Dissidents of the International Left. Andy Heintz
American exceptionalism has led some on the Left to embrace an inverted form of this doctrine that Meredith Tax has labeled ‘imperial narcissism’. This group, whom some have labeled the Manichean Left, have accepted the reductive notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and have minimized, rationalized or dismissed serious crimes of real and perceived enemies of the United States such as the Iranian regime, Putin’s Russia, Assad, or Serbia under Milošević. This ideology is irrational because instead of arriving at an answer after critical thinking where one attempts to be as objective as possible, these leftists – mirroring those whom they correctly criticize of ignoring or rationalizing US crimes – distort and bend the evidence available so it aligns with their ideological predispositions. Occasionally this group will make good points that perhaps elude other elements of the Left with different ideologies, but they will arrive at these conclusions through a way of thinking that is tainted by blind spots – and such blind spots can lead to future rigid and irrational views that turn the oppressed into the oppressors.
The early interviews I conducted with Monbiot, Bill Weinberg, Stephen Zunes, Stephen Shalom and Alex de Waal left much to be desired simply because of my own inexperience, and it is only thanks to their patience that I didn’t decide that I was in way over my head right then and there. My interview with Bill Weinberg was interesting, and life-changing. The veteran journalist expressed his displeasure with the American Left and said he was more inspired by feminists from the so-called Muslim world like Houzan Mahmoud, Karima Bennoune, Maryam Namazie and Marieme Helie Lucas. A lightbulb went off in my head that maybe instead of just interviewing members of the Western Left, I should interview left-leaning figures from around the world.
Maryam Namazie was nice enough to grant me an early interview and offered me names of other feminist activists such as Pragna Patel, Inna Shevchenko, Gita Sahgal, Yanar Mohammed and Fatou Sow. I researched these figures, and then I started sending out interview requests via email. To my surprise, they were all kind enough to grant me an interview. These interviews revealed some of my own blind spots, and I began to realize that there are problems other than Western imperialism that should also be confronted if we want to create a better world. I found myself gradually accepting the idea that, instead of focusing on just one problem rooted in injustice, it was necessary to critique, oppose and advocate against all forms of injustice simultaneously.
I made a conscious effort – although I didn’t talk to everyone I wanted to – to speak with people in regions of the world that are often depicted – by Western intellectuals who should know better – in ways that are Orientalist, reductionist and patronizing. This affinity for stereotypes can be seen when politicians describe the Balkans or the Middle East as places where groups have been fighting for thousands of years instead of understanding the conflicts in the region in their modern historical, political and cultural contexts. For this reason, I sought out interviews with Syrian intellectuals and journalists (Yassin al-Haj Saleh is one of the most brilliant men I have ever corresponded with), people from countries that were involved in the Balkan wars (Sonja Licht, Lino Veljak, Predrag Kojovic, Stasa Zajovic), and anyone I could talk to who had made contact with defectors from North Korea (Sokeel Park, Daily NK and Jieun Baek).
Lastly, I confess that my interviews with Michael Kazin and Michael Walzer changed my original opinion that patriotism could not be defined in a way that was worthy of support. I have been, and continue to be, a critic of conventional patriotism in the United States. I often perceive it as discouraging critical thinking and promoting tribalism on a national scale. But now I think Kazin and Walzer are correct that the Left in any country must have some personal attachment and relationship to its people, along with a positive, inspiring patriotic message that can be used to promote justice and equality both domestically and overseas. But – and this is a big but – this kind of patriotism would have to be acutely self-critical, intellectually consistent, self-reflective and fused with a spirit of international solidarity to avoid sacrificing important values in the name of pragmatism.
The book’s interviews are grouped by region but within each region the interviewees appear in alphabetical order.
Talking to leftwing figures from around the world has taught me that there are such things as universal values despite the rhetoric of religious extremists of all varieties.
At the end of the day there is no First or Third World, there is only one world. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we will have countries and a global system we can all be proud of. I hope the 77 interviews I have conducted via email, Skype and phone with leftwing figures from around the world can play a minor role in bringing the world we wish to live in closer to becoming a reality.
Andy Heintz
November 2018
North America
KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH
Kwame Anthony Appiah is one of the world’s foremost philosophers on ethics, identity, ethnicity and race. Originally from Ghana and Britain, he now lives in the US, where he is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University. Among his books are: In my Father’s House; The Ethics of Identity; and Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers.
How can cosmopolitanism triumph over rigid worldviews such as Islamic fundamentalism on the stage of global public opinion?
The appeal of malign fundamentalism begins with cultural resentment. It’s attractive to people who think their historical Muslim identity has been assaulted and beaten back over the last century or two by something they refer to as the West or Christendom. It’s similar to a broader pattern of the anti-imperial resentment that you find in much of the post-colonial world. It is a recognizable state of mind. In the long run, the only way for that to go away to is to make people feel like the identity, civilization or nationality they represent is doing well in a positive way in the world – and for that to happen, the situation has to change in many places. There must be real democracy in Pakistan, there have to be real jobs available in Egypt, and so on. People have to feel confident and positive about their situation.
Is the good Muslim-bad Muslim culture talk misrepresenting the other identities Muslims have?
Everybody has lots of identities: almost no-one is acting on just one of them all the time. It’s true that there are small numbers of people in the world who are motivated to do terrible things in the name of Islam, but it doesn’t follow that they are acting in the name of Islam – in the same way that if someone blew up a gay bar in the name of Christianity, that wouldn’t mean they were acting in a Christian way.
When someone acts in the name of something, it doesn’t follow that their act is justified by the religion or ideology they are referring to. Whatever explains the attitude of people who commit terrorist acts, it can’t be Islam, because if Islam explained it, there would be a billion people doing the same – and there aren’t. So, the fact that someone does something in the name of an identity doesn’t mean we can blame everybody in that group.
When people do bad things in the name of the US, we repudiate them and claim that that isn’t what America stands for. We don’t say ‘OK, we [as Americans] accept responsibility for that’. I don’t think Muslims should accept responsibility for people who have done terrible things just because they have claimed to have done it in the name of Islam.
Some people who have been vocal about the need for moderate Muslims to speak out against Islamic fundamentalism still defend the Iraq War and supported atrocious regimes in Central America, Southeast Asia and Africa during the Reagan administration. Is there a double standard at work here?
If we are going to ask people to repudiate things, we should be on the same page ourselves: there are a lot of things we might want to repudiate. There are two problems here. One is that there is disagreement in this country about which