I read this
article and wonder.
The terms Islamic nationalism and pan-Islamism have a negative connotation in the West, where they are associated with fundamentalism and terrorism. But that is increasingly not the case in Egypt. Under the dual pressures of foreign military attacks in the region and a government widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate, Islamic groups are seen by many people as incorruptible, disciplined, efficient and caring. A victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon is by extension a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
How's a 1920s-ish version read?
The terms Communist Party or communism have a negative connotation in the West, where they are associated with subversion and the end of society as we know it. But that is increasingly not the case in China. Under the dual pressures of foreign military attacks in the region and a government widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate, communist groups are seen by many people as incorruptible, disciplined, efficient and caring. A victory for Lenin in Russia is by extension a victory for the Communist Part in China.
I guess one major difference is that communists seemed to keep their focus (read: terrorism) abroad, not in the United States, and fairly far from vital US interests (read: oil). And, while I suppose communists talked a big game about taking over the world (Comintern, anyone?), they seemed to operate rather more through the political process in the West (excepting Spain, where the political process broke down), and nothing really came of it. Other differences that I'm giving short shrift to: Race and ethnicity (giant); increased mobility of people, goods, and information; and the difference between a divinely inspired religion and an economic religion, so to speak (I miss rationality).
1 comment:
The revolution in Cuba followed by the Cuban missile crisis was awfully close to home. And as far as oil, it must have been pretty threatening when most of the middle east started to join the Russian sphere of influence.
One major difference, and I'm not sure how best to characterize it, was that communist ideology was fairly patient. Most "communist" revolutions were really nationalist revolutions, throwing out European colonial powers, I think. If I understand it, communist theory was that eventually capitalist, colonial, powers would go to war with eachother over scarce resources, and communism would spontaneously flower. The Soviet Union saw themselves as threatened by the more economically powerful Western powers in the postwar period (Stalin saw things in terms of force and personality, but was fairly friendly with FDR), particulary the U.S., obviously.
In the U.S. we misunderstood Kennan's Long Telegram, which spoke about the Soviet desire for worldwide communism. Kennan meant that it was a long-term goal, and that the Soviets had no ability to make it happen in the short term. But when his report was read in Washington, it sparked fear. Which was natural, seeing as Stalin had something like one hundred divisions in Eastern Europe. The response was NSC-68, which outlined the next 40 years of military containment. Of course the Soviets, feeling weak (I think they lost something like 40 million people during the war, out of a smaller population), were very threatened by this. And so we had a military standoff.
But generally I believe the Soviets never had any intention to force their government and ideology on the US, only on Eastern Europe, which they captured back from the Nazis.
As far as rationality, one phrase from the Long Telegram I had forgotten about, and was only reminded by Wikipedia was that Soviet ideology was "impervious to the logic of reason."
I'm not sure he was right about that, but it shows how someone on the ground felt in 1946. On the other hand, it does seem that reason became more and more powerful in the USSR. Stalin wanted to combat the west with force, Khrushchev took over and saw it as an economic struggle. Then Khrushchev was removed when he was seen as being an uneducated, crazy, boor; an embarrassment to the Soviet Union. Shoe waving, dude. By the Eighties, Sting could sing a song about how we shouldn't be afraid, because the Russians wouldn't start a war if they loved their children the same way we did.
"We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too"
Maybe we can count on the spread of radical islam being contained by parents' love for their children. Shit.
Post a Comment