I defer to Adam Kotsko, who writes:

Seriously, "Islamofascism?" Are the terrorists winning the sympathy of the common folk by promising to get the trains running on time? Is contemporary Islamic terrorism characterized by a militaristic aesthetic? Are there rumblings of a return to paganism? Is there an industrial-style operation currently attempting to exterminate one or more races of people? Is this supposed Islamic version of fascism an attempt to ward off the danger of communism in the face of the injustices brought about by rapid industrialization? Is it focused in on a messianic leader who speaks publicly to crowds of thousands? Are the terrorists of a nationalistic and expansionistic bent? Do they actually hold power in a legitimate nation-state at all?

No, to all of them. If you take any of the historic traits of actual fascism that actually happened in actual real life, none of them would be found in this dread spectre of International Terrorism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in terms of political strategy and structure, the dread spectre of International Terrorism is as unlike fascism (as it actually happened in actual real life) as it is possible to be.

If by "fascism," however, the advocates of the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (gSave -- apparently trying to cash in on the "open source" aesthetic) actually just mean "bad politics that we're against," then yes, absolutely, the terrorists are just like the fascists, because both are bad. I'll go on record as saying it: Hitler was bad. Mussolini was bad. Osama bin Laden is bad. They all share the common trait of badness. Right on! Where I disagree, though, is where this supposed analogy is shifted back into the literal level so that we're supposed to act as though the kinds of things that Monday-morning quarterbacks now think would have stopped Hitler are also the kinds of things that are going to stop the dread spectre of International Terrorism. Then the analogy becomes not just ignorant and unhelpful, but actually dangerous.

Crap.

A weak epithet with which to beat Islam. Clumsy and oxymoronic.

If you take a definition of fascism to be: a totalitarian social movement based around the glorification of the concept of nation, it doesn't really fit Islamic fundamentalism. Likewise Catholicism is not fascism, although you could draw comparisions if you so wished. Religion is generally supra-national. German Nazism was antithetical to religion and sought to replace organized religion with devotion to the leader and the party, through elaborate ceremonies of national worship and rememberance of war dead.* In fact the anti-nazi pascifist White Rose Society used bible quotations heavily in their pamphlets, to appeal to innate german christian values, which they felt would counteract party indoctrination. Such was the diametric oppostion of nazism to christianity.

Fundamentalist Islam could be said to share traits with 'classical' generic fascism, such as illiberlism and anti-semitism, but essentially it lacks the key characteristics, which are:

-Unrestrained government
-Extreme militarism
-Imperialism through military domination
-Focus on an absolute leader
-Economic manipulation of the state and absolute control of the financial sector

All of which are more applicable to Iraq's Ba'thist party. If anything current Islamic extremism is anti-imperial in nature.

*Slighty confusingly Heinrich Himmler was a keen reader of the the Koran and apparently always kept it to hand. He also thought he was the reincarnation of Heinrich der Vogler, Duke of Saxony, and Genghis Khan. I guess he was a pretty mixed-up guy.

NOT CRAP.

NOT CRAP.

Hating the "other", oppressing women. threatening to kill homosexuals and murdering anyone that decided not believe in God sounds like fascism to me.

Personally I'm surprised my fellow Leftists/Liberals would go anywhere near Muslims, you don't see The Socialist Workers Party running down the street cheering the Catholic church!

This is a clumsy term, but the idea of a widely used name that reinforces that there are political aims to what Islamic fundamentalist terrorists do appeals to me. These fuckers perform fanatical acts--and the coverage stops there. The targets of their attacks are chosen because of [b]political[b\] motives, be they a pull back in Israel, removing forces from Iraq, or attempting to weaken global capitalism. I don't think it's as simple as "nutjobs punishing the[ir manifestation of] infidels", which a blanket term like "Islamic terrorists" allows people to keep on believing. This seems a small point, but labels are powerful. Lacan told me so.

And Gramsci, I have no idea if you're kidding, but I feel compelled to respond. I "go near" Muslims because some of them happen to be friends. I despise murderers of any background but find it silly to condemn other followers of whatever their co-opted inspiration was, be it something as goofy as heavy metal or as expansive as a religion. I learned that at my secular kindergarten.

I should have said fundamentalist Muslims -or Christians or any theists for that matter...-

Crap.

The Adam Kotsko quote really says everything that needs to be said. If the characteristics of fundamentalist Islam sound like Fascism to you, then that's probably based on a view of Fascism that includes a lot of things that aren't particularly Fascist.

The government in Iran and the former government in Afghanistan certainly have some things in common with Fascism, but I think that's still somewhat of a stretch. Applying the term to Osama bin Laden is Crap.

itchy mcgoo wrote:The targets of their attacks are chosen because of [b]political[b\] motives, be they a pull back in Israel, removing forces from Iraq, or attempting to weaken global capitalism.

i've said this one million times on this board, but to believe al qaeda, for example, is a political organization is a real stretch

political events give them an excuse and a handy framework, but the history of islamist extremism is not filled with political activism. it's filled with a desire to destroy any element of western culture and install islamic law (as defined by extremists) at any cost. that's not really a political impulse, as we think of it normally.

'islamofascism' is a technically inaccurate term. i think it is useful in that it makes clear the totalitarian impulse behind most islamist extremism. otherwise, i agree that if the term leads people to think we can kill off the thing with brute force, the way we killed off the axis powers, then use of the term is a bad thing.

Fun with the Internet:

tmidgett wrote:i think it is useful in that it makes clear the totalitarian impulse behind most islamist extremism.

I agree. Although you'd be surprised at how totalitarian even that most oxymoronic of constructs 'moderate' Islam is, but that's another issue.

This totalitarian impulse is one that extends beyond the desire to impose Sharia rule on Arab states alone. The idea behind the khilafah (the 'caliphate') is that the entire world should and will be converted by the sword. So in this sense this strain of Islam is fascistic. Sure, it's a historically and academically inaccurate way of describing them, but it's damn close.