I wrote:
> > Hizbullah, on the other hand, seems extremely well-organized and > motivated. Too bad their ideology is so repugnant.
Carrol:
I don't think we in the imperialist west can for the time being be picky about the ideology of what remains anti-imperialist forces in the mideast. It was the U.S. that directly or indirectly destroyed secular left forces there, leaving only forces whose "ideology is so repugnant" to resist U.S. power and its mideastern extensions.
I'm afraid that Hizbullah (the "party of God") and neoliberal imperialism are almost two different sides of the same coin.[*] More accurately, there's a symbiotic relationship between the two. In this neoliberal stage of imperialism, the main surge is to destroy any victories that the working class and any progressive nationalist forces have won, so that business can profit from what used to be the business of the state (health, education, welfare, etc., etc.) This doesn't solve -- or even come close to solving -- the human need for health, education, welfare, etc., so some sort of counter-acting movement is needed.[**] One of Hizbollah's main sources of power is its provision of the services that neoliberalism denies to the state. Neoliberalism needs such forces, though of course its leaders don't like the form it takes when it involves Hizbullah or Hamas. The neoliberals want "charity" to take up the slack, complete with all the negative sides to charity (paternalism, etc.) The necessarily fragmented -- anti-internationalist -- nature of nationalist/religious movements such as Hizbullah also serves neoliberalism, since it can hardly be seen as a global challenge (despite all the stuff about alliances with Iran and Syria). The Bush League has combined these two forces (neoliberalism and religious obscurantism) in a winning coalition, as has Israel, in a different way. Maybe that's the wave of the future. After all, I'd bet that Hizbullah isn't opposed to "free enterprise" (Islam isn't). There have been rapprochements between neoliberalism and Arab nationalism or Islamic fundamentalism before (e.g., Saudi Arabia). I think I'll support Lebanon's right to national self-determination and not cheer-lead for Hizbullah. [*] I think that the duality is a more accurate description that Benjamin Barber's "jihad" vs. "McWorld." [**] Karl Polanyi's THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION is a great explanation of the early stage of classical liberalism helped to create the need for social democracy, fascism, etc. He was some sort of social democrat and his theory is a somewhat watered-down version of Marxism, but it's still a very worthwhile book. -- Jim Devine / "An economist is [someone] who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible." -- Alfred A. Knopf
