Is Islam a form of Fascism?

[Arrian]

That was great.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not really . Fascism isn't a subset of anything other than totalitarianism. At most the statement can be made that these groups take from Fascism and have aspects like Fascism. They cannot be said to be fascism, though.

why cant the statement be made that jihadism is closer in most respects to fascism than it is to other forms of totalitarianism? As far i can tell it is.

BTW, the notion that there were commonalities to all totalitarianism, and that fascism and communism belonged together, was radical when it was made, and is still denied by many.

[Imran Siddiqui]

why cant the statement be made that jihadism is closer in most respects to fascism than it is to other forms of totalitarianism?

Like I said it takes from Fascism and has aspects like Fascism, but is not Fascism itself.

Like Last Conformist said, it's somewhat of a buzz word.

the notion that there were commonalities to all totalitarianism, and that fascism and communism belonged together, was radical when it was made, and is still denied by many.

Communism under Stalin was very much like Fascist states in terms of totalitarianism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


He can't be unaware, tho, that his basic assertation that Islamism=Fascism would be heard by quite a few people who would never read the book (some of them, apparently, unable to distinguish between Islam and Islamism).

those people were already have made the equation islamism = terrorism, and islam = islamism, ergo Islam = terror. The rabble was fully roused, without need to introduce the term fascism, which was of no more emotional concern to most of them than feudalism, or pan-slavism, or monophysitism.

In the US the word fascism is of importance only to intellectuals, mainly left of center intellectuals. Who include among their ranks a not inconsiderable number who consider terrorism merely another tactic, another form of political violence, for who a war on terror is as nonsensical as a "war on mechanized infantry" and for whom the WOT was, therefore, a fake, and a mask for imperial interests. It is to this position that Berman addressed his book.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

why cant the statement be made that jihadism is closer in most respects to fascism than it is to other forms of totalitarianism?

Like I said it takes from Fascism and has aspects like Fascism, but is not Fascism itself.

Like Last Conformist said, it's somewhat of a buzz word.

the notion that there were commonalities to all totalitarianism, and that fascism and communism belonged together, was radical when it was made, and is still denied by many.

Communism under Stalin was very much like Fascist states in terms of totalitarianism.

But the comparison was criticized, on the grounds that is elided over essential differences, and was an ideologically motivated ploy to equate communism with fascism and justify cold war policies. In particular to justify the cold war to liberals and social democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the comparison was criticized, on the grounds that is elided over essential differences, and was an ideologically motivated ploy to equate communism with fascism and justify cold war policies. In particular to justify the cold war to liberals and social democrats.

Well all totalitariaism means is that the state tries to infiltrate into every portion of the peoples' lives. In both cases it rung true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But the comparison was criticized, on the grounds that is elided over essential differences, and was an ideologically motivated ploy to equate communism with fascism and justify cold war policies. In particular to justify the cold war to liberals and social democrats.

Well all totalitariaism means is that the state tries to infiltrate into every portion of the peoples' lives. In both cases it rung true.

and what banana means is that there are forms of totalitarianism that aim at restoration of an imagined idyllic past, based on notions of an all powerful state imposing pure moral values on a corrupted society, the values associated with a particular organic social identy, whether that social entity is a nation, race, or a religious community. In both cases it rings true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But banana isn't a real ideology .

Besides, there are fair questions whether Fascism aims at a restoration of an idyllic past. Many forms of it break down old systems like the family and social groups in favor of the state. It is in some ways radical as well as reactionary.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In principle, Nazism differed from Italian fascism in this respect - loyalty to the RACE was principle and the state existed to serve the historical goals of the race.

Hitler never mentions "the race"- For him race and nation were the same, that organic comunity you mentioned before-germand in the east were still part of the German Nation. And this one German nation had to be one united behind the leader.

IN fact, that is certainly one thing the Salafist movement does not seek, Charismatic Leadership, one great individual that personifies the State. I also don't see how the Salafists seek Mass Politics, huge political parties mobilizing the population and gearing them for the challanges of the future.

I do believe the Islamist movement is a modern one, but they seek to repudiate more of modernity than the fascists ever did, specially in the lack of mass politics.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But banana isn't a real ideology .

Besides, there are fair questions whether Fascism aims at a restoration of an idyllic past. Many forms of it break down old systems like the family and social groups in favor of the state. It is in some ways radical as well as reactionary.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEING SAYING

[Imran Siddiqui]

WELL THEN KEEP SAYING IT!

[Arrian]

KEEP SAYING IT!

Worked for Hitler.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But banana isn't a real ideology .

Neither is totalitarianism. Its a grouping of ideologies, made by an intellectual (Arendt) for analytical purposes. Ditto for banana.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Hitler never mentions "the race"- For him race and nation were the same, that organic comunity you mentioned before-germand in the east were still part of the German Nation. And this one German nation had to be one united behind the leader.

LOTM - that is not correct. The aryan race was NOT synomous with the German nation. All whites other than jews and gypsies were aryans. Germans were the "purest" aryans, whose mission it was to save the aryan race from contamination by jews. Slavs were a subordinate (impure?)variety of aryan. Among the various aryan nations, those which were racially "teuton" like the scandinavians and English were to be cultivated. The english, once they "saw the light" would join an alliance with Germany against the slavs and the Americans (Southerners negrified, yankees judaized) He went to war against russia thinking that would lead England to see the light, and he regretted the fall of Singapore to his "yellow Aryan" allies.

IN fact, that is certainly one thing the Salafist movement does not seek, Charismatic Leadership, one great individual that personifies the State. I also don't see how the Salafists seek Mass Politics, huge political parties mobilizing the population and gearing them for the challanges of the future.

IIUC the notion of the caliphate is centered around a single leader. NOt sure if they are into the Weberian notion of charisma. The muslim brotherhood movements from which AQ sprang certainly aspired to be mass political parties. That AQ since has not organized in that fashion seems to be a matter of tactics, not ideology.

I do believe the Islamist movement is a modern one, but they seek to repudiate more of modernity than the fascists ever did, specially in the lack of mass politics.

BTW, both with respect to Italian fascist modernism, and German racialism, we are tripping up on the many internal contradictions of fascism. Lets admit it - european fascism, unlike Marxism, was a profoundly anti-intellectual movement, and thus it is very difficult to get a consistent ideogical position out of its writings. We are left, i think, with the kind of historical tracings of influence that Berman does.

[GePap]

that is not correct. The aryan race was NOT synomous with the German nation. All whites other than jews and gypsies were aryans. Germans were the "purest" aryans, whose mission it was to save the aryan race from contamination by jews. Slavs were a subordinate (impure?)variety of aryan. Among the various aryan nations, those which were racially "teuton" like the scandinavians and English were to be cultivated. The english, once they "saw the light" would join an alliance with Germany against the slavs and the Americans (Southerners negrified, yankees judaized) He went to war against russia thinking that would lead England to see the light, and he regretted the fall of Singapore to his "yellow Aryan" allies.

The German Nation was the primary aim of the nazi's Yes, other Europeans were aryans, but the Nazi had no loyaty to them. Certainly they viewed certain peoples as superior to others in their ability to create culture, but still, loyalty in Germany was to the German State and the Nazi party, not to the "aryan race"

IIUC the notion of the caliphate is centered around a single leader. NOt sure if they are into the Weberian notion of charisma. The muslim brotherhood movements from which AQ sprang certainly aspired to be mass political parties. That AQ since has not organized in that fashion seems to be a matter of tactics, not ideology.

The Muslim Bortherhood predates Q'utb (sp), and yes, it is a mass political movement. I do not know how much it calls for the restoration of a calipahte as opposed to the intallation of national islamic governments. As for the notion of a Caliph, what is the role envisioned?

BTW, both with respect to Italian fascist modernism, and German racialism, we are tripping up on the many internal contradictions of fascism. Lets admit it - european fascism, unlike Marxism, was a profoundly anti-intellectual movement, and thus it is very difficult to get a consistent ideogical position out of its writings. We are left, i think, with the kind of historical tracings of influence that Berman does.

You can't get away from the fact that fascism was a highly screwed up ideology that was not at all fully set up. From what you have described from berman, I think he is euating the two for the rationale of creating a call to arms of the left - and perhaps not solely for the validity of the comparison.