: Stupid commies, don't you realise that violence never achieves anything? Miss me with all that talk of revolutionary collective action; real progressivism is when you vote for nice, intelligent Democrat politicians so that they can bestow upon the American people positive socioeconomic policy changes like NAFTA and the Affordable Care Act.
echognomics
joined 4 years ago
Unfortunately, I don't think there's ever been a full translation of Tjokroaminoto's Islam dan Sosialisme into English. :-(
In my English copy of Syed Hussen Alatas's Islam and Socialism (which is itself a translation from Malay to English) from which I copied the above extracts, the footnotes say that the English translation of Tjokroaminoto's words being quoted are Alatas's own translation. In fact, I think the only extant full translation of Tjokroaminoto's book is from the original Indonesian to Malay.
Hey I'm glad that you find this interesting! I'm not really subject area expert on Islam or Islamic finance; just picked up a few things here and there from studies and from work. Honestly a bit surprised that I have this much to say about it, especially from the angle of Marxism.
And don't worry about convincing your hypothetical Muslim interlocutor about the truth of the immortal science or whatever; even if they're not convinced into immediately converting to secular communism, if they truly are arguing in good faith and with intellectual curiousity, they'll probably arrive at some general position about their own religious belief and practice that would lead them to do some good in the world.
Go get some sleep! 
Ultimately I think that Islamic jurisprudence was a product of its time and, at that time, critique of the economy in a fully-realised way didn't exist.
More precisely, it's that the Quran and the hadiths - the written sources - that were a product of their time. Jurisprudence - if understood as the legal theorising and interpretation being done upon prior texts - is a continuing process that's still ongoing today, and it's definitely here where modern forces of global capitalism have influenced modern Muslim legal theorists into moulding the orignial texts into the current industry/academic edifice that's labelled as "Islamic finance". So yeah, technically speaking, it's not that "Islamic jurisprudence was a product of its time", but "is a product of its time": that time being present-day global capitalist hegemony. (Sorry, I'm probably nitpicking here; I know you said you want to avoid going into the weeds with interpretation and real-world application. I think I would agree generally with most of what you've written above; just taking the opportunity to air out and give some structure to a few thoughts that had been jangling around my head for some time.)
I'd be fascinated in hearing what a Muslim would have to say about how they think Muhammad would respond today if he saw how private equity firms like BlackRock are grossly distorting the property market and squeezing every last penny out of people who have no other options for housing available. Something tells me he wouldn't just be like "Alright guys, this arrangement is totally fine as long as you don't jack the rents up too high, okay?"
True, and I'm aware that there is some existing discourse/scholarship by Muslims on the Islam's compatibility with socialism as a political movement. Syed Hussein Alatas's Islam and Socialism provides a good overview, I think. One bit I think is particularly relevant to the concept of riba is where Alatas outlines the position argued for by Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto, who was a nationalist figure in pre-independence Indonesia; Alatas suggests that Tjokroaminoto, in trying to prevent a spilt between the Islamic moderates and radical Marxists in his party (which eventually happened and led to the the radicals joining the Communist Party of Indonesia) attempted a theoretical reconciliation of the contradictions between Islam and socialism (pg. 62-4):-
In 1924, Haji Omar Said Tjokroaminoto, the leader of Sarekat Islam, then the biggest political party in Indonesia, published a monograph (113 pages) on Islam and socialism. (...) It arose out of the need to counteract communist propaganda. Tjokroaminoto’s party, the Sarekat Islam, was seriously infiltrated by communist elements which led to a split in 1923.
(...)
Regarding state ownership of the means of production, Tjokroaminoto suggested that this was Islamic. In the time of the Prophet, the state owned and acquired land. It is interesting how Tjokroaminoto linked Marx’s theory of surplus value and its expropriation by the capitalists to Islam. The Islamic prohibition of usury, according to Tjokroaminoto, is the same as a prohibition against the immoral capitalist expropriation of surplus value.’ The reforms carried out by the Prophet were thoroughly in the spirit of socialism. The instances cited by Tjokroaminoto are the following, in his own words:
“With the law of zakat Islam intended to make it obligatory for the rich to spend on behalf of the poor. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) land was the greatest source of livelihood for the working class, and as I have explained earlier, land was owned by the state. Small industry from pre-Islamic times was run by the poor or the slave for the sole profit and welfare of the owners, most of whom were harsh and oppressive. Before the advent of Islam, those who worked in industry were extremely looked down upon by the aristocracy, while the slaves who functioned as labourers were treated as animals by their capitalist masters. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) immediately raised the status of labour and workers. Though he descended from the highest Arab aristocracy, he worked as a trader before his preoccupation as a Prophet took up his entire time. As a recognized prophet he became ‘the spiritual and worldly ruler over Arabs and the Muslim territory, but he mended his own clothes and shoes. The biggest step he took in the direction of industrial socialism was when he raised the status of the slave to that of the free man. The slaves were given rights which they never had before. The slaves were made fellow workers; they were given positions of command in the army, or to become heads of other undertakings, while in yet other spheres as in the family, they became members of the family who treated them as animals before the coming of Islam. That being the case, the slaves took part in sharing the welfare and the profit of their masters. Truly, the step taken by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to improve the condition of the working class during his time, was unsurpassed in greatness in the economic history of the world.”
Tjokroaminoto was not blind to the fact that during the last thirteen centuries, despotism, autocracy and egoistic materialism had chiselled at the foundation of Islam. As long as the Qur'an is still with us, the ideal of democracy and socialism in Islam shall remain alive. He said: “If we Muslims truly understand and practise the teachings of Islam, we cannot avoid becoming a true democrat and a true socialist.
Islam gets an honourable mention because of their fairly strict prohibition on riba, which is like usury except a souped-up version of it (which is more or less enforced in Islam, unlike most forms of Christianity)
With how Islamic banking/finance is currently widely being practiced, can you really say that prohibition of riba is being strictly, or even "more or less", enforced in contemporary Islamic practice? I think the best that can be said is that the prohibition is observed in form, but not in spirit. In my very limited experience (please take all this jabbering with a ton of salt; I'm neither Muslim myself nor any sort of specialist in Islamic finance) with Islamic financing on the legal side, it largely seems to involve private or sometimes state-owned financial institutions using profit-sharing, joint-venture, and/or commodity sale contracts to imitate the practical effects and consequences of conventional fixed or variable interest financing instruments while still formally complying with the riba prohibition. Essentially, the bank's technically not earning any interest off the principal; just "profit" from commodity sales/company shares. Seems to me that what's been done is just a thousand convoluted and fancy ways of ensuring that the surplus value reaped by the bank is not vulgar "interest", but some other technically non-prohibited form of (or names for) extracting value from the labour of others, thus reducing the practice to basically a matter of formal compliance without any application of its underlying or originally intended principles - i.e., the moral idea that any financial exploitation of others (in other words, capitalism) inherently corrodes your soul.
I also can't see any real difference in material interests between Islamic and non-Islamic financial institutions: both are typically just extreme concentrations of financial capital, privately owned, within capitalist societies motivated by their own reproduction/perpetuation/expansion through systemic extraction of surplus value through investment in market commodities and productive concerns. In the worst case scenario, I can see how leftists fixating on riba as a theoretical concept leads to idealist mystification of productive/property relations, frustrating the materialist analysis of that which is central to Marxism.
Basically, it's all like this mostly because of (like you said) the destruction of pretty much all 20th century efforts towards socialism in Muslim-majority countries (except Libya? But I'm not aware whether Gaddafi promoted Islamic financial principles), resulting in those Muslim-majority countries being dominated by reactionary politics, leading to this utterly debased version of Islamic finance being the global industry norm.
That Pratchett's gone and she's still alive and a successful writer is definitve proof that god hates fantasy literature.
That worm has just the right number of nipples.
Technically 
works as a de facto calipers emoji
"When western academia sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing orientalism. They’re bringing imperialism. They’re colonisers. And some, I assume, are good people."
I'm trying to imagine a professor who's "approachable and easygoing" and yet frequently goes off on tangents about the devious chinese brainpan. How rabid of a racist do you need to be before Ivy League students start to dislike you on a personal level?
I guess Hegel's probably used because he is associated with the term "zeitgeist"? Basically Godzilla is a big cultural phenomenon because the films reflect wider contemporary social intellectual contexts/"spirit of the times", and not just because of "innate" qualities. The comic doesn't appear to engage any further with Hegelian philosophy, but I can see some connection with Hegel, and thinking about zeitgeist seems like a decent entry point to further dialectical investigation about pop culture.
“When I am writing an email to a filmmaker, I’m writing as a filmmaker, somebody who’s bringing the truth to the world,” he continued. “That is my goal here. To show what started everything. The atrocities, the mini-Holocaust that happened there, that we as a nation, we as the world cannot stand still and silent and just move on. Now, it doesn’t mean that I’m not pro-Palestinian. I am pro-two state solution. I have Palestinian friends. I am a left wing filmmaker, but this is not a left or right wing thing. This is just something that the whole world should see it. So that’s my mission.”
Israeli "left wing filmmaker", whose politically-enlightened "left wing" but still centrist analysis of the Palestinian situation is that "Hamas started all the violence when they attacked on October 7th".
Wait, I'm not quite sure if I quite get what he's trying to say? Did he mean to say that rich porkies that eat at pretentious fancy restaurants would be so stupid and tasteless that they would never look up from their overpriced food to enjoy the nice paintings on restaurant walls, or that he doesn't want any ultra-rich porkies to see his art? Or a combination of both? The first reason doesn't seem to make complete sense to me; isn't one of the benefits of being mega-rich off of countless exploited workers that sometimes (and in any case, much more often than the exploited workers) you choose to spend your nearly endless free time learning to appreciate fine art? Is he saying bad taste in food is directly correlated with bad taste in visual art? Did he just hate tasteless rich people, or rich people in general?
Actually, this makes me wonder what abstract expressionists as a movement thought about the relationship between their art and their rich patrons, and whether their art reflected this in any way. I mean, was Rothko's disgust here the exception, or a widely held sentiment among his peers? The topic seems to me to be unavoidable to anyone with half a working or artistic brain; especially if, as I assume, most artists begin as starving students/apprentices/newcomers and later in their career get offered insane sums of money for their work.