Is Islam a form of Fascism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Gepap:

those three you mentioned could be used to describe anything. all populist politics (not as in the idealogy buit as in opposed to establishment politics) cater to mass movements... those opposing the marxist view of dialectic materialism are forced into the fascistic cultural view of the world... and uncertainty about the future.

Republicans and democrats would be fascists by those standards.

1. You are correct, all modern politics are mass politics. That is what joins Fascism with modern democracy as opposed to absolute monarchies.

2. Here you are wrong. The modern democratic worldview would posit that the most important identity for men was particuaristic-their own personal experiences, both class and nation, and that neither was the most important.

3. I said confusion, not uncertainty. Fascists want both to "return former glory", but do so through a modern state machine, not simply by "returning to the old ways"

[Al B. Sure!]

The modern democratic worldview would posit that the most important identity for men was particuaristic-their own personal experiences, both class and nation, and that neither was the most important.

while the Enlightenment thinkers were very individualistic-centered (hmm... Nietzsche, the proto-existentialist with the most extreme form of individualism greatly influenced facism... Hitler saying such things as the individual must never succomb to the majority), maybe due to their pre-marxist time period, class was never a major issue as far as i know.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I thought you are into Libertarianism?

I'm drunk, hence I'm allowed to be hypocritical.

the militarization of the broad of society should also be considered an aspect of fascism.

That's what I'm saying, I consider fascism to be a kind of applied nationalism, facism putting into place the degree of militarisation. Nationalism is basically idiocy, fascism is what happens when idiots get power.

[Whaleboy]

However I agree, this thread is basically going to go round and round in circles, people trying to extract some serious points and debate from a topic devised by someone who is trying to troll Islam to make him more secure in the face of broadcast and differed insecurity and misery. The only way this debate is going to end is either in flame or semantics.

[Al B. Sure!]

nationalism is idiocy? explain.

i'm still not buying Gepap and his democratic alternative to dialectic materialism. it seems to me that the only opposing historical theory to Marx's idea of constant class struggle is the fascist (Max Weber?) theory of national and cultural conflict as the motivations for everything in history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

of course there's slight differences between christianity in Peru with christianity in Italy or something but most of the differences you are attesting to are differences in the religion themselves.

No, I'm also talking about differences in Catholicism. For being the universal Church, there exists cultural differences. For example, a lot Latin American churchs have embraced some part of liberation theology, while a majority of the rest of the Church says it is wrong.

you could argue that protestantism as opposed to catholicism gained support in England and germany because of pre-existing cultural reasons but then why didn't the protestant phenomenum occur centuries before?

It wasn't for lack of trying. Look up people like Hus and the conflicts HRE from Germany had with the Popes of Italy (especially Frederick II).

[Al B. Sure!]

But what resulted in the English allowing more protestant reforms? What was different in Germany as compared to Italy? It was a difference in culture which broke Europe up the way it was. Northern Germanic peoples were much more independant due to their history and thus more embracing of Protestantism.

actually, it might make more sense to claim that the reasons for n. europe's embracing of protestantism were reasons of agency... n. european leaders (such as Henry VIII) used protestantism as an excuse to increase their royal power and the power of their kingdoms/duchies. protestantism only survived because of the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire which had been occuring for centuries since Charlemagne and the Emperor, Karl V, inability to exercise any control over the hundreds of independent duchies (not a strictly german phenomenum either as Italy had a similiar situation). had the Empire been stronger centuries before both in Germany and Italy (it's weakness was not due to culture, i think it can be assumed), theoretically, Karl would have had the power to crush the protestants and germany would still be catholic. issues of agency allowed protestantism to form

[Whaleboy]

nationalism is idiocy? explain.

Watch the history channel or read Milgram .

In short, default human reaction when faced with difference is limited "span of sympathy" which to overcome, places a heavy load on the intellect, so it's simpler for people to become psychologically attached to their nations, religions, ideas, whatever and "fall in love" with them. The trouble with that is that it breeds intellectual dishonesty where people stick by their guns in the face of a more convincing argument that refutes theirs (and even they will admit that) and it leads to wars, death, and an easy ride for leaders who in order to get what they want, need to "bang the drums of patriotism" (Caesar) or "tell [the people] they are under attack" (Goering). Add to that your basic existentialist or relativist tirade (see most of the threads I've ever posted on) and it becomes clear that patriotism/nationalism is for the blind, dogmatic and the simplistic. (Happy people in other words).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
nationalism is idiocy? explain.

i'm still not buying Gepap and his democratic alternative to dialectic materialism. it seems to me that the only opposing historical theory to Marx's idea of constant class struggle is the fascist (Max Weber?) theory of national and cultural conflict as the motivations for everything in history.

You assume people buy the notion of a historical dialetic in the first place. Even if you accept a historical dialetic, why on earth are the dialetics of Weber and Marx the only choices?

[Al B. Sure!]

It wasn't for lack of trying. Look up people like Hus and the conflicts HRE from Germany had with the Popes of Italy (especially Frederick II).

thats all issues of agency not structure (culture)

[Imran Siddiqui]

issues of agency allowed protestantism to form

North Germany had always been a problem area. Lots of 'reformers' sprung up from there, and they recieved lots of following. That is shown by seeing which princes and dukes swiched to Luther's protestantism. Also, Poland was much more tolerant than the rest of Catholicism, due its own history, and refused to cast out the Jews when the other parts of Catholic Christianity did. There was simply different mindsets in Northern Europe and Southern Europe about these things.

And saying that if they were stronger than nothing would have happened is a silly argument. It wasn't a problem of 'agency'. If that were the case then you'd have 40 different Catholic Churches around and not the radically different Protestant sects which were more based on the primacy of the individual.

[Al B. Sure!]

You assume people buy the notion of a historical dialetic in the first place.

you're right. i am assuming this but Western philosophy has always been dialectic in nature since Plato's Republic.

Even if you accept a historical dialetic, why on earth are the dialetics of Weber and Marx the only choices?

name an alternative. and something sensible; not kropotkin or god knows what.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

The Benedictines were a French reforming order... there were numerous such orders all through southern europe... the Franciscans... that group whose name i can't remember but stressed poverty... germany was not unique in having a long history of reforming clergy

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


you're right. i am assuming this but Western philosophy has always been dialectic in nature since Plato's Republic.

That is not the same as saying that people believe in a historical dialectic. I don;t seem much hint of one in thinkers such as Hobbes or Locke.

name an alternative. and something sensible; not kropotkin or god knows what.

Of the top of my head, I do not know of one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

German reformers were more likely to be branded as heretics however. Benedictines and Franciscans were praised by the Church and really didn't do anything to shake the boat. The Germans... well, they treaded on heresy all the time.

It was an issue of culture, not agency. Spain was perhaps more powerful than Rome in the 1500s, but because of its culture it stayed Catholic (well Counter-Reformed). If it was more like Germany in outlook, it EASILY could have seperated itself.