You'd probably also find the Guardian debate between Hitchens and Amis (both Leftists and both Marxists) tiresome. Also, the Marxist Edward Said does an objectionable thing as well. He assumed that Religion played a minor roll in the "so-called" terrorist activities. What was at work was more proletarian revolts of The Wretched of the Earth variety. Leftist/Marxist intellectual after Leftist/Marxist intellectual is being outed by Horowitz and the patterns are similar. Their ideologies were firmed up during the Vietnam period. Their hatred for America was well established. When the Terrorist business came along they didn't really believe the US propaganda that claimed it had a religious base. What they saw was too much like the Wretched of the Earth they were familiar with in Latin and South America not to mention Algeria (which was the focus of Frantz Fanon's book). And so they support those Wretched (aka proletariat) and didn't believe that they are being inconsistent. How much must one study the writings of Marx or Qutb before one is considered a Marxist or a Qutbist? How pure must the revolutionary rhetoric be or how pure the suicide-bombing before one is a legitimate Marxist or Qutbist? Apparently not too much or too pure before writers feel free to use these terms. Thus I am only the proximate and not the root cause of the tiresomeness you object to. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Paul Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:00 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago Lawrence wrote: > But back to your quibble: does the term "Root Cause" really fit Qutb's place > in Islamism? Well, let's look at how Mike intended the term "root cause." > He didn't specify, but I took him to be using the old Leftist idea that > Capitalism causes proletarian revolutions, and the "so-called" Islamist > unrest is at root just such an one. It's really tiresome that you persist in conflating 'Leftist' with 'Marxist.' Moreover, few Marxists (and they were the fringe) after the early 1940s believed in this sort of simplistic historical inevitability. (Classic Marxists believed that the revolution of the proletariat could only take place in highly industrialized nations where there were sharp worker/capitalist distinctions; that the Revolution first took place in marginally industrialized Russia revealed the problem with this 'scientific' claim.) Robert Paul Reed College