shapped WW2 Germany. Mao's revolution shapped Chinese Communist Genocide. All those countries changed, Islam is still the same.

The problem with Islam is that islam is, wont and can't be reformed. Brits and Americans shapped how Muslims fight their wars by arming them. They shapped who would thrive by playing favorites, but neither Americans or Brits invented Muslim terror, was always there and they only took advantage of it.
#14857668
@Politiks Your views seem very opposite to that of the actual people living with Muslims, or who ARE muslims. You might need to adjust your thinking a bit, since it's really just repeating propaganda. It never hurts to ask people like Anasawad, and such who are not simply repeating Republican talking points, and rhetoric.
#14857675
@Politiks

Listen, leave the Middle East and Middle Eastern politics to people who know wtf they're talking about.

Also stating that Islam hasn't changed at all ignores most of the Middle East's history and even modern history. So you're saying that Dubai didn't change at all socially from 1914 to 2017? That's a load of baloney if you ask me.
#14857771
Politiks wrote:To one terrorist might be the other. Islamic values are unique to Islam, what you call terrorism they call Martir's. ISIS, AL Qaeda, Boko Haram, they always existed, their practices are no different from Mohammad's actions. What we call terrorism always existed, specially in the Middle East.

What you fail to address is that unlike ETA, FARC, Communism or Nazism, Islamic terror never ended, wont end unless everyone decides to submit to Allah.

Here is the thing, WW1 shapped WW2 Germany. Mao's revolution shapped Chinese Communist Genocide. All those countries changed, Islam is still the same.

The problem with Islam is that islam is, wont and can't be reformed. Brits and Americans shapped how Muslims fight their wars by arming them. They shapped who would thrive by playing favorites, but neither Americans or Brits invented Muslim terror, was always there and they only took advantage of it.


To one terrorist might be the other. Christian values are unique to Christianity, what you call terrorism they call Martyrs. The KKK, the UVF, Anti-balaka, they always existed, their practices are no different from Christ's calls to action. What we call terrorism always existed, specially in the Europe.

What you fail to address is that unlike ETA, FARC, Communism or Nazism, Christian terror never ended, wont end unless everyone decides to submit to Jesus.

Here is the thing, WW1 shapped WW2 Germany. Mao's revolution shapped Chinese Communist Genocide. All those countries changed, Christianity is still the same.

The problem with Christianity is that Christianity is, wont and can't be reformed. Brits and Americans shapped how Christians fight their wars by arming them. They shapped who would thrive by playing favorites, but neither Americans or Brits invented Christian terror, was always there and they only took advantage of it.

---

The above is just as true as what you wrote.

Let us, for example, say that Texas succeeded in becoming independent at some point in the Cold War. Would it have been that difficult for the CIA to give ops information to the Branch Dividians? In order to make sure that the Soviets via Cuba didn't get a foothold, to maybe play up that there was a problem in mainstream Christianity that needed to be fixed. Give David Koresh a little information about the people around him. Have a whisper campaign about how other ministers were failing. So on and so forth. If this were to have happened, is it not very possible--in fact a certainty--that David Koresh would have had more followers?

What if David Koresh were suddenlly in possession of more money than he could possibly spend. He bough a giant mega church, he had all the advertising he ever needed. When a hurricane came into Texas, he had endless food, endless medical, and he was there with armed people on the street to keep order until the disaster was over.

What if, through some wheeling and dealing, Koresh was then put in charge of a government that was put together by opposition groups that were suspiciously well armed and funded?

This is basically what we're looking at in the Middle East if it's not just a full, "kill anyone that opposes and send the military in to put Koresh on the throne."

The CIA, or the Brits, or anyone else didn't give a fuck about Islam. What they cared about was that the most militant versions of Islam were reliant upon them to keep control against the communists.

I'm not blaming them for this. It's a valuable tactic to take the enemy of your enemy and fold that together.

But it's completely insane to pretend that people in the Middle East are unique monkeys that can't put logic together and become obsessed with some ideology you imagine for no apparent reason at all and become irredeemable as a result.
#14858198
:lol: That form of classification is rubbish, and horribly out-dated.

1st world countries meant rich democracies.
2nd world was the communist countries, and
3rd world was everyone else.

Really, Thailand's classified the same as USA? interesting.
#14858909
@Reichstraten

I think there needs to be a distinction between Muslim liberalism in America and Middle Eastern/Muslim liberalism in the MidEast. They are fundamentally different from one another. American-Muslim liberalism is just like regular mainstream western social liberalism except with an emphasis on reforming Islam. Middle Eastern liberalism is way too vast in order to talk about it. You would be better off talking about certain Middle Eastern liberal ideologies than talking about liberalism itself.
#14858921
I would say socialism and liberalism in the Muslim world is vastly different from that in the west.
For socialism, Its usually more social engineering and structuring focused with economic structures following after. While in the west its often the other way around. This may sound as a slight difference, but its a vast difference in reality. (EDITED: Added (a) and (difference))
Then you have the fact that in many places, socialism will pretty much be co-opted into an Islamic framework which also differs from regular socialism.

Same applies for liberalism as well.

The OP question is too wide to be answered by any single point, or even a number to that matter. In so it be better to wait for further clarification to which ideological movement or trend are you interested in in the Islamic world and even in Iran and Turkey.

For an example, In Iran.
Do you want to talk about the socialist politics of parties such as the former Tudeh party (i.e the communist party) which is very similar and to a large degree same as that of the USSR ?
Or you want to talk about the People's Mujahedeen movement which is basically revolutionary Marxism in an Islamic framework ?
Or the worker's party which is a secular social democratic party ?

Maybe the nation party which is an Imperialist- nationalist- marxist party that acts as a weird blender of ideologies but attempts to push for socialist policies ?

To say "leftism in Muslim countries" as if its something specific and narrow is a greatly inaccurate statement and outright ridiculous to be honest.
First you have to take into account the fact the most Muslim countries are thousands of years of age, with highly entrenched cultural identities and philosophies that will play a major effect in any type of political and economic system each adopts.
And second thing is when you say left wing movements or parties or ideologies, an important thing to add to that statement is, adding to the first point, relative to or in what context ?. For example Communism in China is different from communism is in Russia or eastern Europe and it surely is different from communism in Iran, because ,as stated previously, the nation's deep routed culture and philosophy will reflect on its ideology.
#14858938
@anasawad

Maybe we should make a list of political ideologies in the ME and ask the westerners here what ideology they want to learn about? Or maybe go through each political ideology in Iran, one by one and explain it fully. I could start by explaining Reformist Constitutionalism which, in the West, is misunderstood to just be "the left" of Iran without even a second thought despite that being a gross misunderstanding.

It is also a dangerous misunderstanding. If a Reformist Constitutionalist Iran comes to fruition, this can lead to some very bad diplomacy.
#14859004
Leftist ideology in the Middle East was a matter of Western influence, and many proponents were Western educated. It was bound to fail, in the face of the resurgance of ignorance and superstition under people like Khomeini and his Guard, the Taliban, and our longtime friends in Saudi Arabia. Aliakbar!!!
#14859116
@neopagan

*facepalm*

Alright, neopagan, we both know you know absolutely nothing about the Middle East or Middle Eastern history, you know nothing about current Middle Eastern politics, and you know nothing about liberalism in the Middle East. So please, shut up, just for this thread. This thread is not about expressing agendas, it's about liberalism in the Middle East and what that's like. If you have any questions about Middle Eastern liberalism, then that is relevant. If you're just here to spread agenda, then get out.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]