Samuel Huntington and the theory of "clash of civilizations" in the balance of Jabri

Samuel Huntington and the theory of "clash of civilizations" in the balance of Jabri
Francis Fukuyama's "end-of-history" of political thought was dominated by the "clash of civilizations" by Samuel Huntington, who took the spotlight from Fukuyama and considered "the end of history." The reasons for the brightness of Huntington's star and his thesis on the clash of civilizations are not reasons of strength, cognitive authority and coherence of theoretical construction. But it simply means the shift in American policy at this stage led by the extreme right or (neo-liberal)
It is axiomatic that any thought or philosophy can not exist and live in a vacuum. Rather, it necessarily expresses the ideology of a particular group, sect, class or even people. The "Clash of Civilizations" theory is entirely reflective of the new orientation of neoliberalism in America and a faithful and accompaniment to the gradual transformation that has become apparent in recent times. The idea of ​​the end of history at some point was the real gateway to the policy of the neoliberals in America. In this article we will have to make comparisons between the clash of civilizations and the end of history when necessary.
In fact, the term "end of history" did not last for more than five years, when it became extinct in the name of the clash of civilizations.
The saying of the end of history foretold the end of totalitarian regimes and all communist and socialist regimes, and foresaw the inevitability of the victory of the liberal system and its uniqueness as a single political and economic system in the future. That is, the end of history will inevitably end.
The dramatic events that followed Fukuyama's book, the end of history, confirmed Fukuyama's prophecies. Or that US policy has taken the "end of history" argument and program of action and has drawn up its plans to follow this argument. Or perhaps it has paved the way for its policy by promoting it theoretically in the form of the theory of "the end of history." Indeed, all the previous assumptions are therefore one result.
Neoliberals seem suddenly to be alarmed at the end of history. This is the inevitable fate of the world's non-liberal regimes. That is, its collapse is inevitable.
It does not need wars and military campaigns. Thus, the huge US budget of weapons, amounting to hundreds of billions, becomes totally unjustified. Why have hundreds of billions of dollars been spent fighting regimes that are essentially systems that are moving towards their inevitable death? The end of history, in part, is reassuring to the future of liberal America. Which is not as liberal as it has inevitably become in the past
Thus the theory of the clash of civilizations came to avoid this serious deficiency and imagine the conflict as still present and future, warning of the danger of confrontation and war and openly calling for preparedness and defense to defend the liberal American model of civilization. Thus, the allocation of astronomical funds for armament is justified. Huntington was struck by a chord when Images of the next danger are green (mostly Islamic).
Hentengenton published his article in the US magazine Foreign Affairs in 1993, a magazine known for its proximity to decision-making centers in the United States.
Jabri believes that the "clash of civilizations" in terms of intellectual and cognitive level does not suit Huntington's scientific status and high methodology. It is at the technical level of the worst of Huntington's thought. Which suggests that it was written with great urgency and with a clear intention or direct commission from the US administration. Ideas are repeated and scrambled and the evidence overlaps in an irregular system, analysis is confused and the reasoning is slow and the examples are full of fallacies. All this indicates that the principle governing the text is the known principle (the end justifies the means).
One of the main drawbacks of the theory is to resort to generalization and to create ambiguity, to jump from case to case and from example to another example of occasion and without occasion is the method of fallacy as is known in logic.
After a series of justifications, Heggettenon concludes that the next conflict will not be ideological or economic as these two conflicts ended with the collapse of the socialist camp. And that the next conflict will be civilized, and the major conflicts in international politics will arise between a group of civilizations and will be the limits of tension between these civilizations are the lines of major battles in the future.
Huntington concludes that the future conflict will be between three major civilizations: Islamic civilization, Chinese civilization and Western civilization. Although Arnoldtuenbee, the famous historian of civilizations, has identified eight civilizations that still exist and live and are active (Western civilization, Confucianism, Japanese, Islamic, Indian, Seljuk, Orthodox and Latin American), and possibly African civilization
Huntington is based on Toynbee's argument to arbitrarily and unjustly decide to exclude all civilizations in their conflict with the West and to preserve only Chinese and Islamic civilization. He says that Japan has become part of
The West is politically and technologically, and Slavic peoples are part of Europe as they approach the West and want to integrate into it like Latin America. India is retreating from Nehru's heritage, returning to Hinduism and suffering from internal rupture due to the presence of rival sects and minorities, making it out of conflict with the West because of its preoccupation with the internal conflict. Africa does not enter into account because of the Toubini term. And it remains only on the Chinese and Islamic civilization and he believes that these civilizations are two civilizations aspiring to modernity and modernization but they reject the Western model, and so will be the conflict between them and the West.
Huntington uses different criteria in the classification of civilizations, for example, making Latin and Western civilization two different civilizations, although they They share religion, language, culture, heritage and history, and do not rely on religion as a basis for the classification of civilizations except in the case of Islamic civilization only. Otherwise, the Latin and Western civilization would have been considered one civilization and Indian, Chinese and Japanese civilization would have been one civilization that condemned Buddhism. Here, we find him in the classification of civilizations, sometimes depends on the religion and sometimes depends on cultural identity and sometimes depends on what he called the consciousness of civilization, but ultimately resort to a process of intellectual patchwork multiple theory to eventually reach the result sought by the pre-determined or the US administration to access it is the status of Chinese civilization We know that there is a conflict within one civilization that is more important and deeper than all the alleged conflicts, namely, the class struggle, in which modern history has mainly been formed. The Chinese Revolution of 47 was a revolution within one civilization, but it carried the class struggle between the exploited and the exploited. As well as the ideological struggle within the European civilization itself represented by the French Revolution in its most obvious form and revolutions in Britain, Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as the Russian Revolution, and that all civilizations have witnessed many conflicts either class or ideology, all of which silence him Huntington and ignoring it in a systematic slander and fallacy to focus on The civilizational conflict only serves the new orientation of those who stand behind this theory. Huntington turns to linking economic blocs with cultural blocs. What combines the economic blocs today is their participation in one civilization. Examples of this are certainly selective examples arbitrarily selected, such as the European Common Market, as well as China, Hong Kong and Singapore. For example, why did not a common market between the Arab countries be based on the ECO group, which represents ten Islamic countries (note that it is here to consider religion as a criterion rather than civilization). It is notable that Huntington does not use religion as a measure in the classification of civilizations except when it comes to Islam only. Although Huntington talks extensively about the clash of civilizations, such as the clash between Eastern and Western Christianity, the conflict between the West and the Confucian civilization in China, as well as the conflict with India and Eastern Europe and the conflict with Latin American civilization and Russia. But we see it in a manner that is close to naiveté and manipulation of language and language to downplay all conflicts. Such as saying about India that this civilization will be preoccupied with internal conflicts and will not pose a threat to the West as if the Islamic civilization does not have internal conflicts and wars (see methodological excess) or that Latin American civilization is close to the Western model and is on its way to integrate with Western civilization soon , And forgets and ignores the rush of many Muslim countries and Turkey explained to the West and try to engage in Western civilization. Indeed, Huntington is in the naive and resort to tricks here and there in order to reach the result set in-kind in advance, the promotion and highlight the side of the conflict between the West and Islam and here the trend serves only the direction of the neoliberals in America. This is the most illusory theory in Huntington, when Huntington reaches the ultimate goal of his theory, which he articulates in words that smack of political rhetoric and political purposes. He is the crux of everything Huntington said: The difference between civilizations is a reality and the conflict between civilizations will replace ideological conflict And other forms of conflict. • The central axis of international politics will be the West and beyond, and the central focus of the global conflict will be between the West and the Confucian and Islamic civilizations. Huntington then goes after all the previous fallacies that led him to talk about the necessary precautions that the West must take in the short and long term (this is the most important part and goal of the entire theory). He says that the West must work to achieve maximum cooperation and unity among the components of its European and American civilization and at the same time to integrate Latin America and Eastern Europe into its civilization, and to promote cooperation with Russia and Japan and not to reduce arms in order to maintain military superiority over The Confucian and Islamic Confederation, whose borders should be limited to the expansion of the military, while exploiting the differences between the constituent countries. At the long run, the West must maintain its economic and military strength to protect its security and civilization. At the same time, it seeks to curtail and conquer these civilizations and to seek to contain these civilizations by penetrating them from within and from outside. In fact, Huntington speaks of the Islamic threat as the most dangerous and dangerous threat to Islamic terrorists. Perhaps the inclusion of Chinese Confucian civilization in his theory as an enemy of the West was a matter of camouflage, coverage and manipulation so as not to reveal the real goal of this theory is to promote the policy of neo-liberalists in the anti-Islam and the civilization of Islam. Although Huntington portrayed this conflict and conflict as inevitable and the only inevitable solution, Al-Jabri reveals this trick that Huntington has resorted to and offers alternative alternatives to the future of the world away from conflict and confrontation. It is well known that the promotion of conflict and conflict is essentially a justification for maintaining the development of forces And therefore the need to spend the necessary funds in order to do so. Note that America has a budget armament is the largest in the world, which exceeded half trillion dollars paid from the money of the American people that was supposed to go to spend on education, health and social security and the fact that al-Jabri poses an alternative
Objectivity of the theory of clash of civilizations is more authoritative and coherent than Huntington's theory, and certainly not as entrenched as Huntington's in seeking to fuel conflict in the world and make the world more dangerous and dangerous. For example, Graham Fuller's project entitled Dialogue of Civilizations is divided into three things: 1. Reviewing Western values ​​and concepts to make them more compatible with new developments. 2 - Let the Third World move towards modernization. Each according to the way it chooses and to deal positively with countries that are making economic progress in the Western context. 3. To help countries that can not achieve such progress so that the world order does not lead to confrontation between the West and other regimes. Although the previous draft is still based on the same premise that the future will see an anti-Western ideology, it calls for dialogue rather than confrontation and war. Al-Jabri provides evidence that the West is not motivated by civilized motives, but rather by the interests of the West and its future policies. The Westerner is not afraid of any international body except to the extent that it threatens his interests (al-Jabri explains the tripartite aggression on Egypt in 1956, the Western coup against Muslim countries after the oil cut in 1973, the Western overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in the 1950s Which attempts to restore the oil wealth, then what drives the West is the interests, and we believe that this hypothesis is more circumvented than the hypothesis of the clash of civilizations biased and Jabri ends his criticism of the theory of clash of civilizations by focusing on the class struggle instead of the civilizational conflict and believes that class struggle between the exploited and exploited, Will dominate p To the future of the world, which transcends the clash of civilizations and even the dialogue of civilizations to what he called "union dialogue with the owners of institutions" and that anything else is the peak of ashes in the eyes.