Why Western Socialism Collaborates with Islamic Fundamentalism – The Typical yet Illuminating Case of Canada’s “Taliban Jack” Layton

Last month, during his September 26th interview with CBC’s Carol Off, Pakistan’s Musharraf suggested Canadians are such whining cowards that they don’t even know what soldiers are for.

When a soldier puts on a uniform and he joins the army, is this for fighting or for peacekeeping or what does he join the army for? He's joined to fight, and when you fight, there are casualties… So if you're not prepared to suffer casualties as an army, then don't participate in any operation.

Ayup. That’s what Musharraf said. Not just that. He also said, “So you suffered two dead, and there's a crying and shout all around the place that there are coffins.” Total contempt. Question is, who was Musharraf talking to? Who the hell was Musharraf sneering at, exactly – and why?

No way was Musharraf sneering at Canadian soldiers. However few, however under-funded and however lacking domestic support, Canadian soldiers are top-notch. The Canadian military is renowned. It’s been renowned since the War of 1812 through the World Wars to the present. And, in the present, the Canadian military is proving effective yet again. Despite under-funding, lacking domestic support and short numbers, Canadian soldiers get the job done while suffering relatively low fatalities. Wow. No way was Musharraf sneering at Canadian soldiers. Not unless he was bragging Pakistani fatalities. Like, “Look, maybe Pakistani soldiers can’t get the job done but we have the most coffins – so Pakistani soldiers are much better.” No way.

And no way was Musharraf sneering at Canada’s Conservatives – at Stephen Harper and those following Harper. Stephen Harper is gaining international distinction as a principled leader. So, love him or hate him – there’s no sneering at him. Doesn’t qualify for Musharraf’s contempt.

Nor was Musharraf likely sneering at Canadian Liberals – like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Michael Ignatieff and their followers. Sure, Canada’s Liberals are famously unprincipled and opportunistic. Like when Martin made a competitive sport, a one-man tennis match of reversing himself on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Or like when Ignatieff charged Israel guilty of war-crimes; then alleged both sides guilty of war crimes; then confirmed Israel entitled to self-defence; then declared plans to visit Israel – either to figure out where he stands or cover his trail some; then cancelled plans to visit Israel – in event it should make his trail more conspicuous; then announced he might yet visit Israel later – perhaps after his trail fades entirely. Whatever. There’s no telling. Whichever way the wind blows. Opportunistic. Sometimes even righteously corrupt – like Chretien with his golf balls at the Gomery inquiry. However. There’s no sneering at Chretien’s golf balls. Got’ta admire a sense of entitlement like that. One may take one’s hat off and take a bow. Or, one may take one’s pants off and bend over. But it’s nothing to sneer at. Golf balls like that are up there with Trudeau’s bird-flipping. So, regardless how unprincipled, opportunistic, even corrupt Canada’s Liberals might be – there’s no sneering at them as cowards and whiners who don’t even know what soldiers are for.

So who was it Musharraf sneering at? Who’s left?

No mystery. Canadian media – i.e., CBC, Toronto Star – have long contended Canada out of Afghanistan. Shouldn’t have gone in the first place. Not the case for all Canadian media, of course. One might read, in the Ottawa Citizen for instance, that the Canadian majority are glad – even proud – our military’s helping out over there. But, far as anything one might read in the Toronto Star – the Canadian majority wants out. Thing is, it’s kind’a late in the morning for the moaning and groaning. Canada’s Afghanistan mission isn’t slated to end anytime very soon. Whatever to do, then – beyond bleating casualties and carping unpopularity? Well, how’s this: since we’re there for a while – how about we just talk to the Taliban?

That’s right. Just talk to the Taliban. That’s what Jack Layton’s been pitching for the Canadian media to bat at us. Just talk to the Taliban. As reported in Toronto Star’s September 28th article, “Critics Blast Musharraf”, Layton announced: “This is deeply distressing and I certainly call on the Prime Minister to engage, as I have done in the House and as I have done for many weeks, in trying to bring all parties to the table to discuss this issue seriously.” Yeah. Layton’s been pitching this for months. That we just talk to everyone – seriously talk to everyone. We should, like, just really talk to the Taliban.

What’s it mean, though – just talking to the Taliban? Aren’t Canadian soldiers willing to talk? But of course they’re willing to talk. After all, they’re Canadians. And how does one pick Canadians out from the crowd? Why, they’re the ones apologizing when you kick them. Absurdly polite. Of course they’re willing to talk – it would be impolite not to. Canadians are always willing to talk. More than just talk. Canadian soldiers aren’t just talking. They’re digging ditches. They’re repairing roads. They’re rebuilding infrastructure – and politely persist their good working whenever they’re not getting ambushed doing it.

Jack Layton and the Canadian media know all this. For instance, in its October 17th front-page article – “’Glitches’ delay Afghan aid” – the Toronto Star fully acknowledges that “Ottawa is pumping $100 million in development aid into Afghanistan each year…” But what makes this article front-page headline news isn’t how tremendous the Canadian aid is or the great works of Canadian soldiers. The converse. What makes this front-page headline is Toronto Star’s criticizing there having been delays delivering some of the aid. No kidding. It’s true.

But wait – there’s more. On October 24th in the House of Commons, Layton admonished:

.. the Liberal-Conservative mission in Afghanistan is fundamentally unbalanced. We see that approximately $1 is spent on aid for every $9 spent on combat. We have media reports out today suggesting that as a result of this fundamental imbalance there will be more and more Afghans who starve this winter.

And, on October 26th, Layton reproached, “.. with only one dollar going to aid for every $9 going to the combat effort, is it any wonder that civilian deaths and starvation are on the rise while security and stability are on the decline?” So. Nevermind that Canada will be expending $100 million on aid to Afghanistan right through 2010; that Canada expends more on aid to Afghnistan than anywhere else ever, even while yet simultaneously expending generously to numerous other countries; that Canadian soldiers are stretched way thin and under-equipped as it is; and that civilian deaths and starvation are endemic ravages of war – and more so obscenely escalated by standard Islamic fundamentalist practice deploying civilians, villages, towns, entire populations as human shields. Nevermind all that. Stop this “fundamentally unbalanced” spending on the combat effort. Stop spending on armaments. Stop spending on armour for military vehicles and body-armour for soldiers. Stop spending on military uniforms. Balance the Afghanistan mission – stop spending on combat efforts.

Unbelievable. Yet true. When Layton and Canadian media tell us to just talk with the Taliban. They’re not denying Canadians are always willing to talk. They’re not ignoring Canadians are doing far more than just talking. None of the above. They really mean it. When they say just talk they mean do nothing else but talk. Nothing but talking! Even while getting ambushed. Regardless. Get totally serious about discussing the issues. Stop doing anything other than talking. No shooting back. Just talk.

Canadians are always willing to talk. Canadians persist helping out far more substantially than just talking. But when Layton and the Canadian media say just talk to the Taliban, they don’t mean great job, keep it up. When they say just talk they mean stop it already – take talking seriously, damn it, and stop doing anything else. Even while getting ambushed. Imagine:

“Hey Sarge! We can’t go on with that roadwork. We just got ambushed in a three-way RPG crossfire. What you want us to do?”

“Whad’ya need, an engraved invitation? You need it spelled out? Get out’ta the military uniforms. Put on the waiter costumes. Get the menus – the pork-free ones. And go take their orders.”

“Anything else, Sarge? We’re gettin’ chewed up bad here.”

“Yeah. Don’t forget to smile. And be sure to ask if they want fries!”

Just talk to the Taliban. Surrender the military uniforms. Doesn’t really matter what else Canadian soldiers put on – doesn’t actually have to be waiter costumes. Doesn’t matter – so long as Canadian soldiers surrender military uniforms. So long as Canada surrenders doing anything but talking. So long as Canada surrenders.

There’s no mystery who Musharraf was sneering at. None whatsoever. He’d have been no more contemptuous were Canadian soldiers actually stripping uniforms and donning waiter costumes when shot at. Because that’s what it amounts to, Jack Layton’s just talk to the Taliban. Jack Layton’s call to surrender. How could Musharraf not sneer and not ask CBC’s Carol Off what Canadian soldiers are for? Too bad it wasn’t Layton interviewing Musharraf. Because Layton is not ashamed what he stands for – however despicable it may seem. Layton would likely have responded directly with his – and CBC’s and Toronto Star’s – party line:

Canadian soldiers join the army to bring a table for everyone to be sitting at. So everyone can be seriously talking. After everyone is talking, to bring a meal to put on the table. And if military uniform interferes with eating or discussing seriously issues, it is no problem. Canadians surrender military uniforms and don waiter costumes. Canadian soldiers join the army for talking and waiting tables. Because for Canadian soldiers uniform is a costume. If one costume is not good for talking, Canadian soldiers take it off and put on a better costume for talking.

Just talk to the Taliban. Stop spending on combat efforts. Surrender combat efforts. Just surrender. How despicable it seems – by no means only to Musharraf. Are Layton and his followers – followers because they share socialist ideology, not because they risk voting for him – really such whiners and cowards? No. Probably not. Probably, they are just perpetually confused by the ideology they share. They’re confused by ideological fundamentalism.

Not Islamic fundamentalism. Not in North America – not much yet, anyway. Rather, in the United States, a load of Christian fundamentalism. And, here in Canada, a load of Marxist fundamentalism. It’s true. Hard to stomach in this day and age. But true.

That’s the ideology Layton and followers are confused by and fundamentalist about. They believe all fighting is between rich and poor. That all conflict is class struggling over the means of production. Struggling by the exploiting class – rich, power elites, etc. – excluding those exploited from means of production; and struggling by the exploited classes – poor so thoroughly victimized that any getting ahead demands militant radical redistribution – to liberate the means of production from exploiters. That’s what Layton and his followers believe. That’s what they’re fundamentalist about. They’re not ashamed of their socialist Marxist fundamentalism, either. They own up to it fairly readily – if not so clearly.

Nor can Layton and followers change their minds. They can’t learn better. They’re fundamentalist about it. Because, far as they’re concerned, believing anything different can only mean wishful thinking. Believing anything else can only be an opiate. An ideology. Not real. While that which causes conflict in history must be real. Tangible. Material. Namely: the disparity between rich and poor. Between exploiters and exploited. For Layton, conflict in human history is the expression of class struggling over means of production. And class struggling must originate from material causes – from material exploitation. Any believing otherwise – i.e., that struggling may be rooted in ideology rather than materiality – is pipe dreaming.

As a matter of fact, Layton and followers are mostly wrong. By far most conflict in history is ideological – not economic. Rich and poor of one ideology struggle together – against those of conflicting ideologies. Precisely the way Islamic fundamentalist culture – in the sphere of which are the wealthiest countries on the planet – converges against infidels. Armageddon is far more likely to result from Muhammad cartoons than oil pricing. Ideology precedes economics as sunlight precedes vegetation – and as vegetation precedes cultivation. Ideology binds us together – and tears us apart – prior the possibility of economics. There is no possibility of society, even – far less so economics – absent ideological fabric binding us together. But that’s not the point.

Aside from Layton and followers being wrong. The point is they can’t even conceive being wrong. For them, everything – struggling included – must originate in material causes. There’s no believing otherwise, for them. Conflict must be materially sourced. It’s been called (not only) scientific materialism: that conflict arises only by material causes – and that nothing, including conflict, arises for ideological reasons. Layton and followers can’t conceive otherwise.

That’s the point. Scientific materialism is an ideology. And that scientific materialist ideology can’t conceivably be wrong to those adhering it, that it can’t be refuted, means that scientific materialism isn’t scientific. It’s as if someone were to declare all crows black – and then deny the evidence on being presented a white crow: “I just told you all crows are black – so, since the bird you’re showing me is white, it’s no crow.” Fine. Be like that. But let’s get real. That’s totally not being scientific. That’s being dogmatic.

And that’s the whole point. Layton and followers are dogmatic materialists. They can never stop believing all conflict is class struggling over means of production. This is very silly of them – and has debilitating consequences.

Here’s one consequence, with which we’re familiar without even realizing it. Layton and followers are so obsessed with struggling over means of production – they can’t comprehend the meaning of productivity. Take, for instance, a voluntary employment relationship. To any dogmatic materialist of Marxist variety, it isn’t voluntary. It isn’t collaborative. Rather, since the employer profits from the employee’s labour, the employer necessarily belongs to an economic class inimical to that of the employee. The employer is exploiting the employee. And the longer such exploitation continues, the worse it will get. Inevitably, whether sooner or later, the employee will have no recourse but to rise up and put an end to it. A violent end – since the exploiting leech isn’t gon’na let go economic blood-sucking otherwise.

We’re familiar with this aspect of Marxist dogmatic materialism. That’s why not that many of us vote for Jack Layton – even when we share his ideology. We know better. We’ve seen what’s been going on behind iron curtains the past hundred years. The terminal, totalitarian mismanagement. We know about it – even if we don’t understand how inevitable it is.

Absolutely inevitable. There’s no voluntary collaborating behind iron curtains. There’s no voluntary agreement – such as private employment – permitted. Since, according to Marxist dogmatic materialism, such would constitute endorsing exploitation. Thus, collaborative labour must be managed and enforced by authority – more often than not at gunpoint. At gunpoint in order to ensure exploitation – i.e., voluntary collaboration such as in standard private employment – is extirpated. But what gets extirpated, of course, is everything voluntary. Including voluntary work. Eventually, no work remains voluntary. All work is at gunpoint. If not at gunpoint – well, they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.

We’re familiar with this aspect – that productivity has no meaning for dogmatic materialists obsessing the means of production. There’s other aspects, though – some with which we aren’t familiar. Particularly, there’s another aspect worth familiarizing – to help appreciate where Layton and followers are coming from.

It is this. Marxist dogmatic materialists can’t conceive conflict as genuine unless rooted in economic class struggling. There’s no conceiving genuine conflict rooted in ideological dispute, religious intolerance, cultures clashing. No way. No conceivable way. Not genuine conflict. Merely noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. Alternately, should conflict prove unavoidably genuine, then it must be rooted in real economic class struggling. No conceivable way for genuine conflict to root and emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture.

The absurdities Marxist materialist dogma leads Layton and followers into – also non-Layton followers like Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, sometimes – are legion. But returning to the present instance – Musharraf’s sneering contempt at Layton – it comes down to this. Layton can’t conceive there being genuine conflict resulting from clashes of cultures and civilizations. Hence, Taliban shootings at Canadian soldiers indicate but noise and confusion under the influence of ideological, religious or cultural opiates. So stop shooting back, for crying out loud. Let’s get serious about talking to the Taliban – and clear up this damn confusion already. Let’s have something to eat, straighten out and get down to economic brass tacks. Alternately, should conflict and shooting prove genuine, then no way does such conflict emerge from opiates like ideology, religion or culture. No way. If the shooting’s for real, then it must result from real class struggling. If so, fine. Let’s stop our shooting and get serious about talking to the Taliban. Let’s find out how we’ve exploited them – and let’s rectify our exploitation. We’re willing, damn it! We didn’t mean to exploit the Taliban! Stop shooting! Get out of those uniforms and wave your white flags! Talk, damn you all, just talk. Tell them we didn’t mean to and we’ll pay whatever it takes to make it up! Just talk to the Taliban, already.

Layton and followers – they’re no whining cowards. Just terminally confused. Understanding where they’re coming from helps. If one doesn’t understand, though – they sure come across superlatively despicable. So it’s difficult faulting Musharraf’s contempt. No reason expecting him understanding Layton’s confusion. Especially since, oddly enough, socialists in the west tend to cling to their Marxism – and turn out far more fundamentalist about it than communists in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe used to. We just haven’t had the benefits of Lenin and Stalin tinkering our Marxism – adapting it somewhat to experienced realities. Marxism tempts us, in the west, as only unadulterated fantasy can. It’s our political mistress. Though we don’t commit to it – except, perhaps, in France – we’re forever flirting with it.

It’s our political mistress. And ideologically, it’s our favourite opiate. Mostly we know better than voting for Layton. But, so long as we persist holding third parties responsible for who we are, Marxist ideology will continue as our favourite opiate. And whether the Marxist opiate remains recreational or whether we become full fledged addicts, only time will tell. Meanwhile, of course “Taliban Jack” Layton elicits (not only Musharraf’s) contempt.