Why Islam is the new Marx

THE central conflict in the war on ideas lies in the underlying stuff of man and how we think societies should be organised. Regardless of what ideology has ruled human affairs, they have all provided answers to this question. This is true in religion as it is in politics. As the conflict in the Middle East continues, the secular influences of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are not obvious to the neutral observer. Nor is their attraction to the young Muslim in the Sydney street or the professional living in Indonesia clear.

"The core problem," as Paul Kelly argued on this page on Wednesday, "seems to be the attraction of the Islamist movement."

The 20th century saw the demise of communism, despite its attraction to millions of people who felt poor or downtrodden. It was exposed as a totalitarian system that stifled the aspirations of man. But its stain is spreading within the casing of Islamic fundamentalism. This does not seem obvious, especially considering Osama bin Laden himself was instrumental in defeating the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan more than two decades ago. And the Iranian revolution of 1979 was in part a reaction to the perceived godlessness of communism knocking at its doorstep.

This was mimicked to a lesser degree throughout the Middle East, from Egypt to Jordan.

But the old Marxists are extending their influence in many of the Islamic political parties that are rapidly rising in popularity, in response to inept, autocratic Arab governments. Arab governments have closed off opportunity to such an extent that secular forces such as communism or liberalism have minimal outlets.

A minor quibble from an old Cold Warrior on an otherwise excellent piece - the author uses the terms "Marxism" and "communism" interchangeably, and they aren't. The part of Islamism that is most attractive is the one most similar to latter-day Communism given that it consists of a base population that is not proletariat and a leadership that is its very opposite. Originally neither Marxism nor Islam contained an element of leadership that was apart from its constituency. Both of those ideologies have had to be altered to account for a priveleged elite that leads the movements and drives its followers. Both classical Marxists and Muslims would regard this alteration as corruption.

But there are more similarities than differences, IMHO, especially with respect to militant Islam and that manifestation of state socialism that was Fascism. For one thing, revolution is intensely romantic and offers an escape from the frustrations of poor material circumstances and the boredom that stems from good material circumstances. This is one reason that although poverty is often claimed as a "root cause" we see so many relatively wealthy revolutionaries, both Communist and Islamist. Both ideologies function by positing an enemy who must be destroyed before a promised utopia can come to pass. Both offer moral absolution for actions that would normally be considered reprehensible - hatred, violence, murder. Both offer membership in a collective that salves a lack of individual achievement on the part of its members. Both offer a simplified explanation for how the world works that denies contraindicative evidence and is actually quite different from its respective root theory. And neither ideology has ever succeeded in building anything that wasn't stolen from previous owners.

Rush is right.

Communiusts do not go away.

The breakup of the failed, miserable, joke of the Soviet Union led to many wandering communists.

They did not die, they did not go away. They went into the greenies.

Spotted owls, salamanders, anything to keep capitalists from winning.

Their shock troops are ELF, and such.

Their cheerleaders are democrats.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.