Like to add : in Rawls' On Justice, it's not a given every society at every time reaches the same conclusion. I think his theory is a reasonable approximation of getting to a description of justice in a given society.

Justice is a fluid and reflexive concept and it's not a given we can transpose values cross culturally (or across time for that matter).

@Baden: to quickly respond to your post about the Rafael Behr's article, I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of whether it's a fair attack on Corbyn, but even if it isn't, it does identify a very common way of responding to and analyzing jihadist terrorist attacks.

Light-bulbs were invented in a western country too. Does this mean they only operate exclusively in the domain of the west?

P.S: See C.L.R [James]'s 'The Black Jacobins' for an explanation of why the above idea might be bullshit in historical terms. — coolazice

Indeed. James also said, "I denounce European colonialism, but I respect the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation." Another opponent of European colonialism and racism was Frantz Fanon:

All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them. — Frantz Fanon

But of course this does not mean that what has been achieved in Europe and elsewhere, on the way along that road to emancipation, is not worth fighting for.

Otherwise I'm going to quickly quote and run once again. I may come back to say something later. This is from the transcript of a TED Talk by Maajid Nawaz, an ex-Jihadist. It's from 2011 but he posted a link to it on Twitter yesterday saying it's still relevant, which I agree with.

One of the problems we're facing is, in my view, that there are no globalized, youth-led, grassroots social movements advocating for democratic culture across Muslim-majority societies. There is no equivalent of the Al-Qaeda, without the terrorism, for democracy across Muslim-majority societies. There are no ideas and narratives and leaders and symbols advocating the democratic culture on the ground. So that begs the next question. Why is it that extremist organizations, whether of the far-right or of the Islamist extremism -- Islamism meaning those who wish to impose one version of Islam over the rest of society -- why is it that they are succeeding in organizing in a globalized way, whereas those who aspire to democratic culture are falling behind? And I believe that's for four reasons. I believe, number one, it's complacency. Because those who aspire to democratic culture are in power, or have societies that are leading globalized, powerful societies, powerful countries. And that level of complacency means they don't feel the need to advocate for that culture.

The second, I believe, is political correctness. That we have a hesitation in espousing the universality of democratic culture because we are associating that -- we associate believing in the universality of our values -- with extremists. Yet actually, whenever we talk about human rights, we do say that human rights are universal. But actually going out to propagate that view is associated with either neoconservativism or with Islamist extremism. To go around saying that I believe democratic culture is the best that we've arrived at as a form of political organizing is associated with extremism. — Maajid Nawaz

His other reasons are worth looking at too, but the first two are most relevant to what I've been getting at (although I'm not quite sure what he means by saying that espousing democratic values is associated with extremism).

In addition, I don't believe in universal values any more. It's quite clearly a luxury only rich countries can afford - and that only in a limited and incomplete fashion. — Benkei

You seem to be misunderstanding what it means to say that values are universal. It does not mean that they are established everywhere or completely. It means they potentially apply to everyone; they are not inherently restricted to a people, a religion, an ethnicity or a geographical location constitutively predisposed to embrace them. It is as bad for a woman to be stoned to death for adultery in the United Arab Emirates as it would be in France. It is as bad for gay people to be thrown to their deaths off buildings in Syria as it would be in France. It is as bad for a particular religion to be enforced in Saudi Arabia as it would be in France.

I'm guessing you agree. You did, after all, say that you wished these values were universal (which is why I said your position was confused).

who here went out on the streets to protest Iraq and Afghanistan? — Benkei

I did, first in 1991.

who here went out on the streets to protest Iraq and Afghanistan? — Benkei

I did, but the demonstrations were pretty sparse. I think we can chalk that up to the military using the pool of National Guard troops (running them ragged) in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than reactivating the draft. The first decade of the 21st century just wasn't the 1960s, but what brought out 100,000 to 1,000,000 young people at a time to protest against the war was the reality of a lot of young men being drafted and sent to Vietnam. I was called up. (I flunked the physical as I knew I would, but had previously registered my intention to claim conscientious objection.)

I understand your argument, Benkei. To some extent I agree with it, but I am also aware that there is less than a snowball's chance in hell of the United States doing very much to alleviate the suffering of the Middle East. Hell, we're not willing to spend much money on rebuilding our society so that it would produce fewer suffering people here, let alone doing that for Iraqis, Syrians, or Afghans.

(Dropping bombs on people is profitable for bomb makers. Munitions are one of the special interests that have the keys to congressmen's bedrooms, so to speak. Commerce and politics makes perfectly predictable and compatible bedfellows. It's a regular orgy.) The US actually donates very title money to foreign aid. We could do a lot more. We could actually do a much, much better job of helping other people (in very material ways) and spreading some of our better western values to boot. I'm in favor of western values. I happen to be a socialist, so when I say "western values" I wasn't thinking of capitalism right off the bat.

Turning American, European, Saudi Arabian, Chinese, Brazilian, or South African cultural values even a few degrees on a dime is VERY DIFFICULT. Making a 180º turn is not going to happen--anywhere--short of a massive revolution which, as we have seen, can have all sorts of unpleasant and unpredictable consequences.

Bombing ISIS is probably ineffective. So I have heard, anyway. Look at Iraq -- Bush's shock and awe must have been a bad experience for the folks on the ground, but it didn't result in any sort of victory. Drone strikes, if the intelligence is good, have about the same effect as a special forces attack. But getting really good intelligence is difficult.

If European countries (or us, or anybody else) can not figure out how to integrate displaced and distressed Moslems (or anybody else) into society, then we would do well to tell the refugees/migrants up front: You can come and stay for a while, but you can't stay here permanently. France and England seems to have a lot of refugees or migrants who came and settled, but are not really doing well and are not integrated.

And how can it be? High unemployment rates don't make for full employment no matter how you slice it. There are far more people than there are jobs. The issue of uncontrolled migration into the US from Mexico is partly about whether there is a real future for unskilled migrant's labor, and how excess workers further distort and devalue the labor market.

@Baden, one part of the quotation from Rafael Behr that I thought was particular relevant was this bit:

as if Isis presented negotiable terms of secular grievance that can be settled at a peace conference; as if the rhetoric against “Zionist-Crusaders”, the genocide of Yazidis and the systematic enslavement of women were all logical extrapolations from a dodgy strategy cooked up in the Pentagon: extreme, yes, but explicable by cross-reference to prior western offences.

You had an exchange with discoii in which he said this:

ISIS is currently in the process of exerting their hegemony. In war time situations, in all societies, whether it be ISIS or France, they always suspend all these checks and balances.

He seems here to be saying that ISIS is a bit crazy at the moment, maybe a bit exuberant and showy (bless them), merely because of the war-torn context.

And you had said this:

But I don't see ISIS having any such checks and balances in place at all. — Baden

This is an odd thing to say, as if to suggest that ISIS is motivated by similar principles but just doesn't yet have the legal framework and state institutions in place to ensure they're adhered to. I doubt that's what you meant, but it's entailed by what you said, and the result is that you're far too soft on the useful idiots who appease Islamic fundamentalist militancy in their rush to condemn everything Western.

For those who don't know: ISIS isn't genocidal and reactionary because it's just a bit over-enthusiastic, or because its leaders are temporarily indulging the fanatics, or because it happens to be at war right now and peaceful coexistence will return if only the West gets out. It's like that because it's what they fervently believe, because it's the basis of their very existence. Their fundamentalism is fundamental.

You can't control any area in the long run without creating legal checks and balances, becoming softer, and so on. You simply lose control of the region and you're back at war again. This is basic politics, jamalrob. Remember when the United States, in its infancy, had the policy of complete genocide of the natives? Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson's Indian Removal Act, George Washington's policy of killing off all natives, nevermind listing them, everyone, including Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, they were all murderous scum, even worse than ISIS in many cases. Remember slavery in America, constitutions claiming people are 3/5ths of a human? Never mind that, you can keep tracing the policy of the American empire year after year up until the present and you will be hardpressed to find a year that some sort of manifestation of these murderous values didn't come to be. That's how states are formed, but you can't sustain it forever, but you first codify into law what your supporters want, then slowly gain support of detractors by loosening up the laws. That's how states are formed: first through murder to show who is boss, then liberal appeasement to make people think they are the boss when you are actually the boss.

There's a tension between your claim that there will never be a non-fundamentalist alternative to motivate young people and some of your other claims — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't see the tension. Most Muslims don't want to live under an ISIS regime, but many young Muslims, whether Europeans or not, are attracted to ISIS. And just for the record, I said there will never be a non-fundamentalist alternative to motivate young people unless people in the West stand up and fight for those values.

Distinctions should also be made here. — Πετροκότσυφας

I've been very careful to make the distinctions you go on to make. But it's tedious to have to constantly prove I'm not a neocon jingoist merely because my interlocutors insist on interpreting me that way.

Welp, I guess what's left to say is: all heil the White masters and their historically verifiable beyond any doubt, albeit of course entirely necessary, systematic genocide for our freedom and liberty.

Did the American founding fathers not commit systematic genocide? No murder? No rape? No forcing Christianity down the throats of detractors? Has America not been part of a genocidal project since then? Against the modern Mexicans, the Sumatrans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, against an endless list of people? They rarely even snuck in, the same way ISIS did. They just brought their entire army and efficiently and effectively did the job of destruction, plundered, installed their own servants, and left their mark. I don't know who is living in the fantasy world here but everything I've written is historically verified and no serious historian doubts this.

See, the problem with your analysis is that you are more than willing to treat decision making by White Europeans in a rational manner but you then chalk up anyone else into simply "fundamentalist" camps, crazies, irrational monsters, their goal is only murder. But any study of how states are formed, how hegemony is created over huge regions and populations, you will find the exact same behavior exhibited by ISIS.

Can we agree, at the very least, that the process of creating a state from scratch is necessarily murderous and genocidal, and that ISIS exhibits these exact behaviors?

I'd like to leave a link to a more recent video of Maajid Nawaz. It would be interesting to see if anyone disagrees, and why.

http://bigthink.com/videos/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-reform

One of my central points, one that I've made several times, is that the politically correct liberal and left appeasement of Islamic reactionaries is just the other side of the conservative, xenophobic coin. You and others seem only to see the latter as the problem, but I am saying that it is much deeper than that, that it's a fundamental problem with European culture across the political spectrum. Just because liberals are not aware and explicit that their position is often based on essentializing, borderline racist assumptions does not make it any less true or any less of a problem.

In pointing your finger at the Right, you're dismissing the gist of Maajid Nawaz's argument.

Hm, I don't think you've grasped what Maajid Nawaz is saying, and what I have also been arguing. I may try to explain it more clearly later. One part of it (the problem, that is) is the multiculuralist notion of ethnic group rights (although that's not so significant in assimilationist France).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-group/#FeaImpConGroRig

One method of dealing with challenging behaviour is distraction. We should talk to ISIS about, say, global warming, road safety, poisoning bees and mass extinction. And then while they're talking about that, they're not bombing people. It would also foster a sense of proportion on both sides.

One problem I see with that suggestion: if we take the more apocalyptic pronouncements seriously, it seems they might embrace global warming as part of the forthcoming apocalypse ordained by God.

Yes that's pretty much it, or part of it at least.

if you look carefully you'll notice that the use of light bulbs is more widespread than the believe in these western values. Which is part of the point when I said we shouldn't be enforcing our narrative on other cultures. For instance, African pre-colonial dispute settlement has nothing to do with judges and courts and the introduction of courts to replace traditional settlement is one of the reasons that contribute to a high level of corruption in, for instance, Nigeria (or Niger, I forget)...

In addition, I don't believe in universal values any more. It's quite clearly a luxury only rich countries can afford - and that only in a limited and incomplete fashion.

I don't see why either 'western' light-bulbs or 'western' values need to be enforced to work. Iranian feminists, Indian anti-corruption campaigners and Kenyan gay rights activists etc. are only seeking to 'enforce' change within their own societies. To claim that the things they are fighting for are 'Western' and therefore not appropriate to their environment is a slap in the face to everything they stand for, which are legitimately universal aspirations, not in the sense that 'everyone agrees this is good' but in the sense that 'these ideas contribute to human flourishing everywhere'. Nazi Germany had a different idea of justice and social order too, does that mean the Allies were wrong to dismantle it? That sort of moral relativism doesn't even make it past the front door.

There is much we can learn from enlightenment ideas, just as there is much we can learn from traditional settlement societies. But painting one or the other as 'western', not just in a historical sense, but as a way of maintaining culture boundaries, as if it were a moral duty to prevent good ideas from spreading - a sort of 'we don't take kindly to your types in here' response - is the very definition of illiberalism. It is quite shocking to hear it advocated by someone on the left.

I still really think you ought to read C.L.R. James. It's a fantastic counterpoint to the odious tendency in the left today to disparage enlightenment ideas as 'western'. The story of a slave colony which straight away not only realised, but furthered the ideas of their colonial oppressors, in order to free themselves. Today's poor Haitians might well ask themselves "and what did the revolution do for me?" But they do not.

Well said. Of course, postmodern leftists and liberals would have us believe that Toussaint Louverture was merely aping the mores of his masters, trying to take on values that would inevitably come to nothing in such an alien milieu ("just look at Haiti now!").

That's not as much of an exaggeration as it might appear: I've talked to people who said exactly that, though about India rather than Haiti.

So factors/conditions for radicalisation we can influence are :

Abstract
1. Western foreign policy (to the extent it is unfair or immoral)
2. Racial inequality / discrimination
3. poverty

Personal/motivational
4. Personal experience (relates to 2 and 3)
5. sense of belonging (relates to 2)
6. Lack of education (not a rule of thumb but sufficiently correlated to take seriously)
7. Above may lead to wanting revenge or status

Ideological
7. violent ideology — Benkei

Evidence casts doubt on some of these purported factors. It turns out that European jihadists are very often well-educated, relatively wealthy, and integrated. Nor does their radicalization seem to stem from rage at Western foreign policy. Sorry for yet another link--and it's yet another piece by Kenan Malik--but this is really the best high-level analysis of radicalization that I've read:

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/radiclization-is-not-so-simple/

Evidence casts doubt on some of these purported factors. — Jamalrob

I'm sorry but that's simply not true and it's not what Malik is saying either. Some factors are more important than others and the difficulty is that every terrorist radicalises in his own way - you have to comprehensively deal with all factors (and the above is not complete because I'm not writing a thesis here) - and that makes this a really complicated problem. There's a lot of research on this and there are outliers but on average that doesn't disprove the general theory (and it depends who you read as to what those factors are exactly) as 10+ research has established by now.

Malik's piece you linked you see he emphasises, by quoting Horgan and Atlantic, what I highlighted as "personal/motivational". There's a reason why ideology is dead last - just to point out that it needs to be there to be followed.

What's also interesting is that you claim it's a battle of ideas yet link Malik who basically says these people are not motivated by ideology. Why then, should they be inspired by the values you mentioned?

Also, to get back to a different point. I don't believe in the existence of universal values in the very real sense as non-existent. I wish they were because then these discussions would be unnecessary to some extent and because I do believe they're good values. "rights" are legal constructs that are expressions of these values and can be granted and taken away. This is precisely what they aren't universal.

So they're always contingent on time and cultures why I think they're basically a luxury. Privacy was a luxury too.

This is different from saying we shouldn't pursue them or that others cannot independently develop them or embrace them. Or that we shouldn't be selling them - obviously people in our own societies don't believe in them or we would have much higher adherence to them by our politicians.

So yes, they should be made as near as universal as possible (until we change to the point that we embrace other rights or a different hierarchy of rights) but that's different from saying that they are universal.

There is much we can learn from enlightenment ideas, just as there is much we can learn from traditional settlement societies. But painting one or the other as 'western', not just in a historical sense, but as a way of maintaining culture boundaries, as if it were a moral duty to prevent good ideas from spreading - a sort of 'we don't take kindly to your types in here' response - is the very definition of illiberalism. It is quite shocking to hear it advocated by someone on the left. — Coolazice

Obviously posts (and my limited time) aren't a good medium to set out my exact ideas. The idea these rights are "universal", I think is a Western narrative. I think the current hierarchy of rights (what to do when they conflict) is a Western narrative.

When I attack these aspects it's in an attempt to deconstruct the Western narrative in order to allow us to move away from it - creating room to pursue social justice in wholly different ways, with possibly (slightly) different rights and most likely a different hierarchy and most definitely a different social organisation than the US or the Netherlands, which by the way already are very different.

I hope that clarifies a bit. It's why I don't like statements like "they need an enlightenment", because it projects a French/European coming about on a culture and time that are most likely not sufficiently similar and unnecessary.

Women rights activists in Egypt manage to argue their case within the concepts, history and writings of Islam. That should at least raise the question whether secularisation is really necessary.

Same with female equality; well before the West there was a time Muslim women were entitled to half the assets after a divorce, for instance. This right obviously doesn't exist any more but it was granted based on Islamic writing (hadith I think).

And I hope we can agree that enforcement has been attempted in plenty of places, most recently in Iraq and that it has been widespread.

Women rights activists in Egypt manage to argue their case within the concepts, history and writings of Islam. That should at least raise the question whether secularisation is really necessary. — Benkei

While there are indeed women's rights activists in Egypt who are religious, someone like Aliaa Magda Elmahdy would laugh in your face for suggesting that secularisation is not needed. As well she should, since she has suffered the most from its scarcity. You essentially have two options: side with the conservative establishment that tries to paint her politics as an insult to Islam, or stand up for what she believes in, which is removing religious influence from public and social life. You cannot maintain one rule for Europeans and one rule for Egyptians, not while there are Egyptian women who are crying out and dying for some of the things European women have. Show some solidarity. Don't sweep these peoples' problems under the rug based on some spurious and racist notion that the East is different from the West. As long as people like her exist in the world, we should continue to support them, regardless of which country they're in.

One part of it (the problem, that is) is the multiculuralist notion of ethnic group rights (although that's not so significant in assimilationist France). — jamalrob

Way back around the time of the Falklands war - the good old days - I lived in The deep south of France in a half abandoned mountain village. Even there, there was a clearly defined 'Moroccan quarter', a collection of rather temporary looking prefabs. As representatives of 'the Allies', of course there was no question of our being housed there; a place became available in the main village, although we were very poor.

Not much has changed in forty years. Assimilation is something that they have to do, which does not then oblige us in turn to modify our racism.

For me it was a great place to live, but now I have a mixed-race partner, I would not consider living in France. As far as I can see the multiculturalist/assimilationist debate is vacuous; the reality is not on the same planet as the rhetoric, and this is the experience that leads folks to a place where they are content to die in the hope of having some effect on the world.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that it is impossible to punish or revenge oneself on a suicide bomber? It's so frustrating!

As far as I can see the multiculturalist/assimilationist debate is vacuous; the reality is not on the same planet as the rhetoric, and this is the experience that leads folks to a place where they are content to die in the hope of having some effect on the world. — unenlightened

I agree, more or less. I did not mean to suggest that France's way has worked out better, although I do sympathize with the principle. The problem is that immigrants have been treated like second-class citizens despite the assimilationist letter of the law, and that the children of immigrants have been treated like immigrants.

Judith Butler is worth a read, I think.

We shouldn't kid ourselves: history, as the discovery of world - as opposed to mundus (a temporary pit stop on the way to paradise according to scripture) - is western and is indistinguishable from a process of secularization. Whether Muslims arrive there in one fell swoop through some kind of enlightenment, or find resources within Islam for interpretations that favour "our" values, the demands of history on them won't change.

Absolute nonsense. Non-european historical texts are well documented all over the place, from Al-Mas'udi from the Islamic Golden Age to Han Dynasty-era Sima Qian. The amount of Eurocentrism on this thread is ridiculous.

British-Turkish citizen arrested by Universal Good Superior Western Values Police for trying to join anti-ISIS group PKK that happens to be the progressive, forward thinking organization Universal Good Superior Western Values Police don't like. Oh yeah, sentenced to 21 months in prison. She was trying to join to fight ISIS. But Western values are so much more superior than ISIS' guys.

Anyone would think you wanted 'them' to make up their own minds about shit.

I'm talking about history as a process, not as a discourse. My Eurocentrism is a very carefully chosen perspective, and not one that is unmindful of origins in and contributions from other cultures.

She got 21 months. Do you even read your links?

Typo. Fixed.