I will look into some of these books, too.
Meanwhile, all I want to reiterate is that, as far as freedom(s) and social organization are concerned, I find it really frustrating that an informed person can fail to register that the freedoms of the West are founded on -- and continue to be built upon -- imperialism, genocide, and class war. That's trite, and sounds like a certain strain of received Chomskian-Leftist dogma I know, but I'd challenge anyone to refute it. No matter how one defines terrorism, in the last fifty years the U.S. government has committed more acts of terrorism than any other state or group; the evidence is incontrovertible, if underreported.The failure to address this fact directly, frustrates me.
Term: " Islamofascism"
42Angriest_Dragon wrote:Whoa!!!
There is actually one buiilt in the emoticons on here.
All that painstaking research for nothing.
That dragon is clearly _Sad, not _Angry!!
Here, allow me to stimulate you with my tongue:
Term: " Islamofascism"
43Champion Rabbit wrote:Here, allow me to stimulate you with my tongue:
Okay, Creepy Rabbit...
Dude, if I catch you ogling my crotch again...
Term: " Islamofascism"
44Interesting discussion, though I definitely vote non-crap on this one. Can't believe no one has so far linked to this recent article by Stephen Schwartz - who coined the term "Islamofascism" - explaining its origin and justifying its relevance.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3ajdua.asp
Here's the core of it, though it's well worth reading in its entirety:
Fascism is distinguished from the broader category of extreme right-wing politics by its willingness to defy public civility and openly violate
the law. As such it represents a radical departure from the tradition of ultra-conservatism. The latter aims to preserve established social relations, through enforcement of law and reinforcement of authority. But the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. It is a common misconception of political science to believe, in the manner of amateur Marxists, that Italian fascists and Nazis sought maintenance of order, to protect the ruling classes. Both Mussolini and Hitler agitated against "the system" governing their countries. Their willingness to resort to street violence, assassinations, and coups set the Italian and German fascists apart from ordinary defenders of ruling elites, which they sought to replace. This is an important point that should never be forgotten. Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege.
Islamofascism similarly pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al Qaeda has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence. Hezbollah showed fascist methods both in its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and in initiating that action without any consideration for the Lebanese government of which it was a member. Indeed, Lebanese democracy is a greater enemy of Hezbollah than Israel.
Fascism rested, from the economic perspective, on resentful middle classes, frustrated in their aspirations and anxious about loss of their position. The Italian middle class was insecure in its social status; the German middle class was completely devastated by the defeat of the country in the First World War. Both became irrational with rage at their economic difficulties; this passionate and uncontrolled fury was channeled and exploited by the acolytes of Mussolini and Hitler. Al Qaeda is based in sections of the Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian middle classes fearful, in the Saudi case, of losing their unstable hold on prosperity--in Pakistan and Egypt, they are angry at the many obstacles, in state and society, to their ambitions. The constituency of Hezbollah is similar: the growing Lebanese Shia middle class, which believes itself to be the victim of discrimination.
Fascism was imperialistic; it demanded expansion of the German and Italian spheres of influence. Islamofascism has similar ambitions; the Wahhabis and their Pakistani and Egyptian counterparts seek control over all Sunni Muslims in the world, while Hezbollah projects itself as an ally of Syria and Iran in establishing regional dominance.
Fascism was totalitarian; i.e. it fostered a totalistic world view--a distinct social reality that separated its followers from normal society. Islamofascism parallels fascism by imposing a strict division between Muslims and alleged unbelievers. For Sunni radicals, the practice of takfir--declaring all Muslims who do not adhere to the doctrines of the Wahhabis, Pakistani Jama'atis, and the Muslim Brotherhood to be outside the Islamic global community
or ummah--is one expression of Islamofascism. For Hezbollah, the posture of total rejectionism in Lebanese politics--opposing all politicians who might favor any political negotiation with Israel--serves the same purpose. Takfir, or "excommunication" of ordinary Muslims, as well as Hezbollah's Shia radicalism, are also important as indispensable, unifying psychological tools for the strengthening of such movements.
Fascism was paramilitary; indeed, the Italian and German military elites were reluctant to accept the fascist parties' ideological monopoly. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are both paramilitary.
To me the term, while imperfect as any historical analogy must be, is useful in that no other, in my opinion, has so far been found that is better for all the reasons Schwartz mentions. Far from being some unique phenomenon of the period between WWI and II, fascism is a perennial temptation to those who feel threatened by the dislocations of modernity. I think the tendency to think of it in the past tense as something that was supposedly defeated in WWII is sadly naive - it's in all of us to varying degrees...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3ajdua.asp
Here's the core of it, though it's well worth reading in its entirety:
Fascism is distinguished from the broader category of extreme right-wing politics by its willingness to defy public civility and openly violate
the law. As such it represents a radical departure from the tradition of ultra-conservatism. The latter aims to preserve established social relations, through enforcement of law and reinforcement of authority. But the fascist organizations of Mussolini and Hitler, in their conquests of power, showed no reluctance to rupture peace and repudiate parliamentary and other institutions; the fascists employed terror against both the existing political structure and society at large. It is a common misconception of political science to believe, in the manner of amateur Marxists, that Italian fascists and Nazis sought maintenance of order, to protect the ruling classes. Both Mussolini and Hitler agitated against "the system" governing their countries. Their willingness to resort to street violence, assassinations, and coups set the Italian and German fascists apart from ordinary defenders of ruling elites, which they sought to replace. This is an important point that should never be forgotten. Fascism is not merely a harsh dictatorship or oppression by privilege.
Islamofascism similarly pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al Qaeda has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence. Hezbollah showed fascist methods both in its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and in initiating that action without any consideration for the Lebanese government of which it was a member. Indeed, Lebanese democracy is a greater enemy of Hezbollah than Israel.
Fascism rested, from the economic perspective, on resentful middle classes, frustrated in their aspirations and anxious about loss of their position. The Italian middle class was insecure in its social status; the German middle class was completely devastated by the defeat of the country in the First World War. Both became irrational with rage at their economic difficulties; this passionate and uncontrolled fury was channeled and exploited by the acolytes of Mussolini and Hitler. Al Qaeda is based in sections of the Saudi, Pakistani, and Egyptian middle classes fearful, in the Saudi case, of losing their unstable hold on prosperity--in Pakistan and Egypt, they are angry at the many obstacles, in state and society, to their ambitions. The constituency of Hezbollah is similar: the growing Lebanese Shia middle class, which believes itself to be the victim of discrimination.
Fascism was imperialistic; it demanded expansion of the German and Italian spheres of influence. Islamofascism has similar ambitions; the Wahhabis and their Pakistani and Egyptian counterparts seek control over all Sunni Muslims in the world, while Hezbollah projects itself as an ally of Syria and Iran in establishing regional dominance.
Fascism was totalitarian; i.e. it fostered a totalistic world view--a distinct social reality that separated its followers from normal society. Islamofascism parallels fascism by imposing a strict division between Muslims and alleged unbelievers. For Sunni radicals, the practice of takfir--declaring all Muslims who do not adhere to the doctrines of the Wahhabis, Pakistani Jama'atis, and the Muslim Brotherhood to be outside the Islamic global community
or ummah--is one expression of Islamofascism. For Hezbollah, the posture of total rejectionism in Lebanese politics--opposing all politicians who might favor any political negotiation with Israel--serves the same purpose. Takfir, or "excommunication" of ordinary Muslims, as well as Hezbollah's Shia radicalism, are also important as indispensable, unifying psychological tools for the strengthening of such movements.
Fascism was paramilitary; indeed, the Italian and German military elites were reluctant to accept the fascist parties' ideological monopoly. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are both paramilitary.
To me the term, while imperfect as any historical analogy must be, is useful in that no other, in my opinion, has so far been found that is better for all the reasons Schwartz mentions. Far from being some unique phenomenon of the period between WWI and II, fascism is a perennial temptation to those who feel threatened by the dislocations of modernity. I think the tendency to think of it in the past tense as something that was supposedly defeated in WWII is sadly naive - it's in all of us to varying degrees...
Term: " Islamofascism"
45Cranius wrote: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..
There is even an explicit historical connection between the Baa'th Party and European fascism in that Vichy France, which still had the League of Nations mandate of Syria and Lebanon, was a puppet fascist regime of Nazi Germany and exported that ideology to its Arab colonial holdings. Does that mean, then, that you believe Iraq under Saddam and Syria under the Assad's was/is fascistic, but not Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, despite your disagreement with the validity of "islamofascism"?
Also, unrestrained government as one of your key characteristics of fascism is really not accurate. It is of Nazism (being but one variant of fascism), but this certainly did not apply to the Italian, Polish, French and (arguably) Japanese varieties, where fascist strongmen were on occasion checked by other national forces; the best example being Mussolini's dismissal by the Italian king in 1943.
It sure seems that Hezbollah at least should qualify as fascistic according to your criteria as it explicitly militaristic, espouses military conquest, glorifies its leader (Nasrallah) and engages in constant economic and political manipulation of Lebanon, though partly checked by other forces within Lebanon. Sure seems like Islamofascist works for them.
Term: " Islamofascism"
46In short, the term is offensive and pretty much propagandist hate-speak. It conflates separate historical paradigms and ultimately infers that all muslims refer to a central authority, which patent nonsense.
As I wrote earlier:
Moreover, it's deceptive bullshit right-wing terminology. It lazily relies on the mythological status that fascism exercises in the popular imagination(opposed to historical realities) to tick the correct semiotic boxes in people's minds. It hopes to effect a lie and serve an agenda.
Also, anyone who uses it is a revisionist nonce.
As I wrote earlier:
Cranius wrote:Wether you call someone a islamofascist, judeofascist or feminazi you are still distorting a neutral term with a hyperbolic pejoritive suffix. The danger is that you will alienate a broader group of people through the associative connotations.
Moreover, it's deceptive bullshit right-wing terminology. It lazily relies on the mythological status that fascism exercises in the popular imagination(opposed to historical realities) to tick the correct semiotic boxes in people's minds. It hopes to effect a lie and serve an agenda.
Also, anyone who uses it is a revisionist nonce.
Term: " Islamofascism"
47Offensively inaccurate, exists for no other reason than to create an artificial relation between Nazis and Terrorists so as to buoy up a floundering administration.
Here's something absolutely fucking obvious: fascism is an entirely state-focused ideology. You cannot have fascism without a state, because fascism IS the state.
Heavy crap. When a person uses it, I know they don't have any idea what they're talking about.
Here's something absolutely fucking obvious: fascism is an entirely state-focused ideology. You cannot have fascism without a state, because fascism IS the state.
Heavy crap. When a person uses it, I know they don't have any idea what they're talking about.
http://www.myspace.com/leopoldandloebchicago
Linus Van Pelt wrote:I subscribe to neither prong of your false dichotomy.
Term: " Islamofascism"
48Andrew L. wrote:I will look into some of these books, too.
Meanwhile, all I want to reiterate is that, as far as freedom(s) and social organization are concerned, I find it really frustrating that an informed person can fail to register that the freedoms of the West are founded on -- and continue to be built upon -- imperialism, genocide, and class war. That's trite, and sounds like a certain strain of received Chomskian-Leftist dogma I know, but I'd challenge anyone to refute it. No matter how one defines terrorism, in the last fifty years the U.S. government has committed more acts of terrorism than any other state or group; the evidence is incontrovertible, if underreported.The failure to address this fact directly, frustrates me.
Andrew,
I've been thinking about this post of yours for a few days and am wondering if you could oblige me in providing some specifics. What freedoms that the West is founded upon (of expression? religion? the whole Enlightenment kit and kaboodle?) are built upon imperialism, genocide and class war? What's the connection?
I'm also most curious as to your incontrovertible evidence that the U.S. government has commited more acts of terrorism than any other state or group. And I very much disagree that the definition of terrorism doesn't matter - how can that of any adjective not matter? - but the definition of "terrorism" is, I think, fairly clear: the use of violence, often of a seemingly random variety, against a civilian population in order to affect political change - would you agree? If so, I just don't see that many of the U.S. governments actions over the last 50 years as qualifying, but then perhaps you could enlighten me...
Term: " Islamofascism"
49Incornsyucopia wrote:
Andrew,
I've been thinking about this post of yours for a few days and am wondering if you could oblige me in providing some specifics. What freedoms that the West is founded upon (of expression? religion? the whole Enlightenment kit and kaboodle?) are built upon imperialism, genocide and class war? What's the connection?
Do stop, Melvin. If I thought it would make any difference, I'd jot down a reading list for you. But I already know that "imperialism," "genocide," and "class war" are merely incidental, or immaterial, to your understanding of modern Western history.
but the definition of "terrorism" is, I think, fairly clear: the use of violence, often of a seemingly random variety, against a civilian population in order to affect political change - would you agree?
So Little Boy and Fat Man count then. Only if you insist.
Term: " Islamofascism"
50Rimbaud III wrote:Champion Rabbit wrote:Rimbaud III wrote:Llama fashions? It's llama fashions, right?
Do I have to think of everything around here?!?
Isn't it enough that I got the 'Llama' part covered!?!?!?
Here! Have some more of these: '?!?!?!?'
Yeesh.
Rabbit, mate, you're well nuts.
i HOPE THIS MADE SOME ONE ELSES DAY.
Ty Webb wrote:I hope the little-known 8th dwarf, Chinky, is on that list.