While I agree that the term "Islamofascism" is misleading, I have to take issue with the post.
The post is well-researched...had it been written in the 1950's. As one can see just from looking up the word "fascism" on dictionary.com, time itself may have changed the essential meaning of the word:
fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) n. 1) a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.
- American Heritage Dictionary
I tend to think that this definition is far more indicative of the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia than of the US. Furthermore, I believe it is not an inaccurate description of the type of government Bin Laden and his ilk would seek to instate, were they in the business of setting up governments (which they aren't, thus the main reason "Islamofascism" in reference to Al Qaeda doesn't make sense as a political term). And while I don't deny that there are people in our government who would probably be happy to see a more "fascist" state, I have to point out that America's local, county, state, and yes, even federal governments continue to be overwhelmingly democratic or democratic republic in nature.
Lastly, I am tired of the Nazi Germany/Bush Administration comparisons. This is a completely false dichotomy. I will not deny that Bush is not a good president and that Cheney deserves to be impeached for his unchecked greed and corruption. We have a lot of rebuilding to do insofar as our economy and foreign relations once they're out. But neither of them are Hitler.
Hitler came to power while Germany was in a terrifying economic depression, mostly brought on by WWI. Bush came to power on the tail end of one of the largest economic booms in American history. Hitler committed genocide. Bush started a stupid war based on greed and legacy. Hitler imposed a complete police state in which opposition and dissent was completely quashed. Bush has tried - and mostly failed - to curtail a few individual freedoms (the fact that I can say simultaneously say "FUCK BUSH!" and "I own guns" in this comment is proof enough of that).
Hitler was a sociopath who believed that what he was doing was for the good of all Germany. I doubt Bush is under any such delusion.
So, is "islamofascism" a misleading term? Probably. But not, in my opinion, for the reasons peristaltor seems to think.
Usage has allowed fascism to become synonymous with totalitarianism in common usage, but the technical sense of the term remains grounded in the philosophy's origins, and that's what peristaltor is talking about, I think.
I think I'd grant that Iran is somewhat fascist, but I don't think that the same holds true for Saudi Arabia, which has a different problem. The US, I'm afraid, does seem to be headed down that road, but is hardly all the way there.
Hitler/Bush: I think you mean that you believe it's a false analogy. I think there are important differences, primarily in the notable lack of an "Ein Volk" kind of racial mantra, which would crash and burn in a mixed, immigrant-based country like the US or Canada. There are, however, sufficient similarities that the comparison isn't without merit.
What scares me most is that I think that Dubya is under exactly such a delusion, even though many of his close advisers aren't. I think that he's a rather naive, easily led person with a good heart but no real ability to evaluate people or the consequences of his actions.
Whoops, sorry about that. You're right about the use of "dichotomy" there.
To be clear: I agree that Islamofascism is a stupid term and should be replaced with something more accurate, such as "radical islam." I take no issue with that argument.
I don't agree that the argument presents strong enough points to argue against the use of "Islamofascism." I think it's easy to get hung up on what historians would use to define "fascism". But if we're fighting against the incorrect use of the word "fascism," then maybe we shouldn't assume that people are trying to rewrite history. Maybe we should assume that people are just generally more aware of the broad definition of the word (included in my first post), as opposed to history's take on the Italian iteration of fascism. Maybe it's better to just point out that Fascism seeks to give power to the State, and Islamic terrorists generally seek to take power away. Yes, it's well-researched and interesting take on the argument. No, it's not going to convince many people who don't regularly peruse graduate-level studies.
As far as the US going down the same road as Italian or German fascism, that's where my main beef lies. My visceral reaction to the post was: "So, we're saying that because the US shares the use of symbols with Fascist Italy, which were originally used thousands of years ago in a culture founded in modern-day Italy, we're a fascist state?" After reading the post three times, that was the only concrete evidence I can concede for the idea of US fascism, in relationship to Italian fascism, unless I’m just missing something (which is certainly possible). I don't buy that anymore than I buy the idea that the eye above the pyramid on our dollar bill means that this country is really run by the Illuminati. The Bush vs. Hitler quotes? That's politicians talking, not fascists. My own US Senator (a blindingly liberal Democrat) has said almost the same thing every time he's run - The US is great, we have to make sacrifices to continue its greatness, please believe that your government wants the best for you (especially when it agrees with me!).
The differences between the US and the Axis powers are glaring. Mussolini and Hitler both came to their absolute power with little significant resistance. Their policies were welcomed by the majority of the masses because they represented hope and the regaining of a lost national pride. The Bush administration, if this is what they're trying to do (and I don't think it is), has done an extremely poor job of winning public support for, well, anything. Not to mention - what national pride did we lose? And when did we lose it?
In the same vein of Bush and his complete lack of public support, the only two Republicans who are not trying to do everything they can to distance themselves from Bush’s legacy are Romney and Giuliani - and while I don't want either of them in the White House, I don't see Romney doing the fear-mongering that the Bush administration is known for. Giuliani, unfortunately, I can't say the same about. However, with a now-Democrat-controlled congress, an executive branch power-grab in the same vein as Hitler or Mussolini seems highly unlikely.
I don’t know. I’m just kind of thinking out loud here, and I certainly don’t want to pass off my opinion as fact. I just think that there are similarities that could be pointed out between nearly every government and the fascist political ideology - or, conversely, the communist political ideology. But it doesn't make it so.
The key aspect which people are concerned about in the US, I think, is the manufacturing of fear of an implacable enemy in order to advance a totalitarian agenda. Complacent people demand more and more; fearful ones are all too willing to accept whatever purports to offer safety. The marginal popular support was nevertheless adequate: a few electoral shenanigans were sufficient to get GWB back into the White House for a second term.
So far, a critical element of a totalitarian state is lacking in the US: an effective, tacitly sanctioned, "thug caste". I'm not seeing Kristallnacht in the immediate future, fortunately.
There is a spectrum in these things. Totalitarianism, whether fascist or communist, are an extreme; what I am worried about isn't that the US has reached that extreme, but that the direction of movement along the spectrum tends that way from a starting point based on liberty and respect for individuals, and that that movement is motivated by gain in wealth and power for a particular group.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that the Nazis in particular have been so vilified that any comparison is read as hyperbole and ad hominem argument, even when it's sincere and valid.
Quite a few of the (admittedly few) people who read my LJ have pursued graduate-level studies, are considering doing so in the future, or have undertaken sufficient independent reading and thinking that they can operate in that frame. It's a public forum, but because the audience is somewhat select (generally self-selected), I don't feel a need to avoid academic usage; I tried to indicate that peristaltor's post was not to be taken with the keyword "well-researched," but perhaps a more explicit statement would have been helpful.
Islamofascism is a lousy term, partly because of its intended use in political dialogue, and partly because of the incorrect understanding of fascism it implies. Radical (political) Islam doesn't see to remove power from governments, so much as it seeks to Islamize the governments and give them totalitarian power to enforce whatever version of Shari'a law they deem appropriate; the Taliban regime was an excellent example of this. Saudi Arabia is an interesting case: the government is definitely Isalmist, but is not as totalitarian as others. (They are, of course, also rather materialistic, which may have something to do with their sometimes sketchy practices.) The radicals, however, generally support the rule of law, and not arbitrary dictatorial rule by a charismatic leader.
I don't want to imply with my ramblings that I don't think our governments should be free from scrutiny. It's a valuable exercise to compare and contrast them against past tyrannies. I don't think the discussion is without merit - my conclusions are just different from yours and peristaltor's.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
peristaltor's excellently researched and expressed post on "Islamofascism".
From: (Anonymous)
Eh.
The post is well-researched...had it been written in the 1950's. As one can see just from looking up the word "fascism" on dictionary.com, time itself may have changed the essential meaning of the word:
fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm)
n.
1)
a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.
- American Heritage Dictionary
I tend to think that this definition is far more indicative of the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia than of the US. Furthermore, I believe it is not an inaccurate description of the type of government Bin Laden and his ilk would seek to instate, were they in the business of setting up governments (which they aren't, thus the main reason "Islamofascism" in reference to Al Qaeda doesn't make sense as a political term). And while I don't deny that there are people in our government who would probably be happy to see a more "fascist" state, I have to point out that America's local, county, state, and yes, even federal governments continue to be overwhelmingly democratic or democratic republic in nature.
Lastly, I am tired of the Nazi Germany/Bush Administration comparisons. This is a completely false dichotomy. I will not deny that Bush is not a good president and that Cheney deserves to be impeached for his unchecked greed and corruption. We have a lot of rebuilding to do insofar as our economy and foreign relations once they're out. But neither of them are Hitler.
Hitler came to power while Germany was in a terrifying economic depression, mostly brought on by WWI. Bush came to power on the tail end of one of the largest economic booms in American history. Hitler committed genocide. Bush started a stupid war based on greed and legacy. Hitler imposed a complete police state in which opposition and dissent was completely quashed. Bush has tried - and mostly failed - to curtail a few individual freedoms (the fact that I can say simultaneously say "FUCK BUSH!" and "I own guns" in this comment is proof enough of that).
Hitler was a sociopath who believed that what he was doing was for the good of all Germany. I doubt Bush is under any such delusion.
So, is "islamofascism" a misleading term? Probably. But not, in my opinion, for the reasons
-Sean
From:
Re: Eh.
I think I'd grant that Iran is somewhat fascist, but I don't think that the same holds true for Saudi Arabia, which has a different problem. The US, I'm afraid, does seem to be headed down that road, but is hardly all the way there.
Hitler/Bush: I think you mean that you believe it's a false analogy. I think there are important differences, primarily in the notable lack of an "Ein Volk" kind of racial mantra, which would crash and burn in a mixed, immigrant-based country like the US or Canada. There are, however, sufficient similarities that the comparison isn't without merit.
What scares me most is that I think that Dubya is under exactly such a delusion, even though many of his close advisers aren't. I think that he's a rather naive, easily led person with a good heart but no real ability to evaluate people or the consequences of his actions.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Eh.
To be clear: I agree that Islamofascism is a stupid term and should be replaced with something more accurate, such as "radical islam." I take no issue with that argument.
I don't agree that the argument presents strong enough points to argue against the use of "Islamofascism." I think it's easy to get hung up on what historians would use to define "fascism". But if we're fighting against the incorrect use of the word "fascism," then maybe we shouldn't assume that people are trying to rewrite history. Maybe we should assume that people are just generally more aware of the broad definition of the word (included in my first post), as opposed to history's take on the Italian iteration of fascism. Maybe it's better to just point out that Fascism seeks to give power to the State, and Islamic terrorists generally seek to take power away. Yes, it's well-researched and interesting take on the argument. No, it's not going to convince many people who don't regularly peruse graduate-level studies.
As far as the US going down the same road as Italian or German fascism, that's where my main beef lies. My visceral reaction to the post was: "So, we're saying that because the US shares the use of symbols with Fascist Italy, which were originally used thousands of years ago in a culture founded in modern-day Italy, we're a fascist state?" After reading the post three times, that was the only concrete evidence I can concede for the idea of US fascism, in relationship to Italian fascism, unless I’m just missing something (which is certainly possible). I don't buy that anymore than I buy the idea that the eye above the pyramid on our dollar bill means that this country is really run by the Illuminati. The Bush vs. Hitler quotes? That's politicians talking, not fascists. My own US Senator (a blindingly liberal Democrat) has said almost the same thing every time he's run - The US is great, we have to make sacrifices to continue its greatness, please believe that your government wants the best for you (especially when it agrees with me!).
The differences between the US and the Axis powers are glaring. Mussolini and Hitler both came to their absolute power with little significant resistance. Their policies were welcomed by the majority of the masses because they represented hope and the regaining of a lost national pride. The Bush administration, if this is what they're trying to do (and I don't think it is), has done an extremely poor job of winning public support for, well, anything. Not to mention - what national pride did we lose? And when did we lose it?
In the same vein of Bush and his complete lack of public support, the only two Republicans who are not trying to do everything they can to distance themselves from Bush’s legacy are Romney and Giuliani - and while I don't want either of them in the White House, I don't see Romney doing the fear-mongering that the Bush administration is known for. Giuliani, unfortunately, I can't say the same about. However, with a now-Democrat-controlled congress, an executive branch power-grab in the same vein as Hitler or Mussolini seems highly unlikely.
I don’t know. I’m just kind of thinking out loud here, and I certainly don’t want to pass off my opinion as fact. I just think that there are similarities that could be pointed out between nearly every government and the fascist political ideology - or, conversely, the communist political ideology. But it doesn't make it so.
From:
Re: Eh.
So far, a critical element of a totalitarian state is lacking in the US: an effective, tacitly sanctioned, "thug caste". I'm not seeing Kristallnacht in the immediate future, fortunately.
There is a spectrum in these things. Totalitarianism, whether fascist or communist, are an extreme; what I am worried about isn't that the US has reached that extreme, but that the direction of movement along the spectrum tends that way from a starting point based on liberty and respect for individuals, and that that movement is motivated by gain in wealth and power for a particular group.
The problem with this kind of discussion is that the Nazis in particular have been so vilified that any comparison is read as hyperbole and ad hominem argument, even when it's sincere and valid.
Quite a few of the (admittedly few) people who read my LJ have pursued graduate-level studies, are considering doing so in the future, or have undertaken sufficient independent reading and thinking that they can operate in that frame. It's a public forum, but because the audience is somewhat select (generally self-selected), I don't feel a need to avoid academic usage; I tried to indicate that
Islamofascism is a lousy term, partly because of its intended use in political dialogue, and partly because of the incorrect understanding of fascism it implies. Radical (political) Islam doesn't see to remove power from governments, so much as it seeks to Islamize the governments and give them totalitarian power to enforce whatever version of Shari'a law they deem appropriate; the Taliban regime was an excellent example of this. Saudi Arabia is an interesting case: the government is definitely Isalmist, but is not as totalitarian as others. (They are, of course, also rather materialistic, which may have something to do with their sometimes sketchy practices.) The radicals, however, generally support the rule of law, and not arbitrary dictatorial rule by a charismatic leader.
From: (Anonymous)
One quick thing...
-Sean