I have nothing to add to this discussion because several posters here, although not impressed with the word “Islamofascism” are doing a much better job of defending my argument than I could.
What about the word “jihadist”. I never heard anyone question the legitimacy of the use of that word, but it appears to have a completely negative connotation even though there are many who will tell you that jihad is benign and has nothing to do with terrorism.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
And then arguing that other organizations that meet the characteristics for Fascism that you’ve laid out, but have a strong and charasmatic leader who isn’t considered to be the living embodiment of their philosophy… they don’t count.
[/QUOTE]
There are no such societies or movements. The Cultic leader was selected as one clear indicator that was absent, but, in fact, if one develops a genuine description of Fascism, Islamism simply fails on too many of the points necessary for it to be identified as Fascism, (intense nationalism, ethnic superiority, economics, etc.).
Your claims about Italy, Germany, and Spain make this point. Each of those countries had its own separate Fascist movement. One aspect of Fascism was its intense nationalism and it could not take hold, (in the way of early pre-Stalinist communism), across international boundaries. Each nation had to establish its own separate Fascist regime. On the other hand, there are lots of people (the aforementioned Sullivan, Perle, and others) who lump the Ba’athist party of Iraq and the international movement of al Qaida together as though it was a single “Fascist” (Islamofascist) movement that threatens the West. Aside from those poorly reasoning pundits, we still have people (a couple recently posted in this Forum) who argue that we had to invade Iraq because it represented the “Islamofascists” and was working with al Qaida.
(As to “Fascism” in the post-WWII world, two points: people like neo-Nazis and such are merely play-acting. They have no power and the majority of them are doing nothing to actively promote their beliefs as an actual political movement. To the (rare) extent that they have actually succeeded in organizing a genuine political movement (Great Britain in the 50s and 60s), they have always been led by a charismatic leader upon whose death or retirement they have fallen apart. Were there Nazis who fled Germany (or who did not) who held onto their beliefs? Sure. But they did not organize an actual political movement. The Boys of Brazil was fiction. The Argentinian military was right wing and authoritarian, but not Fascist.)
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I have nothing to add to this discussion because several posters here, although not impressed with the word “Islamofascism” are doing a much better job of defending my argument than I could.
[/QUOTE]
So. . . You got nothin’? 
“Jihadi” or “Jihadist” are both good terms to describe the violent members/elements/factions of various totalitarian (and non-totalitarian) sects, factions, schisms and doctrines within the umbrella of Islam.
It’s also a complicated term, as not all Islamists are Jihadists, some Jihadists are neo-fundamentalists rather than Islamists, and some Jihadists, it could be argued, are neither Islamists nor neo-fundamentalists.
There are, of course, circumstances in which an unaffiliated Muslim extremist snaps and starts killing people because they believe their religion demands/justifies it. Folks like Naveed Afzal Haq, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, and possibly folks like Rashid Baz, have no affiliation with any movement. They’re just sick, violent, and use religion/culture as a justification.
I believe that someone like Azar, who justified running people over as saying he was acting so as to “avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide”, or someone like Haq who justified shooting people by saying “I’m a Muslim-American; I’m angry at Israel” can, fairly accurately, be identified as Jihadists, because they credit their religion as being a driving factor and/or important in their decision to kill people.
Someone like Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, however, would probably be more accurately described as a terrorist, as his goals were apparently political rather than religious, and designed to send a message to Americans (and serve as threat to Israelis) regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict rather than to support a religious cause.
So… to further complicate things, not all Jihadists are supporters of totalitarianism. Not all who support totalitarianism are Jihadists. And some who are classified as Jihadists are probably, more properly, classified as terrorists.
I bet you’re sorry you asked. 
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
There are no such societies or movements. The Cultic leader was selected as one clear indicator that was absent, but, in fact, if one develops a genuine description of Fascism, Islamism simply fails on too many of the points necessary for it to be identified as Fascism, (intense nationalism, ethnic superiority, economics, etc.).
[/quote]
And I would respond by saying that it only ‘fails’ on those points due to NTS fallacies.
But I’ve made my point and you’ve made yours. Stalinist Russia, I contend, easily passes each and every test for a “Fascist” nation, and yet is unacceptable to you as a “Fascist” nation. I do not believe this shows that Stalinism really was Fascism, or that the label of Fascism can be applied wherever we feel like it… but that the generalization that is used to define Fascism is too broad and ends up including other totalitarian systems.
Fascism, properly defined in my view, is the label that several European nations gave to their particular brands of totalitarianism in the beginning and middle of the 20th century. And in each of those cases, the actual application differed from nation to nation and, in fact, from one point in that nation’s Fascist politics to another. In that context, “Fascism” is idiosyncratic, temporal, and non-replicable. Other instances of totalitarianism are best looked at and described in individual terms.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
On the other hand, there are lots of people (the aforementioned Sullivan, Perle, and others) who lump the Ba’athist party of Iraq and the international movement of al Qaida together as though it was a single “Fascist” (Islamofascist) movement that threatens the West.
[/quote]
Well, that’s pretty silly… a pox upon them?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Aside from those poorly reasoning pundits, we still have people (a couple recently posted in this Forum) who argue that we had to invade Iraq because it represented the “Islamofascists” and was working with al Qaida.
[/quote]
Well… this thread is still in GD?
Er, I mean, you don’t say?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
(As to “Fascism” in the post-WWII world, two points: people like neo-Nazis and such are merely play-acting. They have no power and the majority of them are doing nothing to actively promote their beliefs as an actual political movement.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing as to whether or not they have political power, or are deluded enough to think that they could actually achieve political power, merely that they are followers of “fascist” ideology. Much like my earlier point that the Nazis who fled Germany and ended up in Brazil were still Fascists even though they were in command of nothing more than a beach chair and a mixed drink. They didn’t have to organize a political movement, much less gain control of a government, in order to remain Fascists or for their ideology to be one of Fascism.
Fascism as an ideology, political theory and desire for society does not necessarily require a charismatic leader, control of economics in a certain manner, etc… Fascism as a political movement that actually controls a society requires a hell of a lot more.
In any case, I think we’ve pounded this pretty well into the ground. As always I am gladdened to find that virtually any position I adopt, you will probably object to. It keeps me from getting bored. 
You can feel free to have the last word if you’d like.
FinnAgain, you still don’t seem to understand that an arbitrary, absolute state is not the same thing as a totalitarian state. Let’s compare two pre-industrial examples, neither of them “fascist” in any sense: The old Inca Empire and the old Chinese Empire. Both equally absolute – disparaging the emperor in China could get you and your entire family put to death. But in the Inca Empire, there was no commerce of any kind, and all produce was collected and distributed by government officials; those officials also arranged marriages for single people, apparently regarding marriage and reproduction as civic duties. (A system that worked pretty well while it lasted, actually.) The Chinese government was far less activist/intrusive.
Inca Empire: Totalitarian state.
Chinese Empire: Absolute, but not totalitarian, state.
Medieval Islamic Caliphate: Absolute, ideological-theocratic, but not totalitarian, state.
Contemporary Iran: Nearly but not entirely absolute, ideological-theocratic, but not totalitarian, state.
IOW, theocracy (which I despise utterly in all its forms) does not always equate to totalitarianism. Which was my point in the first place.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
FinnAgain, you still don’t seem to understand that an arbitrary, absolute state is not the same thing as a totalitarian state.
[/quote]
You seem to like ignoring stuff and then shoveling on more text. I already gave exhaustive definitions of the word. Yep, an absolutist state is a totalitarian state. That’s the *definition Not only do I “understand” what it means, you do not, but you can evidently be quite tenacious in the service of non-comprehension.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Contemporary Iran: Nearly but not entirely absolute, ideological-theocratic, but not totalitarian, state.
[/quote]
As already shown, you were bullshitting when you talked about Iran’s government and their sham elections. You were bullshitting when you claimed that Iran had a vibrant civil society.
You ignored both refutations and are now attempting to change the subject.
Nope. Sorry. If you aren’t interested in actually engaging in debate and want to play those games, I’m not going to waste any further electrons in this thread on such crap.
Throughout this whole discussion, the one point I could not shake from my head is that had we been attacked by a fundamentalist Muslim group during the Cold War, we might be having virtually the same discussion about the term “Islamocommie.”
And the discussion would be exactly as substantive as this one.
Carry on.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Throughout this whole discussion, the one point I could not shake from my head is that had we been attacked by a fundamentalist Muslim group during the Cold War, we might be having virtually the same discussion about the term “Islamocommie.”
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Given the youthfulness of most of the posters here, I can recall very little concern amongst the younger generation with communism during the 60s and early 70s. “Fascist” was a common derogatory epithet directed at US government and establishment figures.
test post
Of course Islamic extremism exists.
But “Islamofascism” is a word invented to connect US imperialism in the Mideast with the struggle against Hitler & Mussolini.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I disagree. Given the youthfulness of most of the posters here, I can recall very little concern amongst the younger generation with communism during the 60s and early 70s. “Fascist” was a common derogatory epithet directed at US government and establishment figures.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, don’t kid yourself about the age of people here. I think that’s a pretty obnoxious dodge.
Secondly, you seem to be implying that anti-establishment types came up with the term Islamofascist, because we all know that hippies hate fascists. That’s just dumb. The term was made up from whole cloth by establishment types, who, during the Cold War, thought a communist was the worst and scariest thing a person could be.
Finally, the absurdity of the term Islamofascist lies plainly in the fact that Islamic extremism is a transnational movement, not a nationalist one. Fascists, as has been said time and again, are all about the supremacy of state power. Radical Islam is greatly about subordinating the rule of the state to the laws of God. You cannot square that circle, and the only reasonable alternative is that Islamofascist is a catchy epithet with no substance in fact whatsoever.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
You seem to like ignoring stuff and then shoveling on more text. I already gave exhaustive definitions of the word. Yep, an absolutist state is a totalitarian state. That’s the *definition Not only do I “understand” what it means, you do not, but you can evidently be quite tenacious in the service of non-comprehension.
[/quote]
Your dictionary definitions are not dispositive. Political scientists and historians are capable of seeing the very real distinctions between the governments of, say, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Or, for that matter, the Inca Empire and the Chinese Empire.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
As already shown, you were bullshitting when you talked about Iran’s government and their sham elections. You were bullshitting when you claimed that Iran had a vibrant civil society.
[/quote]
I don’t see how you’ve “shown” anything, but in any case let’s take this argument to another, more narrowly focused thread rather than further hijack the current one.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Fascists, as has been said time and again, are all about the supremacy of state power. Radical Islam is greatly about subordinating the rule of the state to the laws of God.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think it’s about erasing the distinction.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
First of all, don’t kid yourself about the age of people here. I think that’s a pretty obnoxious dodge.
[/quote]
Obnoxious ? Dodge? Shove it up your ass. Your statement is asinine.
Your inference is dumb or rather even more asinine.
This is complete bullshit. In my entire lifetime until this very moment I have never heard that someone called a communist a fascist or communism fascism.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Obnoxious ? Dodge? Shove it up your ass. Your statement is asinine.
[/QUOTE]
As one common Dopeon to another, I gently caution you to tone it down before a Mod spanks you.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
In my entire lifetime until this very moment I have never heard that someone called a communist a fascist or communism fascism.
[/QUOTE]
Setting aside the point that you don’t seem to be following what I’m saying, you may want to refer to post #31, in which someone else makes the point that Stalin was basically a fascist.
Pointing out that a communist (Stalin) was pretty much a fascist is a point that’s been around for many decades, and I’m very surprised you haven’t heard that before, though it has nothing whatsoever to with my point, which is that “Islamofascist” is a meaningless term designed to frighten, and had we been having this discussion at a different time, the epithet may have been “Islamocommie,” “Islamoanarchist,” or “Islamo-[insert scary political movement here].”
That doesn’t mean that radical Islamists are actually fascists, commies, or anarchists, because they aren’t. It’s just a scary sounding name that grabs people’s attention. Nothing more. It seems you’ve taken a soundbite and are trying to assign actual significance to it.
Stalin a fascist? I dunno, to me, seems that fascism has to have a nationalist component, its basicly jingoism. Stalin had issues with nationalism, being a Georgian in a Russian dominated culture. So he deemphasized nationalism by stressing a Communist ideology of worker solidarity, though I frankly doubt if he ever gave two shits about Marxism. I suppose its possible that his native roots still held some tenuous hold on him, that he always, to some degree, had Georgia on his mind…
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Shove it up your ass.
[/QUOTE]
Take it to the Pit. That does not belong in GD.
[ /Moderating ]
Even if not the best term, it’s a nice single word. It means “bad guys who are muslim”;
OTOH “post-colonial-neo-wahabbist-jihadist-dhimmi-seeker-militant” just doesn’t cut it.
The similarities between fascism and marxism, pointed out here, are very interesting.
I don’t think Franco thought Spaniards were a superior race.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
The similarities between fascism and marxism, pointed out here, are very interesting.
[/QUOTE]
True, but there are also important fundamental differences – see post #6. (Communism – and radical Libertarianism and Objectivism – are in the rationalist tradition; any form of Fascism is in the romantic tradition; Islamic radicalism is in a much older, premodern tradition.)