The New Republic

We've been through this on several threads. "Death Cultists" works for me (and did for Benedict's predecessor, who coined the phrase). This more than anything defines what little ideology these barbarians have. and doesn't have the freight, either euro-historical or contemporary US-Euro-academic, that "fascist" is saddled with. Also, the fascists at least had an economic program and a reasonably coherent social and political program. AQ et al don't have any take whatsoever on capitalism, trade, the role of the state etc. It's just a cult of death with a pseudo-theological/eschatological gloss, when you come right down to it.

- teplukhin

September 14, 2006 at 6:33pm

why not islamic totalitarians? Or hell, Islamic terrorists? done, thats what Im going with.

- tnrin

September 14, 2006 at 10:11pm

Fascism to me seems borne of an icy clarity. "Fascist" reminds me of "terrorist": an emphasis on a method, not an idea. But for the "martyrs," it's all about ideas; methods are irrelevant. Our enemy is drunk on his alleged heat and light; a fascist is stone cold sober. So, no, fascist doesn't do it for me. Why acknowledge and compliment our enemy on the purity of his methods? We need to discover an antibody to his idea of himself, and call him that. What is the Muslim equivalent of "Judas"?

- williamyard

September 14, 2006 at 10:18pm

There have indeed been several threads, including a slew in response to Ackerman's "Against 'Islamofascism'". There, no one paid attention to one Robert Powell, whose summary was so apt it bears repeating: Of course they're Islamofascists. They oppose individualism, promote militarism, have an elaborate ingroup/outgroup analysis, want to dominate society with their "party" (which is defined by Sharia Law), celebrate loyalty to the "party" over all, recruit the young into a murderous death cult, gravitate to charismatic leaders, and plan for world domination. There is a long and well-documented connection to traditional European fascist movements and the previous "Pan Arab" idea spearheaded by Nassar, Saddam, etc, but this group has supplanted them with an all-Islamic idea that can include Shites, Indonesians, etc, etc. They are millenial fanatics who share both fascist and islamist characteristics. Good label.

- yerubal

September 14, 2006 at 10:45pm

In a well thought out article the old leftist Fred Holliday does splendid job tracing the history and ideology of Jihadism. He decries the left's embrace of this totalitrain movement while arguing against using terms like Islamo Fascims because it doesn't capture the Islamcists mix of theology and totalitarian rule. He also holds the Bolsheviks as well as the Nazis and the West in part responsible for their rise to power in the Midle East and Pakistan. His stunning article concludes thus: "The true and the false This melancholy history must be supplemented by attention to what is actually happening in countries, or parts of countries, where Islamists are influential and gaining ground. The reactionary (the word is used advisedly) nature of much of their programme on women, free speech, the rights of gays and other minorities is evident. There is also a mindset of anti-Jewish prejudice that is riven with racism and religious obscurantism. Only a few in the west noted what many in the Islamic world will have at once understood, that one of the most destructive missiles fired by Hizbollah into Israel bore the name

- jacksondyer

September 14, 2006 at 11:47pm

Personally I prefer Islamic totalitarianism over "war on terror," or "death cult" since the latter two terms denote means to an end while Islamic Totalitarianism is a mode of governance. Islamic Fascism or Ilsamic Nazism is too imprecise. Besides, terms like Nazism and Fascism have been so overused that to most people they just connote tersm of insult.

- jacksondyer

September 14, 2006 at 11:53pm

Of course the term "fascism" is being used inappropriately when applied to Radical Islamism-- it is inappropriate BY DEFINITION. With respect to Radical Islamism, where is the centralized corporate state? If such is even a goal of the radicals (and this seems doubtful; their goals seem rather more apocalyptic than practical), it has only been expressed in the vaguest terms. If we are going to define "fascism", why can't we just default to the definition given by its modern inventor, Mussolini? "Fascism", says Il Duce, "should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." By this definition, the Bush Regime comes closer to qualifying than does Radical Islamism. And why does Peretz and others of his ilk insist on ignoring virtually everything some of the best minds of the twentieth century (Benjamin, Adorno, Gramsci, et al) had to say on the subject? European fascism, after all, WAS A REAL HISTORICAL PHENOMENON (Italy, Germany, Spain, Argentina, Chile). As such, other than the will to extreme violence, there is little in the way of its structural, political, and philosophical features that comports with Radical Islamism. Surely the personality cult of the living leader (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Peron, Pinochet) is a minimum necessary condition for a fascist STATE. And what, by the way, is wrong with the term "Radical Islamism"? It isn't intended to insult ordinary Muslims anymore than the term "Radical Christianism" is meant to insult ordinary Christians. They are both among the most actively dangerous threats to modern civilization, and to the ideal of a civil society. Peretz, by the way, is really good at showing off his historical erudition; shouldn't he know this already? And, yeah, I know: I said I was so looking forward to not reading this blog. I have to admit, checking in to catch Peretz' latest nut-bag utterance is kind of fascinating, like not being able to pull your eyes away from a train-wreck.

- wmsberry

September 15, 2006 at 12:25am

Michael Walzer's 'political messianism' seems similar to Erich Voeglin's description of totalitarianisms as political religions. A theoretic account of 1938 meant to describe the secular phenomena of national socialism and stalinism as political religions -- movements where the transcendent has been 'immanentized' into daily reality -- is at once a very useful way to understand political Islam.

- perseus353

September 15, 2006 at 12:29am

"Of course the term "fascism" is being used inappropriately when applied to Radical Islamism-- it is inappropriate BY DEFINITION. With respect to Radical Islamism, where is the centralized corporate state?" Think of Islamicism as a Puritanical like cults. Each group may be autonomous as Protestants groups were in the colonies or in Geneva, Scottland, ets. However, within each group there is a high degree of centralization. "the best minds of the twentieth century (Benjamin, Adorno, Gramsci, et al)..." There are other great minds who wrote about totalitarianism from a non Marxist point of view: Jacob Talmon, mentioned elsewhere here, as well as Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, etc. The problem is that the phenomenon they were analyzing is only tangentially related to Islamic Jihadism which borrows from both Leninist organizational techniques as well as Stalinist, Fascist and Nazi modes of governance and the dissemination of propaganda.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 12:36am

You are the one who sounds like an obsessive "nut bag." "And, yeah, I know: I said I was so looking forward to not reading this blog. I have to admit, checking in to catch Peretz' latest nut-bag utterance is kind of fascinating, like not being able to pull your eyes away from a train-wreck." If you can't look away on your own time to get help.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 12:38am

I should have read more thoroughly some of the previous posts, and credited them in my last comment. Posts by "teplukhin", "williamyard", and "jacksondyer" are right on.

- wmsberry

September 15, 2006 at 12:40am

You still didn't address the matter of the physical entity that defines historical fascism, the corporate state. Absent that feature as existent or as an expressed goal, identifying any group or organization as "fascist" is just idle name-calling. I have taken my meds, by the way. What's your excuse?

- wmsberry

September 15, 2006 at 12:49am

"I have taken my meds, by the way. What's your excuse?" Change the dose, then, they are not working, and add a pill for wit. You need it badly.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 12:57am

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 12:58am

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 12:58am

"Absent that feature as existent or as an expressed goal, identifying any group or organization as "fascist" is just idle name-calling." I just said that above, Berry. "You still didn't address the matter of the physical entity that defines historical fascism, the corporate state." So far only Iran comes closest to the Fascist model. However, if Pakistan, or Egypt should be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood it's a safe bet that Fascist model will fit their mode of governance also. Saudi Arabia is a special case, but if they should experience an Islamicist revolt all the socio political ingrediends are there for the creation of a Fascist like theocracy. Let's remember that Fascism takes hold in countries with an absence of legitimate power centers. The Saudi Monarchy whatever we think of it is a legitimate center of power in that country.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 1:07am

Other than your personal insults, I considered the remarks you made about my post to be expansions and amplifications, not refutations. I didn't disagree with anything you said. And I didn't call Peretz a nut-bag; I said he made "nut-bag utterances". From what I've read of the comments, not many of the posters disagree with that assessment. And what is with your animmus, anyway?

- wmsberry

September 15, 2006 at 1:07am

I meant to say "animus".

- wmsberry

September 15, 2006 at 1:08am

I don't expect democracy to take hold in any of countries mentioned above, any time soon.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 1:08am

...but you are talking straight out of your derriere on this one. Marching implies fascism? There are 14 Characteristics of fascism... http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.h tml ...and those we are fighting display almost none of them. Incidentally, this phrase is really just another case of Republican projection. The pot, calling hte kettle black. Or more precisely, Christian Fascists calling terrorists Islamofascists. The Bush Adminsitration demonstrates far more fascist tendencies that the terrorists, and in general, they claim to be Christians. Also, I've been waiting for the last straw, and your Plame post above is it. I'm cancelling my subscription.

- esoder

September 15, 2006 at 4:44am

Let's check the list and see if "those we are fighting display none of [the 14 characteristics]" 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Yup 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -- Check 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -- Yes 4. Supremacy of the Military -- Sure 5. Rampant Sexism -- Yep 6. Controlled Mass Media -- Absolutely 7. Obsession with National Security -- Same thing as #1, so yes 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Most definitely 9. Corporate Power is Protected -- Assumes that Fascism may only arise in an industrial/postindustrial economy. I don't buy this one. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed -- Same problem as with #10, but also stems from #1 and #3. How are Iran's unions doing? 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Yes 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Yes; stems from #8. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Oh yeah 14. Fraudulent Elections -- or no elections at all? Not sure here. So as I see it, "fascist" is an accurate term for the jihadis if one accepts Dr. Britt's definitions. So back at you: if you believe that "those we are fighting display almost none of them", do you believe that they display the opposite, that Religion and Government are not intertwined in the jihadist ideology?

- cleavet

September 15, 2006 at 10:51am

Go read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer." I think you'll find that radical ideologies share certain psychological characteristics that are not so neatly pigeon-holed by terms like "fascist."

- jfelliott

September 15, 2006 at 11:34am

I foresee Republican talking points that include charges that liberals are weak on terrorism because we spend too much time trying to decide what name to call the enemy. :/ ;)

- epackard

September 15, 2006 at 12:21pm

wmsberry is exactly right to emphasize the importance of the organization of advanced industrial society into corporate groups controlled by the state. In other words, to note that fascism is a 20c European historical phenomenon that very specifically applies a vision of political economy to the conditions of recently-industrialized, mass democratic European states of the post-Bismarck era. Where you lack industrialization, you cannot have fascism. Where you lack mass politics, esp industrial democracy, you will not have fascism. And where there is utterly no concern with political economy, as with today's jihadists, there is no fascist agenda, only a fascination with violence and death. Which is to say, an apolitical, socially- and economically-ignorant death cult.

- teplukhin

September 15, 2006 at 12:44pm

I echo epackards sentiments...however it IS a weakness if Liberals cannot acknowledge the potential threat Muslim radicals present. The point of using a name LIKE Islamo-facism is to label the threat posed by fundamentalist Muslims from Afganistan to London...they are connected not by a national identity but a religious one. Therefore Islam must be in the label. Their goal of total control and worship of Islamic law (and the elimination of those who disagree) is fascist, totalitarian, imperial, salafist, etc...they all seem pretty much the same to me. However, I find "Islamo-facism" tends to roll off the tongue the easiest way.

- njr25

September 15, 2006 at 12:45pm

Can someone explain why "Facism" must be confined to 20th century Europe? To me, it always meant a system where the government exerted total control over the lives of the governed. The Law and the leader are one in the same. If the country is industrialized, then a Fasicst government will create and control corporate groups. The old kings of England would be just as facist as the more recent European brand. It's the concept of control that distinguishes the fascist from the democrat, not the type of control that is controlled.

- njr25

September 15, 2006 at 1:01pm

njr - please read up on specific fascist movements. Try the collection of essays edited by Henry A Turner, "Reappraisals of Fascism" (1975), also "Hitler's Social Revolution" by Schoenbaum (sp?).

- teplukhin

September 15, 2006 at 1:18pm

I Guess my point was that in public discourse, facism has come to mean something different than the original academic definition. As with Democracy: we don't call a government "democratic" simply because there is a vote. It has come to mean government that preserves individual rights over the power of the State (this is why people laugh when Iraq is called a "democratic" state, even though voting occurred). I believe "Facism" has taken a similar path from its textbook definitions. When used in the context of Islamo-facism, it is not meant to make a comparison to the actual European Fascist governments, rather the general way that they exerted power over the citizenry. In New York in th '90's many people called Rudy Guiliani a 'facist' because of his lack of respect for individual rights involved in his aggressive policing of the city--not because they thought he was trying to turn the city into a corporate state run by the Mayor's office.

- njr25

September 15, 2006 at 3:03pm

"Where you lack industrialization, you cannot have fascism. Where you lack mass politics, esp industrial democracy, you will not have fascism. And where there is utterly no concern with political economy, as with today's jihadists, there is no fascist agenda, only a fascination with violence and death. Which is to say, an apolitical, socially- and economically-ignorant death cult." Your first point was correct, however your second point is only partly true. If you agree that Stalinism is a species of fascims then you will have to agree that one can indeed have fascism in a country that was only partly industrialized. In fact it was his fascist agenda that allowed him to industralize Russia so quickly, or as he would have said "build communism in one country." As for the jihadists, we have to distinguish between the jihadists who carry out attacks and are basically tools used an manipulate for the benefit of others and those who do the manipulating. Jihadist terrorism is a mean to an end, its a tool However, the end is to built a centralized Islamic State which may or may not industralize (Iran certainly is doing that), but whose aim is to control every facet of the lives of its citizens. is it "fascism?" Perhaps, it is certainly totalitarianism.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 3:58pm

Stalinism was not a species of fascism. There was no corporate organization in Soviet Russia-- no labor unions, no Church, no industrial groups, none of the entities of the sort that Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany organized and co-opted.

- teplukhin

September 15, 2006 at 4:29pm

YTour definition of fascims then is too rigid since in both systems you had the essential ingredient of an ideology in control of the State and the masses organized to serve that ideology. In both systems you had a "fuhrer" principle as well as total control of all aspects of one's life. The organizations you mentioned are not essential to the workings of fascism as other organizations will do as well. In theory you cannot have a "fuhrer" principle in Islamic society but in fact you do have them as is evident with the central role khomeini played and Khatemi is playing now in Iran. Not to mention the charismatic Ahmadinejad. The same is true in other Islamic organizations as the pre-eminence of Bin Laden shows.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 4:35pm

jack - again, pls see Henry A Turner, ed. "Reappraisals of Fascism" (1975), also "Hitler's Social Revolution" by Schoenbaum (sp?). Fascism is an Italian term coined by Mussolini's followers. The corporate organization of society is absolutely essential. Totalitarianism, Big Brother and the world of 1984 etc are not synonymous with fascism. It is a definite and specific ideology and historical movement that, defies our tendency to expand the term or conflate it with other distasteful ideologies and movements.

- teplukhin

September 15, 2006 at 5:49pm

One study isn't going to change anything, teplukhin. At the center of the fascist (National Socialist) universe is the idea that the life in its totality is political and has to be brought under the dominion of the State. This applies no less to Stalinism as it does to Fascism. It also applies to Islamicists who have combined the notions of moderns political totalitarianism with traditional Islam. This is what is meant by Islamo fascism. I prefer for reasons stated above to call it Islamo totalitarianism.

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 10:46pm

Cleary, when in doubt bring Israel, or the saying is "cherche le Juif." Ne c'est pas?

- jacksondyer

September 15, 2006 at 10:48pm

See, not a single cookie post. The thread didn't move me...

- MrCookie1

September 16, 2006 at 4:52pm

http://tinyurl.com/oxct6 the data shows clearly that Israel's recent war against Hezbollah improved its standing with the American people and diminished support for the enemies of the Jewish state. Not only did Israel's rating go up, but those of Iran and the Palestinian government dropped. In addition, Syria was added to the survey for the first time and it scored very low. The Palestinians dropped from a June score of 25 to 22.8., Iran fell to 13.9 from 16.9, and Syria had a mean rating of 21.7. Along with North Korea, which had a mean rating of 15, the three Israeli enemies were considered the four least friendly nations in the world by the American people. Israel is given higher ratings by Republicans (70.9) and independents (68.1) than by Democrats (60). That might be surprising to some, since Jewish voters in the United States tend to vote Democratic by an almost 2-to1 margin. Israel's foes also score slightly better among Democrats than Republicans or independents. Israel's rating is substantially higher among men (71.9), than it is among women (60.5). It does slightly better among white evangelical Christians (68.6) and white Roman Catholics (67) than it does among Americans overall. In recent years, support for Israel has become a trademark position of conservative Christian political candidates and leaders within the United States. The data indicate that those who see the Bush Administration's unwavering support for Israel as a potential domestic political liability might be wise to think again.

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 3:27am

Jewish voters tend to vote Democratic by an almost 2-to-1 margin." Not for long.

- r-ennis

September 18, 2006 at 12:52pm

Wonder how many of the 100,000 Democratic NYC voters who shifted from Gore2000 to Bush2004 were jewish? How many of the ~200,000 Democratic Florida voters who shifted from Gore2000 to Bush2004? As I say, unless Dems get serious on nat-sec'y, Florida stays in the (R) column; if the Repubs run Giuliani or McCain, OH's theirs and even NJ and MI are in play.

- teplukhin

September 18, 2006 at 5:15pm

One quibble about the equation of Islam and fascism. According to Robert Paxton, the authority on French fascism and the author of the (in my estimation) brilliant monograph on the fascist phenomenon, "Anatomy of Fascism" (2004), fascism is, "A form of political behaviour marked by oscessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion". Sound like there might be a close analogy between Islamism and fascism? It struck me that way. Paxton also writes on the conjunction of religion and fascism, "At the level of broad analogy, it (concept of "political religion") points usefully to the way fascism like religion, mobilized believers around sacred rites and words, excited them to self-denying fervor and preached a revealed truth that admitted no dissidence". While, just like the supposed difficulties involved in defining "terrorism", what with the moral equivalency issue, "fascism" is freely and often incorrectly used, Paxton's analysis sets a firm equation between Islamism and fascism in my mind.

- kcomess

September 19, 2006 at 2:49pm