Antero wrote:

galanter wrote:

yut wrote: Fascism is when corporations controll the government, or there is a clear collusion between government and corporate/industrialist interests... Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are good examples.

You need to consult a dictionary. This is not what fascism means.

You are seriously telling him he needs to consult a dictionary? You, whose definition of fascism is not a political philosophy so much as it is something you call the teacher who runs detention?

You have me confused for someone else. I have, for example, taken people to task for calling Bush a fascist. He clearly isn't if one goes by the dictionary definition. I like the dictionary definition. I don't use the term loosely nor do I take it lightly.

And this is all the more reason the term Islamic Fascism is useful.

Some would say "call the Taliban the Taliban, call Al Qaeda Al Qaeda, call the Iranian Mullahs Iranian Mullahs, etc.".

The problem with this is that it ignores or denies the reality of an ideological movement that give those instances and more common ground. This is an international movement with its eye on the eventual creation of a single monolithic nation based on a particulary oppressive form of Sharia law and so on.

Not giving Islamic Fascism a name will not make it go away. It's ostrich-head-in-the-sand behavior.

yut wrote:

galanter wrote:

yut wrote: Fascism is when corporations controll the government, or there is a clear collusion between government and corporate/industrialist interests... Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are good examples.

You need to consult a dictionary. This is not what fascism means.

Dictionaries are a very limited source of information. They provide a brief definition, but hardly any sort of detailed characterization. Nonetheless, we can see the mention of "stringent socioeconomic controls" in a dictionary definition. This is something Bin Ladin and Al Queda do not have.

Al Qaeda is not a complete government, so they don't have "stringent socioeconomic controls." Right now they don't even have a country. But that is the kind of government they are working towards.

More to the point, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were not situations where corporations controlled the government. Quite the reverse. They were national socialist movements that allowed businesses to exist at the pleasure of the dictator. Any corporation or business was subject to nationalization at any time.

So fascism, in this respect, is anti-capitalist and anti-corporate. Corporations can only have power in a capitalist environment and corporate interests lose power under fascism.

galanter wrote:Not giving Islamic Fascism a name will not make it go away. It's ostrich-head-in-the-sand behavior.

Correct. It is just that Islamic Fascism is a stupid, incorrect, misleading name.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

The broad spectrum of violent Muslims that this discussion is attempting to encompass, from various proclamations, seem to share only a few common aims. These revolve around the expulsion of Western/non-Muslim people and military forces from certain areas of religious or other significance (Israel and Saudi Arabia being the obvious examples, occupied Iraq falling under "other"). Whilst various proponents of this terrorism have also expressed preference for Sharia law, if you listen to the mugs they pull in, their supporters see themselves as liberators. This is not about a way of government, this is about reactive violence.

An example of this was on the BBC a few minutes ago. An English lad who appears to have been turned to this lunacy states:

Earlier, Khyam told the court that in 1998 he had become interested in religion and "a cause". Asked what he meant by a cause he replied: "The freedom of Muslim lands from occupation.

Having read the arguments for and against the term, it seems that those who use it use it only for comfort, and possibly propaganda. We don't like Muslim fundamentalists. We don't like Nazis. Answer: let's lump them together.

The subtext is that by labelling terrorists fascists, one is elevating them to the level of the Nazis, therefore justifying mudbrained and catastrophic military aggression - it worked against Adolf and Benito, after all?

It is stupid thinking, it clouds our understanding of the problem, and is a unsubtle effort by a nasty bunch of warmongers to reverse-engineer an enemy suitable for the tactics that they have employed.

EDIT for poor spelling and sentence construction. Latter still poor, but oh well.

Sparky, what aspect of fascism is not present in the ideology of Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

Sorry to bud in...

They don't have a government or nation, for one. They have no alliance with industry. They are rogue terrorists, and not a nationalist/industrialist movement.

Fascists take charge of industry (or collude with them) so they can crank out weapons and "make the trains run on time". I think Bin Ladin drives a Toyota Land Cruiser, and has no control over rail transportation, or infrastructure of any kind.

I think you are confusing the everyday speech, colloquial meaning of fascism ("Oh dude, my PE teacher is a fascist. He makes me run a mile in under 10 minutes") with the international relations definition of fascism -- one that requires a control of infrastructure and means of production.

galanter wrote:Sparky, what aspect of fascism is not present in the ideology of Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

Yut covers it above. Comparing the dictionary definitions given above to the stated objectives of most captured/recorded suicide bombers does it. Comparing Al Qaeda to Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or any other recorded fascist regime does it.

Galanter, this is not World War 2. There isn't some single, big landmass labelled "Islamofascistland" to bomb to make us all safe. I say this, because this terminology is designed specifically to make us think this, and accept the levelling of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

By the way, your lumping in together of Al Qaeda and the Taliban demonstrates again the fallacy of the approach. Two very different groups of people, one with aims for their own country (Taliban, Afghanistan), one with aims for a range of countries (Al Qaeda, with Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq...). I am using the name "Al Qaeda" whilst grinding my teeth, because the proposition that this is a single Dr Evil-style organisation, with Bin Laden sitting at the top is highly dubious. "Al Qaeda" is more of a popular brand with extremists.

By refusing to distinguish between these groups, you are doing pretty much what the average Islamic terrorist does to us (western, non-Muslims). Which is why the "War on Terror" is dangerous bunkum.

And another argument for you, Phil:

Even assuming the term is accurate (it is not) - this poll is not a poll of Accurate/Not Accurate. It is Crap/Not Crap. This term is not used by people who are saying, "Hey, this term is so accurate that it is important to use in order to convey true facts to people when we use it." Rather, it is used by people who are saying, "Hey, nobody likes fascists, and these people we're fighting have some authoritarian tendencies, so let's use this term that will link them in people's minds with our other greatest enemy of all time, and people will slip it into conversation and it will act as a tiny piece of propaganda every time it is used." That's the motivation behind the term, and even if it turns out by some happy accident that the term is accurate (it does not), the term itself is still Crap.

So yes, your arguments are decent, even if I happen to think they're wrong, but until we have a forum called Accurate/Not Accurate, they only provide part of the picture.

yut wrote:Sorry to bud in...

They don't have a government or nation, for one. They have no alliance with industry. They are rogue terrorists, and not a nationalist/industrialist movement.
.

I referenced their ideology...what kind of country do they ultimately seek?

The current state of Al Qaeda is not the issue, the issue is their goals.

i.e. they are fascists not in the sense that they've established a fascist state, but rather they are fascists in that they *seek* to establish a fascist state.

Both uses are commonly acceptable.

At best, they are "wannabe" fascists. Where is their "severe economic and social regimentation", to quote Webster.




They may want to do this, but they don't have this ability. They are nationless and devoid of industry.

I would say labelling them as anarchists is more accurate, but not entirely.

sparky wrote:

galanter wrote:Sparky, what aspect of fascism is not present in the ideology of Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

Yut covers it above. Comparing the dictionary definitions given above to the stated objectives of most captured/recorded suicide bombers does it. Comparing Al Qaeda to Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany or any other recorded fascist regime does it.

Galanter, this is not World War 2. There isn't some single, big landmass labelled "Islamofascistland" to bomb to make us all safe.

You keep missing the simple point. Fascism is a type of ideology. Using a single term to refer to the ideology of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other radical Islamic groups is not an assertion that they are all identical. Calling someone a capitalist doesn't mean they are identical to all other capitalists. It just points out a common ideology. Same with Islamic Fascist.

And as I pointed out above, you don't have to have a country to be a fascist. You just have to have the intent to create a fascist state to be a fascist.

It seems to me the only alternatives to calling them Islamic Fascists is to either (1) argue there is no shared ideology or (2) argue there is a shared ideology but that it is not fascism (if so, what is it?) or (3) there is a shared ideology and the better name for it is __________.

What I am seeing posted here is not (1), (2), or (3) but rather a jumble of suppositions about the motives of those who use the term.

My questions are (1) is there a shared ideology and if so (2) what should it be called?