Is Islam a form of Fascism?

[Al B. Sure!]

social contract theory i suppose could be called a historical dialectic... that is, the state of nature of individual vs. the others who secures himself through the dialectic of the individual vs. the state. but yeah this is all picking at straws.

the only real choice for historical theory is cultural or class.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you understand social contract theory, Speer? How is it, in any way a historical dialectic?

[Al B. Sure!]

like i said, i'm picking at straws for Gepap's sake... social contract theory does have the dialectic of the individual and the state though. it is conceivable to extend this into explaning historical events which Rouseau, et al actually did in discussing transitions from the primitive state to monarchy to democracy

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

well there was also the Albigensens of southern france which were considered heretical... or how about the Great Schism which saw France with a different pope than the pope in rome?

but can we agree on the fact that Protestantism's success (and the existance of heretical movements earlier) was due to the dissolved HRE and the weak power of the Emperor? if so, why did this situation exist? I contend individuals going back to Charlemagne organized the Empire such (what with feudalism, Salic law, and what not) that the Empire would continually degenerate. the recipe for feudalism and what not was due to attempts to efficiently run the Empire through delegation in a time when communications across the empire were impossible. this is not a cultural cause.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
like i said, i'm picking at straws for Gepap's sake... social contract theory does have the dialectic of the individual and the state though. it is conceivable to extend this into explaning historical events which Rouseau, et al actually did in discussing transitions from the primitive state to monarchy to democracy

Don't do it for my sake.

You answered your own question.

[Al B. Sure!]

Gepap:

i answered my question? then i'll respond to my own answer... the problem with this liberal dialect is that it places the State into a divine area; that is, something seperate and unique from the individual when, in fact, the individual voluntarily agrees to the doctrine of the State and, in republics, may actively participate as a part of the State and determine its course. this dialectic would be one where one of the opposing sides is of the other side... a paradoxical situation for explaining historical events especailly when dealing with democracies and the politics within a democracy and between democracies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
My take on fascism:

Fascismis a modern political ideology. Important factors that make it fascism as opposed to other theories:


1. Mass POlitics- Fascism seeks to engage the masses in a grand movement




2. National Identity as core of consciousness. What I mean by that is that the fascism sees Mans most important identity being formed by culture, not economics (socialism)-and the most important grouping of men then is the nation, which is built out of that shared cultural identity.

Substitute organic group identity for National identity - that helps you with Nazism where the relationship between conventionally defined national identity and Aryan racial identity is ambiguous - and Francoism, where relationship between Spanish/castillian national identity and Opus Dei Catholic identity is ambiguous - and it brings in the evolution of the movement in non-western cultural arenas where states are not nation states, and where there is a cultural inclination to subordinate the nation to a larger religious entity - IE the Ummah - and youve got Salafism.

More parallels - Nazism - derides actual recent German history in favor of quasi-mythical pagan past Salafism - derides recent Muslim history in favor of restoration of "pure" 7th century vision of Islam, stripped of later admixtures, interpretations, and compromises.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Gepap:

i answered my question? then i'll respond to my own answer... the problem with this liberal dialect is that it places the State into a divine area; that is, something seperate and unique from the individual when, in fact, the individual voluntarily agrees to the doctrine of the State and, in republics, may actively participate as a part of the State and determine its course. this dialectic would be one where one of the opposing sides is of the other side... a paradoxical situation for explaining historical events especailly when dealing with democracies and the politics within a democracy and between democracies.

I don;t see how the State is place din anything coming close to a divine sphere. Separate and distinct from the public, certainly (hence the notion of the private into which the public has no reach), but the State comes INTO existance with the deal it envisions. The deal is not made with the state, -the deal makes the state. In that regard it certainly accepts the participation of people. If anything, this annalysis imagines way too much participation into the creation of the state by indiviuals.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Substitute organic group identity for National identity - that helps you with Nazism where the relationship between conventionally defined national identity and Aryan racial identity is ambiguous - and Francoism, where relationship between Spanish/castillian national identity and Opus Dei Catholic identity is ambiguous - and it brings in the evolution of the movement in non-western cultural arenas where states are not nation states, and where there is a cultural inclination to subordinate the nation to a larger religious entity - IE the Ummah - and youve got Salafism.

More parallels - Nazism - derides actual recent German history in favor of quasi-mythical pagan past Salafism - derides recent Muslim history in favor of restoration of "pure" 7th century vision of Islam, stripped of later admixtures, interpretations, and compromises.

But you left out the third, which is crucial to fascism. I have always questionned the extent to which Franco was a real fascist-I htink he got rid of most of them by shipping them out to the Eastern Front.

[Last Conformist]

OK. Someone tells me why I should care whether Islamism is Fascism or not?

[Arrian]

It's all about sticking it under a term that Westerners generally agree = BAD.

Square peg, round hole? No problem, just gimme a jigsaw or a really big hammer and I'll fix it!

-Arrian

[Whaleboy]

LC: Think you've got us by the balls on that on

[Al B. Sure!]

arrian, it is an absured question which assumes things that can not be assumed hence how this whole debate has degenerated into defining fascism, defining islamism, and comparing nationality with religion

and the thread starter hasn't said anything in several pages. i think he's scared

[Arrian]

Duh.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
My take on fascism:


3. Confused about the future: Fascists are inherently reactionary in that they invoke the common cultural heritage they see as having being the basis of the nation and use it as the reality that gives them legitimacy. It makes sense then to trying to make it stronger-at the same time, they are radicals, as they seek to remake the state and build mass politics, which is general will either conflict with the less popular (as in more exclusive) politics of the day, or destroy the existing parlimentary system in power.

I see this as being highly charecteristic of the Salafist position - it comes out most strongly in their relationship with Saudi Arabia. In other states, which are not islamist, or at least not Wahabist, things are easier for them, as they see those states by their very nature as violations of the supremacy and unity of the Ummah. Arguably this is a universal for a "nationalist" fascism in that they are tied to a particular nation and its particular political history - thus Italian fascists had to deal with the liberal heritage of the only modern unified Italian state. Im not sure that this constraint is intrinsic to fascism, or just to fascism in that particular circumstance - certainly Austrian Nazis, for example had no trouble repudiating the Austrian state. Nor did Dutch or Norwegian fascists show any loyalty to local political traditions.