Islamic-fascism is an unsuitable name

[LiberalInGeorgia2005]

The phrases 'Islamic fascism' and 'Islamofascism' misappropriate the term 'fascism.'

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism." -Wikipedia

Islamic fundamentalists who want to rule countries under Sharia law seem to fit most of that wikipedia definition. It is nationalistic, it is totalitarian, it is militaristic, but it is not 'fascist.' The biggest element of fascism is the partnership of big business and the government. As Giovanni Gentile used to emphasize: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." The Islamic fundamentalists see capitalism and the corporate structure as accursed by the clerics. Absolutist, yes, fascistic, no. All of the definitions of fascism I have read place a lot of emphasis on the power of corporations in conjunction with the government.

Now it is true that 'fascist' became after World War II a word used for any person seen as repressive. For example, "No, I can't hang out this Friday, I got to paint the garage. My dad is such a fascist!" Of course, Bush and his henchmen who popularized the term 'Islamic fascism' have the political sophistication of of 13-year-old boys. No surprise there. It also shows a strong ignorance of his own governing practices for President Bush to call others 'fascist.'

[DinahMoeHum]

1. AFAIAC, the phrase is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

n/t

[Igel]

2. Suggested alternative? n/t

[Union Thug]

3. Theocratic Authoritarianism?

Fascism implies an economic system that really has little to do with Islamic extremists imo.

Maybe just Theocracy would work.

[RumpusCat]

7. Maybe Islamic Authoritarianism

It's a bit of a mouthful for a sound-bite, but it's probably the most technically correct. This term works well for established states like Iran but does it fit groups like Hamas and Al Queda very well? Perhaps they're just aspiring authoritarians.

I definitely agree that fascism is intimately bound up with a certain kind of economic system. Fascism comes out of modern capitalism, so you really have to get to an industrial society with the different classes first. Another requirement for fascism is a State. Almost none of the groups commonly called 'Islamic fascists' have either!

[ieoeja]

5. Islamic Republic

We could use the term THEY use which also happens to be accurate.

Of course, this would not have applied to Iraq under Saddam as there was nothing Islamic about that government.

[Igel]

10. That's what they call it.

Many don't actually want a republic. They know what's right, and if you look at the current row in Pakistan with the MMA over hoodud laws, you see exactly the proper role of the legislature.

They can do things like set fines for running red lights, and have nothing against a republic writ small. But things in shari'a aren't subject to popular will. In this, even a monarchy has more of a representational character. There can be no 'evolving standards of decency' or evolving interpretations of anything that matters. And for those that want a detailed application of the law, some of those interpretations are painful.

Even the 'monarchy' in Sa'udi Arabia is sharply curtailed. There's a new fatwa: you can't have funeral shrouds that bear Qur'anic versus, prayers, or the like. The monarch has no authority to overrule this; it's implemented.

[RumpusCat]

6. Kind of depends on who you're talking about

A lot of the various groups that we lump together under 'Islamofacists' have very different goals. The ones who want to rule countries with Islamic law should probably be called Islamic nationalists (I think Iranian clerics would fit into this category, and perhaps the Taliban). I don't think Islamic statehood is a goal of the ones like Bin Laden--they're probably properly called Islamic fundamentalists.

I'm not quite sure what to call subnationalist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. It seems to me that their goals are more political than religious altho' they're more than happy to use religion as a motivator and rallying cry. What did we used to call the IRA before they became tamer? And what to call the Shi'tes and the Sunnis involved in civil war in Iraq? They are both hoping to rule their country, presumably with their particular brand of Islam as the state religion. Perhaps they're aspiring Islamic nationalists?

It's hard to sort out, but I agree with the OP that 'Islamofacists' is a tool much too blunt to be useful.

[Spearman87]

9. As a substitute for that Bin Laden descriptive you used

("Islamic Fundamentalist"), I've started using Muslim Fundamentalist”

A couple weeks back there were some amateur linguists over here arguing over the Islamo-facist phrase. And according to a longtime poster “Dahlgren”, Dr. Juan Cole is a noted authority on Mideast and Islamic matters, and from reading him, one can conclude:

"Islamic" has to do with the ideals and achievements of the Muslims and the Muslim religion. Thus, we speak of Islamic art. We speak of Islamic ethics. There can be Muslim fascists, just as there can be Christian fascists” (But Islamic Fascist would be a misuse of the term)


If that's accurate, then "Muslim" seems like the proper descriptive when referring to people. But then I’ve been wondering for weeks now why Islamic Fascist is used, ever since W first picked up the term (previously heard mainly from right wing radio hosts). Why DON’T we just call them Radical Muslim Fundamentalists? 75% of the country would get your drift. Why are we pulling out phrases that require me to pull out a dictionary?

[RumpusCat]

15. Cole is probably correct; I suspect 'Islamic' sounds scarier

Really, that's probably the only reason it's used and 'Muslim facist' isn't. :shrug:

[Jed Dilligan]

4. The true horror of fascism is the marriage

of modern efficient bureaucracy and economic might with goals of expansion, oppression, and genocide.

Developing countries have to develop before they become fascist. Indeed, democracy is probably a necessary step on the way from where they are to fascism; without democracy, they could never build up enough capital or become organized enough to go fascist. At "best" they can have a mini-Stalin named Saddam trying to catch up with the West using state terror to advance his development plans. But the fragility of the state itself ensured he would never become that formidable.

If anyone has a chance of going fascist in the world today, it's us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I don't agree with your assessment.

The American right absolutely despises the state, is absolutely devoted to the trappings of democracy, and cares far more about the substance thereof than DUers tend to give them credit for.

There is no chance whatsoever of America adopting a system giving the state as much power as Fascism in the forseeable future.

There are, however, plenty of countries out there that are *already* fascist, or close approximations thereof never mind "going" - Myanmar, Iran and Syria spring to mind; I'm sure there are others.

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Fascism arises from the middle, not the right.

The beliefs of the relatively small "intellectual" right you reference have not stopped the GOP from expanding the government (military, police, prison system, prison industries--the most important elements of the fascist state) enormously.

I don't think you can call Myanmar, Iran, or Syria fascist, to explain why I don't think so I would simply reiterate my post above.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. Almost all Arabs and Muslims find the term extremely offensive

We could argue if words directed against other groups such as African-Americans, Jews or Gay people are really intended to harm. But we tend to take their word for it if they themselves find the terms offensive. Why should we not do the same when they are applied to Arabs or Muslims?

Thank you for your posting.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. Classic Rovian projection

Take your own weakest point and accuse your opponents of it.

The American neocon death cult are, quite credibly, referred to as "fascists" by thinking Americans.

so, of course, the Islamic berzerkers are referred to as "Islamofascists."

Kills two birds with one stone.

Unless of course we call a fascist a fascist, and stop letting the neocon death cult define terms and frame arguments.

[LUHiWY]

17. Right on....

THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:

Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.

.........

The Repugs can smell the truth closing in....so why not muddy the waters?

They control the bullpucky machine thru pres news conferences and the MSM...and so on.

And many who actually vote won't spend a lot of time really researching the issues....they will listen to the SPIN in the background. The Rovian spin.

This is why they might win again?

Between their core support and those not paying attention?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I don't agree.

Remember that wikipedia is written by consensus, not by authority. The definition it uses has, I suspect, been heavily influenced by people who want to be able to use the definition to attack corporations.



From google: "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."

From Cambridge dictionaries online: "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed."

From Merriam-Webster online "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."



"Corporatism" is a silly left wing shiboleth that essentially means "anything big corporations do that I don't like". Power in the hands of big corporations - or anyone except the state - is essentially antithetical to fascism; when companies flourish under a fascist state they usually do so strictly on the state's terms.

I think that the government of several Islamic states - Iran and Syria, for example, and pre-invasion Iraq - fits the definition of "fascism" fairly well, including economically, although the emphasis on religion rather than state raises a slight question mark over the appropriateness of the term.

[LUHiWY]

18. US fascism?

The only thing that would keep the US from currently fitting a meaningful "definition" of fascism is the seriously wounded democratic process in this country....which still at least allows the ILLUSION of a functioning democracy.

The current "facists" in control are doing everything reasonably possible to subvert what is left of a democracy.

Corporatism: when corporations and the state essentially become one in the same........fascism?


"When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I don't think that's realistic.

Saying "The only thing that would keep the US from currently fitting a meaningful "definition" of fascism is the seriously wounded democratic process in this country" is like saying "The only things that keep me from fitting the definition of a corpse are that I'm still alive."

Your democratic process is in better shape than you give it credit for. Neither of the last two elections has been as messy as e.g. 1960 was. *Don't* make the mistake of basing your opinion of the degree of electoral fraud in the US at present on DU; DU has many stirling virtues, but the ability to evaluate conspiracy theories accurately by consensus is not one of them.

I can't comment on whether the current American government are " "fascists" ", but they're certainly not fascists.

"When corporations and the state essentially become one in the same" is a closer description of Communism that any other system; it's certainly nothing like what's happening in America at the moment; nor is it a characteristic of fascism.

[Bridget Burke]

21. So--you consider Google an "authority"?

Are brief excerpts from online dictionaries sufficient to explain a complex topic?

The Wikipedia article points out that "Islamofascism" (& other variants of this insult to the English language) was invented by the Right Wing. References are given.

Is the "consensus" on Wikipedia less valuable than YOUR "authority"?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. To answer your questions in order:

I consider Google define to be a more reliable source than wikipedia when it comes to political terms. I don't consider it to be by any means authoritative, which is why I backed it up with two other, more authoritative (although still by no means infallible) sources. The degree of concurrence between the first three sources I checked is sufficient authority for an internet discussion, although if I were writing a PhD thesis I'd use others too.

"Is power resting in the hands of corporations a characteristic of fascism" is not a complex topic, and brief exerts from online dictionaries are sufficient to answer it; the answer is "absolutely not".

I haven't and do not dispute the fact that the term "Islamofascism" was coined by the American right wing; it's not a term I myself ever use; I do think that there are governments (Iran, Syria) and political movements that are clearly both fascist and Islamic; whether or not the two strands in them are sufficiently interlinked to justify a specific term reffering to the combination is debateable; if they are it should be something less perjorative that "Islamofascism".

On political matters, due to their subjectivity and the high proportion of those who devote time to discussing politics on the internet who are better at self-delusion than objectivity there are questions on which I can (with reference to other sources) provide a more valuable opinion that the wikipedia consensus.

[theanarch]

13. as an alternative, how about...

..."predictable resistance to imperialistic aggression"?

[PointAndLaugh]

14. I like it!

..

[cali]

16. That's just kneejerk ridiculous

and ignores complex histories that go back a very long time. There is a segment of Islam that has indeed co-opted the religion for purposes that are less than laudatory, and altough, western imperialism has certainly fed into the creation of certain movements within Islam, it's hardly the only influence.