Sharia Law and Islamofascism and Homophobia

[AntiFA-Manchester]

As a gay man I have been subject to homophobic abuse and a few attacks.

However ALL of these attacks have been committed by muslims, apparently it's written in the koran that homosexuals should be killed. Like those poor boys in IRan who were slaughtered like animals.

I've done some research into the EDL and they appear to be very welcoming of us gays.

"Let gays hang in pubs, not on ropes" was one rather amusing banner suggestion.

They explained that they aren't racist or fascist but are opposed to fascism whoever perpetrates it. Even if it's by muslims.

When I thought about it I thought how right they are. I can't help but wonder at the lack of opposition to homophobia among the muslim community.

Are we letting fascism fester in our country just because we're too politically correct to challenge people because of their skin colour.

I hope not.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Just some friendly advice, using words like "Islamofascism" will get you banned pretty quick.

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Thank you for your advice, red son.

In future I shall type 'disgusting fascist antics by people who happen to be muslim and in many cases use their holy book to justify them'
:thumbup1:

[Holden Caulfield]

Just some friendly advice, using words like "Islamofascism" will get you banned pretty quick.

No it wont, not at all

being an obvious EDL guy, and starting an account seconds after a smilar one was banned will

[Holden Caulfield]

Thank you for your advice, red son.

In future I shall type 'disgusting fascist antics by people who happen to be muslim and in many cases use their holy book to justify them'
:thumbup1:

please tell me what fascism is.
define it.

[ls]

Yeah, reject football hooligans are really welcoming of gays [citation needed].

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Are you a fucking EDL thug?

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Does it matetr if i was EDL? I'mnot but their anti-fascism stance seems a lot stronger then here so perhaps I am!

What matters is why so many of my comrades are unwilling to challenge 'disgusting fascist antics by people who happen to be muslim and in many cases use their holy book to justify them'

[Holden Caulfield]

Does it matetr if i was EDL? I'mnot but their anti-fascism stance seems a lot stronger then here so perhaps I am!

What matters is why so many of my comrades are unwilling to challenge 'disgusting fascist antics by people who happen to be muslim and in many cases use their holy book to justify them'

mate make another account, dont post, PM me, I will gladly argue it out with you.

you are just gonna keep getting banned for talking shit

define fascism

[AntiFA-Manchester]

please tell me what fascism is.
define it.

Somebody who wishes to impinge on my civil liberties and in some cases will have me hanged if i transgress.

I fear for my fellow homosexuals should sharia law ever be implemented over here.

Fascism needs to be arrested in all its forms. Weird that a 'fascist' organisation is more 'anti-fascist' than the anti-fascists!

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Are you a fucking EDL thug?

Only if EDL = 'Eats Dicks Longtime" :D

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Why is nobody prepared to stand up for your gay comrades? :confused:

As a hardcore gay I can tell you this is a real problem.

[Holden Caulfield]

Somebody who wishes to impinge on my civil liberties and in some cases will have me hanged if i transgress.

I fear for my fellow homosexuals should sharia law ever be implemented over here.

Fascism needs to be arrested in all its forms. Weird that a 'fascist' organisation is more 'anti-fascist' than the anti-fascists!

Not true. America infringes on civil libertines, the UK infringes on civil libertines, all states do this to a more or lesser degree.

Fascism has a very specific meaning. Its not just code for bad

Orwell


It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.


and its pretty obvo your not gay from the way you talk about it, so drop the act its cringe worthy.

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Not true. America infringes on civil libertines, the UK infringes on civil libertines, all states do this to a more or lesser degree.

Fascism has a very specific meaning. Its not just code for bad

Orwell

The US and Uk govt are partly fascist. I agree. However fascism is distinct from democracy.

Which is what still exists here and in America!

Also the us and uk don't hang us gays! Unless you live in Alabama lmao.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why is nobody prepared to stand up for your gay comrades? :confused:

As a hardcore gay I can tell you this is a real problem.

I am willing to stand up for my gay comrades. That is precisely why I protest against the EDL, Nick Griffin, the BNP and any other homophobic fascist groups.

[AntiFA-Manchester]

I agree about fascism becoming meaningless, which is why I cringe when my UAF comrades are so quick to use it at any opportunity!

[Holden Caulfield]

The US and Uk govt are partly fascist. I agree. However fascism is distinct from democracy.

Which is what still exists here and in America!

Also the us and uk don't hang us gays! Unless you live in Alabama lmao.

The capitalist system opresses gays with unequal civil rights, and throught pushing negative stereotypes in the media.

anyways, the UK and USA are not fascist, fascism come about for a reason.

I support my gay comrades, but the BNP have more chance of effecting policy in this country than a handfull of mental muslims do so I prioritise.

Fuck all homophobes, but dont pretend white people arent homophobic or that prejudice is a muslim disease

[AntiFA-Manchester]

I am willing to stand up for my gay comrades. That is precisely why I protest against the EDL, Nick Griffin, the BNP and any other homophobic fascist groups.


The EDL has plenty of gay members and are not ant-gay! I don't where you got your info from! You can stop protesting now and protest Choudary and his hateful rhetoric!

Why aren't we socialists protesting this hateful man? As a gay I'd be toast if he came into power!

HELP YOUR GAY COMRADES AND PROTEST ANGIE CHOWDREE!

[Pogue]

The EDL has plenty of gay members and are not ant-gay! I don't where you got your info from! You can stop protesting now and protest Choudary and his hateful rhetoric!

Why aren't we socialists protesting this hateful man? As a gay I'd be toast if he came into power!

HELP YOUR GAY COMRADES AND PROTEST ANGIE CHOWDREE!

Well, we are actually protesting both the EDL and him so more fool you.

[AntiFA-Manchester]

The capitalist system opresses gays with unequal civil rights, and throught pushing negative stereotypes in the media.

anyways, the UK and USA are not fascist, fascism come about for a reason.

I support my gay comrades, but the BNP have more chance of effecting policy in this country than a handfull of mental muslims do so I prioritise.

Fuck all homophobes, but dont pretend white people arent homophobic or that prejudice is a muslim disease

And these unequal civil rights must be challenged! However, i can bum as many men as i like and not have any sentence heavier than a sore bum bum.

Perhaps it's because you aren;t gay that you don't see this as a priority.

I know whites can be homophobic, I get abuse from some sillies. All the attacks have been from muslims though.

Perhaps if you were gay you'd see things differently. Perhaps the capitalist media has blinded you to our plight. :mad:

[Holden Caulfield]

You do not know anything about my sexuality comrade.
you are going to get banned, you taking the piss clearly, i was happy to debate you when you were just lying about who and what you were but you are being a ****.

[AntiFA-Manchester]

Well, we are actually protesting both the EDL and him so more fool you.


Are we? Why now though? WE never have dome before.... :confused:

I hope we are.

I also hope it isn't becuse the EDL has highlighted the hypocrisy so we feel like we have to do something but really our hearts aren't in it as we'd rather be in Leeds calling people fascists for opposing anti-fascism.! ;)

Anyway, i'd like to join this anti choudary protest (don't worry i won't wear any leather lmao)

When does it start and where?

[Jethro Tull]

define fascism

Insurgent right-wing populism.

If Islamist reactionaries aren't fascist, what are they? Are they neo-liberal? Social Democratic? Marxist-Leninist? Anarchist? :rolleyes:

[Pogue]

Insurgent right-wing populism.

If Islamist reactionaries aren't fascist, what are they? Are they neo-liberal? Social Democratic? Marxist-Leninist? Anarchist? :rolleyes:

crap definition

[ls]

Insurgent right-wing populism.

That was a dumb thing to say.


If Islamist reactionaries aren't fascist, what are they? Are they neo-liberal? Social Democratic? Marxist-Leninist? Anarchist? :rolleyes:

What makes 'Islamist reactionaries' any worse than other religious fundamentalists?

[Jethro Tull]

crap definition

What's your definition?

[Jethro Tull]

That was a dumb thing to say.

How so?


What makes 'Islamist reactionaries' any worse than other religious fundamentalists?Nothing, and I never said they were. There are Christian-fascists, Jewish-fascists, Shinto-fascists, Buddhist-fascists, Hindu-fascists, Pagan-fascists, etc.

[Pogue]

What's your definition?

An authritarian movement which aims to establish nationalism as some unifying factor against the supposed threat of some sort of external power to the nation, with the aim of dividing members of the working class against each other - this can be manifested in a force of nationalists trying to gain some sort of supremacy and incite racial violence in ana rea, or it can be the bourgeoisie reaction against the feared growth in the power of the working class, either way, authoritarian nationalism attacking a member of society by means of dividing people.

[robbo203]

I have some sympathy for what AntiFA Manchester is saying even if the term "islamofascism" is inadvisable (though IMO it hardly warrants the threat of banning!). NO decent human being could sit back and condone the despicable acts of religious bigots such as these ...

From http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/iraq-militias-glue/

Iraqi militias gluing anuses of gay men and inducing diarrhea to cause death. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/iraq-militias-glue/)


Relying on an International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission translation of a recent Al Arabiya story (http://www.alarabiya.net/save_print.php?print=1&cont_id=71071), the blog Towleroad (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/04/report-iraqi-militia-killing-gay-men-with-painful-form-of-anal-torture.html) reports that Iraqi militias have been engaging in some particularly brutal tactics toward gay men in Iraq:

“A prominent Iraqi human rights activist says that Iraqi militia have deployed a painful form of torture against homosexuals by closing their anuses using ‘Iranian gum.’ …Yina Mohammad told Alarabiya.net that, ‘Iraqi militias have deployed an unprecedented form of torture against homosexuals by using a very strong glue that will close their anus.’ According to her, the new substance ‘is known as the American hum, which is an Iranian-manufactured glue that if applied to the skin, sticks to it and can only be removed by surgery. After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death. Videos of this form of torture are being distributed on mobile cellphones in Iraq.’”
The Iraqi defense ministry reported earlier this month that six gay men were shot dead (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/05/iraq-execute-gays/) in a Shia-controlled part of Baghadad. “Two of the bodies, found on Thursday, had pieces of paper attached on which was written the word ‘Pervert.’” According to the source in the Al Arabiya article, “for the past 3 weeks a crackdown on homosexuals (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/04/report-iraqi-militia-killing-gay-men-with-painful-form-of-anal-torture.html) has been going on based on a religious decree that demands their death; dozens have been targeted.” The persecution “is not confined to the Shiite clerics,” the source said. “Some Sunni leaders have also declared the death penalty for sodomy on satellite channels.”

[ls]

How so?

Because Fascism is an economic system and form of governance.


Nothing, and I never said they were.

No, but you think 'Islamist reactionaries' are fascists when most strongly conservative Islamic people are just fundies like those of all other religions.

[Jethro Tull]

An authritarian movement

Islamist insurgent right-wing populists are "authoritarian" in the catchy buzzword anarchyist sense of the word "authoritarian".


which aims to establish nationalism as some unifying factor against the supposed threat of some sort of external power to the nation

Which is what Islamist insurgent right-populists do.


with the aim of dividing members of the working class against each otherWhich is the aim of Islamist insurgent right-populists.


this can be manifested in a force of nationalists trying to gain some sort of supremacy and incite racial violenceAs Islamist right-populists do. For example, pogroms in Iraq against Yezidis, Mandeans, Assyrian Christians, Sufis, etc.


it can be the bourgeoisie reaction against the feared growth in the power of the working classTypical sophist anarchyist "antifa" indoctrination. Are you saying that the Weimar Republic created the Nazis? Why do you think the liberal bourgeoisie would rather be overthrown by fascists than communists?


either way, authoritarian nationalism attacking a member of society by means of dividing people.And how do Islamist reactionaries not qualify, exactly, especially in specific regards to their policies towards homosexuals?

[Pogue]

Typical sophist anarchyist "antifa" indoctrination


Please explain what you mean by this before we continue.

[Holden Caulfield]

I have some sympathy for what AntiFA Manchester is saying even if the term "islamofascism" is inadvisable (though IMO it hardly warrants the threat of banning!). NO decent human being could sit back and condone the despicable acts of religious bigots such as these ...


islamofascist shouldbt be a bannable term and isnt.
Yes he is right that some muslims are awful people, but he comes across as a UK far right person and so we argue against him and give our reasons.

I would not nod along with a Nazi about how Judaism is opressive in a smiliar way

[Jethro Tull]

Because Fascism is an economic system

Are you saying fascist states are not part of the capitalist economic system?


and form of governance.

Fascists use capitalist methods of governance. (Police, military, etc.) What distinguishes them is how they get in a position of governance.


No, but you think 'Islamist reactionaries' are fascists when most strongly conservative Islamic people are just fundies like those of all other religions.

I'm not talking about people who happen to be conservative Muslims, I'm talking about Islamist right-populist activists.

[Jethro Tull]

Please explain what you mean by this before we continue.

I was being a little playful and rude, but what I meant is the notion that fascism is a conspiracy by or tendency of an existing bourgeois regime to forestall left-wing revolution is A) incorrect and B) inexplicably popular among many participants in antifa groups and movements.

[Holden Caulfield]

for me, and for other antifascists it is the role fascism plays that makes it fascism
not its component parts, although they crop up again and again and are part of a 'build you own' kit of fascist ideology

[Pogue]

I was being a little playful and rude, but what I meant is the notion that fascism is a conspiracy by or tendency of an existing bourgeois regime to forestall left-wing revolution is A) incorrect and B) inexplicably popular among many participants in antifa groups and movements.

But we don't think its a conspiracy, we just think it has a specific class nature and serves a specific purpose as part of class society.

[ls]

Are you saying fascist states are not part of the capitalist economic system?

Are you saying that historically, fascist states have acted exactly the same as capitalist states? Of course they are capitalist, they are just extremely degenerated a form of capitalism.


Fascists use capitalist methods of governance. (Police, military, etc.) What distinguishes them is how they get in a position of governance.

They are significantly different to capitalists in their form of governance.


I'm not talking about people who happen to be conservative Muslims, I'm talking about Islamist right-populist activists.

Yet, you never mention or attack Christian right-populist activists, which number in the millions in your presumable homeland of the USA. Nice going, when it's Islamic fundamentalism they are fascists, when it's Christians they are just working-class or something.

[Jethro Tull]

for me, and for other antifascists it is the role fascism plays that makes it fascism
not its component parts, although they crop up again and again and are part of a 'build you own' kit of fascist ideology

Agree, 100%. Among Islamic populations, so-called "Islamo-fascist" ideologies play that role. To suggest this is an insult to Islam is just left-wing PC oversensitivity. (No one, for example, would shudder if I referred to "Judeo-fascism" in regards to reactionary Jewish settlers in Palestine) Why would young, right-wing Muslims embrace, say, Odinist fascism?

[AntiFaLiverpool]

Why was my mancunina comrade banned?

He seemed to raise some good points. I used to be his boyfriend lol so I know what he's talking about.

I too would like to join this anti-choudary march.

an any of you guys tell me where it will be starting and at what time?!

Will be so good to stick it to this evil fascist!

[Holden Caulfield]

Agree, 100%. Among Islamic populations, so-called "Islamo-fascist" ideologies play that role. To suggest this is an insult to Islam is just left-wing PC oversensitivity. (No one, for example, would shudder if I referred to "Judeo-fascism" in regards to reactionary Jewish settlers in Palestine) Why would young, right-wing Muslims embrace, say, Odinist fascism?

I dont have PC sensibilities, the amount of times i been accused of being a horrible reactionary on this forum is getting pretty high. but I have already said:



islamofascist shouldbt be a bannable term and isnt.
Yes he is right that some muslims are awful people, but he comes across as a UK far right person and so we argue against him and give our reasons.

I would not nod along with a Nazi about how Judaism is opressive in a smiliar way


I also don't think Israel is fascist, it is a colonial state and acts as such.

If you read throught my posts in this thread i think you get a good image of what antifascists should and do stand for at least in the circles i move in

[AntiFaLiverpool]

When is this anti choudary march happening.

Gonna go to london, see a show, go to compton street and stick it this nasty man at last.

Gonna be great!

I hope that other dude wasn't lying

[Jethro Tull]

But we don't think its a conspiracy, we just think it has a specific class nature and serves a specific purpose as part of class society.

So the German bourgeoisie was happy the Nazis overthrew the Weimar Republic? This just simply isn't my interpretation of history. Especially given how thoroughly disastrous the Nazi regime was for the German empire...

I interpret fascism, in brief, as a petit-bourgeois rebellion against the bourgeoisie, that perpetuates capitalist rule, but by overthrowing an existing bourgeois regime with a new regime drawn from the ranks of the petit-bourgeoisie.


Are you saying that historically, fascist states have acted exactly the same as capitalist states?

What methods have fascist states used that other capitalist states haven't used, or wouldn't use if they were in the same material circumstances


Of course they are capitalist, they are just extremely degenerated a form of capitalism.But is the capitalist degeneration exhibited by specific historical examples such as Nazi Germany the result of those states being controlled by fascist parties, or the result of specific material circumstances to which those states where bound? Correlation does not equal causation. (Also, for the record, non-degenerated capitalism is just as dangerous if not more)


They are significantly different to capitalists in their form of governance.
Yet, you never mention or attack Christian right-populist activists, which number in the millions in your presumable homeland of the USA.

Is that the subject of this thread?


Nice going, when it's Islamic fundamentalism they are fascists, when it's Christians they are just working-class or something.Did I ever say that, are you just dumping another big stinker onto the massive pile of absurdly infantile strawmen arguments RevLeft users make on a regular basis?

[AntiFaLiverpool]

Oh right, he was lying.

Great. Fascism once again goes unopposed by ant-fascists!

[Pogue]

So the German bourgeoisie was happy the Nazis overthrew the Weimar Republic? This just simply isn't my interpretation of history. Especially given how thoroughly disastrous the Nazi regime was for the German empire...

I interpret fascism, in brief, as a petit-bourgeois rebellion against the bourgeoisie, that perpetuates capitalist rule, but by overthrowing an existing bourgeois regime with a new regime drawn from the ranks of the petit-bourgeoisie.



What methods have fascist states used that other capitalist states haven't used, or wouldn't use if they were in the same material circumstances



But is the capitalist degeneration exhibited by specific historical examples such as Nazi Germany the result of those states being controlled by fascist parties, or the result of specific material circumstances to which those states where bound? Correlation does not equal causation. (Also, for the record, non-degenerated capitalism is just as dangerous if not more)



[quoteYet, you never mention or attack Christian right-populist activists, which number in the millions in your presumable homeland of the USA.

Is that the subject of this thread?



Did I ever say that, are you just piling another big stinker onto the massive pile of absurdly infantile strawmen arguments RevLeft users make on a regular basis?[/QUOTE]

Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet, the best examples of fascists, all used authroitarian measures to supress workers power in the defence of the 'nation', which inherently supports the interest of the national bourgeoisie.

[Jethro Tull]

I also don't think Israel is fascist, it is a colonial state and acts as such.

I meant the European Jews who are fighting against both the Israeli state and the Palestinian population.

[Jethro Tull]

Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet, the best examples of fascists, all used authroitarian measures to supress workers power

You're describing all capitalist states.


in the defence of the 'nation'

If you're using "nation" as a synonym for "race" or "people", you're, in my opinion, beginning to hit the mark on what it means to be a fascist. (You're overlooking important elements, though, such as patriarchy, anti-Semitism, scapegoating finance capital whilst glorifying productive capital, etc.)


which inherently supports the interest of the national bourgeoisie.

Yes, and that's against the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole.

[Pogue]

You're describing all capitalist states.



If you're using "nation" as a synonym for "race" or "people", you're, in my opinion, beginning to hit the mark on what it means to be a fascist. (You're overlooking important elements, though, such as patriarchy, anti-Semitism, scapegoating finance capital whilst glorifying productive capital, etc.)



Yes, and that's against the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole.

No, because lbieral democracy does not employ the same methods udner the same circumstances as fascism does - fascism represents the supposed defence of the nation and its advancement, whereas liberal democracy is supposed to be built upon liberal democratic values and has a completely different nature, but yes, every capitalist regime has the ability to become fascist.

Its not against the itnerests of the bourgeoisie in a time where worker's power is threatneing them - fascism is a slightly more inconvenient form of class rule but class rule all the same.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

This is ridiculous quite frankly.Can we get real here please there is no possibility not one inch of sharia law being enforced by the British state let alone have them tolerate it. Islamic nutballs are not in a position to have any power whats so ever, especially not large enough to effect western society expect for a few cultural enclaves in large cities which is something that leftists in those areas should confront more then they currently do out of fear of lack of approval of more removed members of the left wing movement.

Internationally these nutcases have their priorities as removing all foreign troops from Muslim countries (for a different reason then why we want them out if anyone here is thinking about setting up another al quida love fest thread) and after that establishing a kind of pan islamic empire in the middle east which they simply will not be able to accomplish. So its established that in the west fighting islamic radicalism is not really a priority for the working class movement no matter how vile the theistic tradition of encouraging the spread of hate and misery may be.

What however is a serious concern for leftists are populists movements (quite clearly building on the lessons learnt by right wingers from the limited successes of the BNP) of attempting to appeal to all sectors of angry males and wishing to turn them into a pseudo liberal campagin against "radical islam" which as we all know is not some kind of well thoguht out campaign to combat theistic reaction but rather a sophisticated term for paki bashing.

This is a major worry for the left because if such views become even more widespread it will become difficult to convince the working class that the fault lies primarily and solely with the ruling class and more so as these views become further entrenched into the community. With the exception of times of widespread class consciousness and open struggle our role is always going to be harder then theirs. The Bourgeoisie may have the blood and misery of over a couple of dozen generations of humanity on its track record but Muslims have explosions and brown skin on theirs, meaning whilst we must explain our position they can point at someone on the street and suggest they are responsible for housing , bombings (which although are dwarfed by th amount of people murdered by the actions of the ruling class in warfare , drug violence due to neo puritanism , poor housing leading to people dieing in fires and the lack of a nationalized gas company meaning you have people freezing to death) they go boom and get a about two years worth of worth of media attention.

So please Jetho don't act as if we don't know sharia is vile only the mentally subnormal would try to deny that on here and we know its a far easier issue to target them directly then targeting the ruling class, but concentrating on a few isolated religious nutters is not going to achieve anything worthwhile for the working class.Invest effort and time into something that will get results not something that will get you a pat on the back just because you have used peoples prejudices in an attempt to get Communist's popularity amongst the class, which will will only lead to having a bunch of orgs not too dissimilar from those such as the national Bolsheviks and various other retardations of leftism.

Seriously people , priorities , strikes , housing , benefits , schools , self defense , recreation , building support for an open door immigration policy, concentrate on these not on some crusade against a tiny group of idiots.

[ls]

What methods have fascist states used that other capitalist states haven't used, or wouldn't use if they were in the same material circumstances

Ultra-monarchism, sometimes ultra-integralism, extremely totalitarian forms of state-capitalism etc.


But is the capitalist degeneration exhibited by specific historical examples such as Nazi Germany the result of those states being controlled by fascist parties, or the result of specific material circumstances to which those states where bound? Correlation does not equal causation. (Also, for the record, non-degenerated capitalism is just as dangerous if not more)

I would disagree, badly degenerated capitalism is very dangerous indeed, also the latter on the first part.


Is that the subject of this thread?

No but then again, when isn't it the subject of a thread nowdays?

There are too many threads about it, plus the simple fact is that certain people keep condemning Islam as if it's worse than other religions when >in the West< Muslims are a minority, you're condemning it because it's out here thanks to a reactionary Western chauvinist idiot posting about it, it's not because you've got genuine, rational, balanced concern and you want to reach out to Muslims better.


Did I ever say that, are you just dumping another big stinker onto the massive pile of absurdly infantile strawmen arguments RevLeft users make on a regular basis?

I think you're a bit of a twat.

[Le Libérer]

Thread moved to antifa.

[Holden Caulfield]

Jethro: has my posts not answered your questions on the issue? If so why not?

There have been so many posts I am getting confused who is talking to who.

[ls]

Jethro: has my posts not answered your questions on the issue? If so why not?

There have been so many posts I am getting confused who is talking to who.

Welp, it seemed like he might pm you and you could work your far-northern charm on his fash sympathising, now it's pretty obvious he's nowt but a boring troll, so I think we should just send this thread to the bin and same with the other.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

so I think we should just send this thread to the bin and same with the other.

I used up valuable time in my Hench post that could have been put to use failing to flirt with girls on msm. This thread needs to stay in honour of that.

[Jethro Tull]

This is ridiculous quite frankly.Can we get real here please there is no possibility not one inch of sharia law being enforced by the British state let alone have them tolerate it.

Do you expect me to argue that point?


Islamic nutballs are not in a position to have any power whats so ever, especially not large enough to effect western society expect for a few cultural enclaves in large citiesThey have lots of power within Islamic diaspora communities in Europe, which is important to confront if we want to win those communities over. (Which we do since they are broad segments of the population, heavily marginalized by capitalism)


which is something that leftists in those areas should confront more then they currently do out of fear of lack of approval of more removed members of the left wing movement.This is essentially the point I'm arguing.


if anyone here is thinking about setting up another al quida love fest threadTo me the whole "Don't call right-wing Muslims fascists! That's not fair!" line is uncomfortably bordering on Al-Qaeda lovefest.


and after that establishing a kind of pan islamic empire in the middle east which they simply will not be able to accomplish.Will Neo-Nazis ever accomplish a racially pure U.S. or Europe? Probably not. Will Christian fascists ever accomplish the rapture? Definitely not. Having stupid pipe-dreams doesn't make you less dangerous.


So its established that in the west fighting islamic radicalism is not really a priority for the working class movementIt's a priority wherever it's encountered. However, this isn't reality, this is RevLeft. We're not fighting anything. We're wasting time by arguing about random subjects.

If it makes you feel any better, there are all sorts of groups that are significantly less relevant than Islamic fascists, that I would still find meaning and use in trying to disrupt and immobilize. For example, Scientologists. Or New Age hoaxsters. Or NAMBLA.


What however is a serious concern for leftists are populists movements (quite clearly building on the lessons learnt by right wingers from the limited successes of the BNP) of attempting to appeal to all sectors of angry males and wishing to turn them into a pseudo liberal campagin against "radical islam" which as we all know is not some kind of well thoguht out campaign to combat theistic reaction but rather a sophisticated term for paki bashing.I'm not exactly proposing an anti-fascist coalition with the BNP, here.


This is a major worry for the left because if such views become even more widespread it will become difficult to convince the working class that the fault lies primarily and solely with the ruling classAnd the same is true of Islamist views.


So please Jetho don't act as if we don't know sharia is vile only the mentally subnormal would try to deny that on hereI'm not trying to convince anyone of that point. I'm trying to convince people that insurgent right-wing populism can be accurately described as fascism, regardless of whether it's rooted in Islam or not.


and we know its a far easier issue to target them directly then targeting the ruling classPicking smaller targets works sometimes. I'm not suggesting that we exclusively focus on the Islamic right, that would be stupid, especially in places where there is no Islamic right.


but concentrating on a few isolated religious nutters is not going to achieve anything worthwhile for the working class.So we should ignore Odinist Neo-Nazis and Christian Identity groups as well? If our enemies are small and isolated, (and the truth is that the radical right, regardless of what its religious windowdressing happens to be, is right now larger and less isolated than the radical left) we should stamp them out while we still can!


Invest effort and time into something that will get resultsOrganizing against right-populists does get results, Islamist right-populists included. Random apolitical working-class immigrants from Islamic reigons aren't going to give a shit about the communist project unless communists actually do something that shows they give a shit about their communities. Rooting out right-wing populists is a great example. It gives us a springboard to dialogue.


just because you have used peoples prejudices in an attempt to get Communist's popularity amongst the classTo be fair, I'm not envisioning the crushing defeat of the Islamist right by a half-dozen white left-communists burning a racist caricature of Muhammad.


which will will only lead to having a bunch of orgs not too dissimilar from those such as the national Bolsheviks and various other retardations of leftism.How will stricter policies towards right-populist manifestations make us more prone to third positionist tendencies? If anything the National Bolsheviks get a woodie from Al-Qaeda.


self defenseExactly. Self defense against racist, misogynistic, homophobic idiots, such as the BNP and the Taliban.


I used up valuable time in my Hench post that could have been put to use failing to flirt with girls on msm. This thread needs to stay in honour of that.

You already made your choice my friend, regardless of how unwise it was. :D

[Jethro Tull]

No, because lbieral democracy does not employ the same methods udner the same circumstances as fascism does

What would you characterize as the primary difference between fascist methods of state security versus, say, liberal democratic or Marxist-Leninist methods?


fascism represents the supposed defence of the nation and its advancement, whereas liberal democracy is supposed to be built upon liberal democratic values and has a completely different nature

To use some Dungeons and Dragons terminology, you're mostly talking about the flavor text, here. The rules system is still the same.


but yes, every capitalist regime has the ability to become fascist.

in order for a regime to become fascist it has to be overthrown or infiltrated by fascists. This is the sort of spurious anti-fascist theory that leads to the classification of, say, the USAPATRIOT Act as "fascism".


Its not against the itnerests of the bourgeoisie in a time where worker's power is threatneing them

The bourgeoisie exists under the constant threat of left-wing extremism, though. And how is right-wing extremism any less threatening to the existing power structure?


fascism is a slightly more inconvenient form of class rule but class rule all the same.

The bourgeois class is not homogenous, there are different factions. By this same logic, Sarah Palin supported Obama.


Ultra-monarchism

So was Queen Victoria a fascist?


sometimes ultra-integralism

What do you mean by integralism?

,
extremely totalitarian forms of state-capitalism

So were Stalin and Pol Pot fascists?


I would disagree, badly degenerated capitalism is very dangerous indeed

Yes, but so is stable, perfectly functioning capitalism.


also the latter on the first part.

So we're in agreement. I say Republican France would have implemented similar policies if it was losing a World War. Thus, the difference between, say, fascist and republican modes of rule is less important than distinguishing between various political factions, parties, and tendencies and how they interact with each other.


No but then again, when isn't it the subject of a thread nowdays?

So do you want my opinion on whether or not Bigfoot exists, too?


There are too many threads about it

Sorry dude, I didn't create them.


plus the simple fact is that certain people keep condemning Islam as if it's worse than other religions

Well, I'm not one of them. I'm sorry there are other douchebags who do that, I can't control their behavior.


>in the West< Muslims are a minority

What does that have to do with anything? Mormons are a minority too. There are plenty of ethnically subjugated and oppressed groups that are majorities, look at South Africa.


you're condemning it because it's out here thanks to a reactionary Western chauvinist idiot posting about it

Perhaps the OP was a "reactionary Western chauvinist idiot", I was merely pointing out that, despite the protest of virtually everyone else contributing to this thread, I feel "Islamo-fascism" is a more accurate term than intended by its originators. (Orwell adequitely captures the motivations of Hitchens, Bush, et. al when they call their Islamist enemies "fascists", however, a stopped clock is also right twice a day)


it's not because you've got genuine, rational, balanced concern and you want to reach out to Muslims better.

How exactly do you know? Can you tell from my message board posts?


I think you're a bit of a twat.

Thanks! :)

[Jethro Tull]

Yet I'm awesome enough for you to quote me in your signature! :huh:

[Holden Caulfield]

Argue with each other somewhere else,
if I can be fucked I'll debate some islamofascism tomorrow

[Jethro Tull]

I'm still interested in debating whether it's appropriate to classify radical right-wing Islamic groups as "fascists" or not, I find the off-topic personal attacks as annoying as you do. If someone has a problem with how I format my posts, they can just ignore them.

[robbo203]

islamofascist shouldbt be a bannable term and isnt.
Yes he is right that some muslims are awful people, but he comes across as a UK far right person and so we argue against him and give our reasons.

How do you figure this out? Have you asked him his views? While I think the term islamophobia is inadvisable is it inconceivable that you can have an amalgam of fascist and islamic ideas?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

They have lots of power within Islamic diaspora communities in Europe, which is important to confront if we want to win those communities over. (Which we do since they are broad segments of the population, heavily marginalized by capitalism)


How in this present time of paki bashing and general unpleasantness towards Muslims do you think a bunch of white folk (because most of the European leftist movement is white*) turning up and saying "no muslim nazi people become communists" how is that going to be received?

Leaving that to leftists within the muslim community would not only be more effective but it would also allow lot of people not doing things to concentrate on issues in white working class areas which the left has ignored.






To me the whole "Don't call right-wing Muslims fascists! That's not fair!" line is uncomfortably bordering on Al-Qaeda lovefest.


Well they are more religious nutcases along the lines of the Evangelicals that bomb abortion clinics then nazi stormtroopers. While in a heavily muslim country where they have a strong base they may one day develop the potential to act as a ruling class backlash against a working class movement , its just not going to happen in the UK or the US.



Will Neo-Nazis ever accomplish a racially pure U.S. or Europe? Probably not. Will Christian fascists ever accomplish the rapture? Definitely not. Having stupid pipe-dreams doesn't make you less dangerous.



No but having a large potential support base does.



It's a priority wherever it's encountered. However, this isn't reality, this is RevLeft. We're not fighting anything. We're wasting time by arguing about random subjects.


Of course because I don't have the time and the transportation to be doing anything at this point in time. But the thing is thoguh is that while yes if you see a stall set up by idiots verbally abusing women expcially if they look like they may come from a muslim background then yes by all means confront it but at a point where the left wing movement is very small , concentrating on such a small problem is unproductive.



If it makes you feel any better, there are all sorts of groups that are significantly less relevant than Islamic fascists, that I would still find meaning and use in trying to disrupt and immobilize. For example, Scientologists. Or New Age hoaxsters. Or NAMBLA.



Targeting such tiny tiny tiny groups is not our job and while it may be worth doing when we have the manpower to spare , we simply do not have that at this time to confront nonce groups at the like.


I'm not exactly proposing an anti-fascist coalition with the BNP, here.


No but it will get you support from BNPers which although something that is needed to do to reduce the influence of said org it shouldnt be done by pandering to prejudices against brown people. The moment you fail to cotton rap the class struggle arguments in something critizing Islam or whatever they will simply flock away.


And the same is true of Islamist views.
Yes but islamist views are simply not going to become widespread. Do you realisticly see large amounts of the western population converting to islam?





I'm not trying to convince anyone of that point. I'm trying to convince people that insurgent right-wing populism can be accurately described as fascism, regardless of whether it's rooted in Islam or not.

I'm not deny that you fet Islamic fascists.I'm asking if its really a point worth investing much time effort and resources in.

Picking smaller targets works sometimes. I'm not suggesting that we exclusively focus on the Islamic right, that would be stupid, especially in places where there is no Islamic right.


So we should ignore Odinist Neo-Nazis and Christian Identity groups as well? If our enemies are small and isolated, (and the truth is that the radical right, regardless of what its religious windowdressing happens to be, is right now larger and less isolated than the radical left) we should stamp them out while we still can

I think small groups that won't get anywhere like viking fetishist nazis and crack pot mullahs should be cracked down on by anti fash groups however I do think that organizatios that have other aims then antifa work should concentrate on winning popularity then decreasing other people's.


Organizing against right-populists does get results, Islamist right-populists included. Random apolitical working-class immigrants from Islamic reigons aren't going to give a shit about the communist project unless communists actually do something that shows they give a shit about their communities. Rooting out right-wing populists is a great example. It gives us a springboard to dialogue.

I personally think concentrating on issues like council housing and defending them from idiotic EDLers would go down far better. By all means if they get in the way in those areas come down hard on Islamists but if you don't need to then tbh its probably abit of a waste of time and money.




How will stricter policies towards right-populist manifestations make us more prone to third positionist tendencies? If anything the National Bolsheviks get a woodie from Al-Qaeda.

Because you run the risk of having to appeal to peoples daily mail sides for support or having said daily mailers join the organization rotting it from within.



Exactly. Self defense against racist, misogynistic, homophobic idiots, such as the BNP and the Taliban.


I was thinking about forcing the state to be more toleratant of workers defending themselves from all kinds of scum such as dealers. Yes defending against right wing fucks is important but do you really think most left wing orgnizatiosn have the resources to spare to go after a few deranged muslims.



You already made your choice my friend, regardless of how unwise it was. :D

Seriously mate your doing everyone massive favors by keeping me occupied.

* This iis because simply there are far more white people and white communities have a stronger tradition of working class organization.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

How do you figure this out? Have you asked him his views? While I think the term islamophobia is inadvisable is it inconceivable that you can have an amalgam of fascist and islamic ideas?

Not in reality. The issue isn't f they are keeping in tradition to some book written yonks ago but if they are using theism to rally a support base in Muslim ares.

[Dimentio]

Actually an interesting question. Is muslim organisations wanting to install Sharia laws for muslim-dominated communities in the west (or in other non-muslim majority countries like Thailand) reactionary right-wing organisation or misled groups talking for oppressed segments of the population? Or both?

In Sweden, there has been a recent convergence between some nazi organisations (headed by the Nordic Association), and radical islamists around the rogue poet Mohamed Omar. For example, Mohamed Omar's al-Qods demonstration on the 20th of September consisted of both islamists and nazis.

The counter-demonstration consisted of fascists (Sweden democrats), anti-fa activists and Iranian royalists. It seems like the entire political spectrum on the fringes are turning around the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

[prinzsharming]

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum. I signed up after stumbling upon this thread when googling, "Sharia Law and Homophobia". I've finished reading all four pages and it does seem that you've drifted some way from the subject matter. This thread doesn't really answer my questions but you seem like a smart group of guys so I'd like to continue this thread and bring it back to the subject matter.

You see, I'd come across a website promoting Sharia law in the UK, can't remember the name of it but there were some pretty disgusting opinions about homosexuals and some people were saying we should be dealt with in the same way the Iranians deal with 'gays'. I'm not sure if there are many gay guys on here but from one of the posts above, you seem to know that in Iran, they torture gays to death using the most barbaric form of torture ever concocted.

Am I to understand this is what Sharia law enforces? I can't imagine any such law ever entering the British legal system but I've also read that there are a number of Sharia law courts already in existence in this country.

Anyway, like the OP I have been the victim of homophobic attacks in the past. Not necessarily from Muslims, mostly from white guys actaully. The recent murder of the gay serviceman on the news lead me to google homophobia again and this lead me to search Sharia law, so I put them together and here I am. Still as confused.

Are people actually supporting Sharia law in this country? Is our government allowing it?

[Holden Caulfield]

Am I to understand this is what Sharia law enforces? I can't imagine any such law ever entering the British legal system but I've also read that there are a number of Sharia law courts already in existence in this country.



homosexuals were castrated chemically in this country as late as the 1950's. You can still not be openly gay in the american army, it used to be considered a mental disease, you cannot marry in some states, you cannot hold hands with a man in public. etc etc

It would appear 'christian laws' are just as bad

Where as in 1917 the Bolsheviks legalised homosexuality.


Are people actually supporting Sharia law in this country? Is our government allowing it?
No and No utter bullshit. The threat of sharia is a bogey man to whip up people on the far right to support racist policies, whether you think you are or not, you are. The BNP and scummy little tory rags like the Sun, the mail, the telegraph make up stories about Muslims to help the right wing grow and to divide the working class.

There is more danger for homosexuals from bigoted white scumbags as you can see at the last big gay pride demo: NF turn up to protest against them. There is more threat from the BNP who effect policy more than some mental muslim extremeists could even imagine.

As for your post in the other thread, this is a forum for revolutionary leftists, not a place we have so we can spend all day arguing about things with people who fundamentally disagree with us.
Its pathetic you keep up this sad behaviour of making accounts, get a fucking hobby.

[ls]

What would you characterize as the primary difference between fascist methods of state security versus, say, liberal democratic or Marxist-Leninist methods?

Err let's see, persecuting all parts of the left, declaring ethnic superiority, yeah marxist-leninists often declare ethnic superiority don't they.


The bourgeoisie exists under the constant threat of left-wing extremism, though. And how is right-wing extremism any less threatening to the existing power structure?

Because many right-wing extremists are attempting to gain power via electoralism, because most right-wing extremists don't advocate overthrow of the existing power structure and are reformists.


So was Queen Victoria a fascist?

In today's context, you may well be able to consider her as one, in her time however, most of what occurred was normal.


What do you mean by integralism?


t posits society or the state as an end and a moral good, rather than a means.[1] The term integralism was coined by the French atheist poet Charles Maurras, whose conception of nationalism was illiberal and anti-internationalist, elevating the interest of the state above that of the individual and above humanity in general.


So were Stalin and Pol Pot fascists?

I wouldn't use that word no.


Sorry dude, I didn't create them.

Nah, you just keep posting crap in them.


What does that have to do with anything? Mormons are a minority too. There are plenty of ethnically subjugated and oppressed groups that are majorities, look at South Africa.

Do you think they are dangerous fascists too then? Mormons?
..


Perhaps the OP was a "reactionary Western chauvinist idiot", I was merely pointing out that, despite the protest of virtually everyone else contributing to this thread, I feel "Islamo-fascism" is a more accurate term than intended by its originators.

I saw you thanked one post by that antifamanc, I think that's pretty strange really combined with the fact you don't care about how the western media and hegemony conspire to attack and scapegoat muslims

Cba to respond to the rest of your post, I'll unsubscribe if people keep posting boring crypto-chauvinist crap.

[Jethro Tull]

How in this present time of paki bashing and general unpleasantness towards Muslims do you think a bunch of white folk (because most of the European leftist movement is white*) turning up and saying "no muslim nazi people become communists" how is that going to be received?

As I said, a small clique of white left-communists is not going to vanquish the Islamist right. The majority of outreach to Muslim immigrant communities, infiltration of Islamist reactionary groups, etc. will not be done by white people, for obvious reasons.


Leaving that to leftists within the muslim community

Yes but it is still important for sympathetic whiteys to offer material solidarity.


Well they are more religious nutcases along the lines of the Evangelicals that bomb abortion clinics then nazi stormtroopers.

The Nazis were religious nutcases, though. They were just European Pagans rather than Abrahamists.


While in a heavily muslim country where they have a strong base they may one day develop the potential to act as a ruling class backlash against a working class movement, its just not going to happen in the UK or the US.

Right-populism is a working-class movement. That's the problem, they're a direct competitor. To summarize fascism as a "ruling-class backlash" is far too black and white. Also, it's worth pointing out that, as far as your prophecies go, "one day" has already arrived in the Islamic world.


No but having a large potential support base does.

And right-wing Muslims do have a large potential support base.


Of course because I don't have the time and the transportation to be doing anything at this point in time.

It's cool. I was just teasing.


but at a point where the left wing movement is very small , concentrating on such a small problem is unproductive.

I don't see how concentrating on fixing problems is unproductive. It's not going to make us smaller, that's for sure.


Targeting such tiny tiny tiny groups is not our job

Who says what our job is? In my mind our job is to directly intervene against suffering and exploitation as it operates in our community. This means attacking small targets as well as large.


and while it may be worth doing when we have the manpower to spare , we simply do not have that at this time to confront nonce groups at the like.

But we do have the manpower to take on larger groups? That makes no tactical sense.


No but it will get you support from BNPers

Not if we're being efficient and explicit anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, anti-racists, and anti-patriarchalists.


although something that is needed to do to reduce the influence of said org

Yes but the only way to do that is to vocally discredit said org, same goes for the right-wing Muslims. Standing out is better than pandering and going with the flow.


it shouldnt be done by pandering to prejudices against brown people.

To me, denouncing right-populist Islam is not "prejudice against brown people". Islamism is an idea, white people can be Islamists too...


The moment you fail to cotton rap the class struggle arguments in something critizing Islam or whatever they will simply flock away.

If they have no interest in class struggle than why do we need them anyway?


Yes but islamist views are simply not going to become widespread. Do you realisticly see large amounts of the western population converting to islam?

Why is it only the "western population" that matters?


I'm asking if its really a point worth investing much time effort and resources in.

It is if we want to mobilize a functioning left-wing resistance.


I think small groups that won't get anywhere like viking fetishist nazis and crack pot mullahs

how are the followers of crackpot mullahs a "small group", though? Clerical Muslim fascism is much more popular than radical leftism.


antifa work should concentrate on winning popularity then decreasing other people's.

Isn't it the same thing though? In order to grow in ranks, someone else needs to subtract in ranks.


I personally think concentrating on issues like council housing and defending them from idiotic EDLers would go down far better.

And how does that exclude intelligent Islamic anti-fascism?


By all means if they get in the way in those areas come down hard on Islamists

Yes but the best defense is an offense.


Because you run the risk of having to appeal to peoples daily mail sides for support

Why would we have to appeal to "peoples' Daily Mail sides"? That's certainly not something I advocate.


or having said daily mailers join the organization rotting it from within.

If that happens, the organization sucked to begin with.


I was thinking about forcing the state to be more toleratant of workers defending themselves from all kinds of scum such as dealers.

The same bullet is just as useful against a theocratic thug as a drug-dealer.


Yes defending against right wing fucks is important but do you really think most left wing orgnizatiosn have the resources to spare to go after a few deranged muslims.

Unfortunately the Islamist movements are no longer "a few deranged Muslims". If they were, our lives would be a lot easier.


white communities have a stronger tradition of working class organization.

What? That's crap. You might as well join the BNP if you actually believe that "bollocks", as you limeys like to say.

[Jethro Tull]

persecuting all parts of the left

Republican and liberal democratic states have done the same thing in the past.


declaring ethnic superiority

Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et. al believed in ethnic superiority. But they weren't fascists, they were liberal democrats.


yeah marxist-leninists often declare ethnic superiority don't they.

Well, the CPUSA did....


Because many right-wing extremists are attempting to gain power via electoralism, because most right-wing extremists don't advocate overthrow of the existing power structure and are reformists.

In my mind, fascism, historically speaking, has a stronger electoralist / reformist tendency than, say, anarchism. Hitler won an election, after all.


In today's context, you may well be able to consider her as one, in her time however, most of what occurred was normal.

So "fascist" is just a synonym for "socially conservative"?


I wouldn't use that word no.

Than fascism is more specific than just an extreme manifestation of 'state-capitalist' totalitarianism.


Nah, you just keep posting crap in them.

A crime you're guilty of as well! :lol:


Do you think they are dangerous fascists too then? Mormons?

Yes, Mormonism began as fascist movement and many Mormom sects are still fascist.


I saw you thanked one post by that antifamanc

So?


you don't care about how the western media and hegemony conspire to attack and scapegoat muslims

I don't?


crypto-chauvinist crap.

:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

To be fair, I'm not envisioning the crushing defeat of the Islamist right by a half-dozen white left-communists burning a racist caricature of Muhammad.

To be accurate, it wasn't left communists who burnt an effigy of Mohammed, it was the UK anarchist group Class War. Left communists condemned it.


I'm still interested in debating whether it's appropriate to classify radical right-wing Islamic groups as "fascists" or not, I find the off-topic personal attacks as annoying as you do. If someone has a problem with how I format my posts, they can just ignore them.

I don't think that most right-wing Islamic groups are fascist. I think that the term is bounded around until it becomes meaningless. I don't think that the Mormons are fascists either.

That doesn't mean that their are not Islamic fascists. The Turkish nationalist-Islamic synthesis would be an example.

Fascism is a particular thing though, not just a name to cry wolf with at every right wing group.

Devrim

[Holden Caulfield]

Fascism is a particular thing though, not just a name to cry wolf with at every right wing group.

speak on brother...

what do you define fascism as Devrim? seen as we disagree on it I would like to know if we define it the same

[Devrim]

what do you define fascism as Devrim? seen as we disagree on it I would like to know if we define it the same

I think that fascism is first of all a particular phenomenon that appeared in Europe after the crushing of the revolutionary wave. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't fascists around today, but I think you agree with me that no everything right wing is fascist.

I think that it is something that rose to power on the backs of defeated revolutionary movements. I think that it is nationalistic, corporatist, and overtly incorporates trade unions into the state. I will come back later and flesh this out a bit, but I don't have the time now.

Devrim

[Jethro Tull]

I think that fascism is first of all a particular phenomenon that appeared in Europe

I think that's a legitimate definition of fascism, however, it also discredits the use of the term "anti-fascist" by U.S. activists who confront Christian Patriots, Dominionists / Identity Christians, the Minutemen, neo-Confederates John Birch Society, etc.

However, whether or not fascism ws a "particular phenomenon that appeared in Europe", anti-fascist tactics used against fascists in Europe also works on these groups in the US. I'd say that the general circumstances which created that particular phenomenon were and are present in other parts of the world, including the middle east. But then again, I don't think Godwin, Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin invented the left.


after the crushing of the revolutionary wave.

I disagree. There is a complicated series of conditions that lead to the emergence of fascism in Europe, I don't think the "crushing" of left-wing revolutionaries was one of them. (For one thing, the left-wing revolutionaries in Europe were never entirely "crushed".) This is just more banal leftist triumphalism.

What I think primarily causes fascism is when the priviliged sector of the oppressed class (the labor aristocracy, petit-bourgeois, etc.) is stripped of some of its priviliges as a consequence of changes in capitalism. This applies to Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWI which were basically left behind in the race to colonialism. It applies to certain populations in the South during and after the US Civil War. It applies to the white masses in modern-day US. It also applies to modern-day ethnic/religious majority groups in India, the Middle East, etc.


Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't fascists around today, but I think you agree with me that no everything right wing is fascist.

Of course not. Fascism and establishment conservatism are two seperate political phenomena. Hence why there was a coup attempt against fascist Germany by the conservative establishment. (Lead by Tom Cruise no less!)


I think that it is something that rose to power on the backs of defeated revolutionary movements.

I would agree if you substituted the word "defeated" for "co-opted". This applies to many phenomena in the Islamic world as well, though.


I think that it is nationalistic, corporatist, and overtly incorporates trade unions into the state.

Mussolini never described fascism as "corporatist", that's an urban legend.

Fascism is nationalistic, but so are many ideologies. Republican liberalism was very nationalistic in revolutionary France.

Fascist regimes have certainly incorporated trade unions into the state. If that is a characteristic specific to fascism, Lenin and Roosevelt would have to be regarded as fascists.


I will come back later and flesh this out a bit, but I don't have the time now.

It's cool, not having time to dick around on a message board is a good thing.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Why call it Islamofascism? If it's fascism it's fascism (which it isn't always in the case of that term being used).

Would you call the oppression of Palestine Judaofascism, or the USA Chrisitanfascism, or fascism in an african nation afro-fascism?

[Ravachol]

This discussion on fascism, 'islamofascism' and what is fascism and what not seems to be going on for bloody ages.

Fascism is a very diffuse set of ideologies grouped around a few core beliefs, mainly:



Ultranationalism
Reactionary Romanticism, a desire for a past that never existed as it is pictured by the fascists (eg. 'the glorious roman empire')
A desire for a homogenous nation (whether on racial or 'cultural' grounds is rather irrelevant), stressing national unity and hence opposition to class struggle.
Usually some form of corporatist economics as to unify the nation's working class and bourgoise in a joint organisation under control of the highest fascist authority (consisting of influentual segments of the bourgoise)
Disdain for 'hochfinanz'/International Capital, clasically identified with Jews, nowadays seen as 'American influence on our culture'. This is however no opposition to capital as such, but only to capital that threatens national unity.
Hatred for working-class movements (Eg. the radical left, unions,etc) who threaten national unity through class war.
Glorification of violence for violence' sake, as best expressed by the fascist theorist Julius Evola who states that 'the paradise is to be found in the shadow of the swords'. Violence embodies manliness and the 'will to power'.
A cult of 'manliness',as examplified in the former point, to combat percieved 'national decline' or victimhood (Eg. from 'the jewish poison' or 'islamisation')
Authoritarianism as embodied in either the 'fuhrer principle' or through rigid, undemocratic vertical bureaucracies.
The desire for internal unity through 'gleichschaltung' and cleansening of minorities threatening this unity (Eg. homosexuals, ethnic minorities,etc).


Fascism, by it's very name, which comes from the Italian 'Fascio', a bundle of sticks, is the extreme desire for national unity, both against 'internal enemies' and 'external enemies' and is hence always nationalist in nature.

Secondly we must acknowledge that there are two forms of fascism, 'mass-supported' fascism, such as that of Mussolini's National Fascist Party or the German NSDAP and 'fascism from above' such as that of Engelbert Dolfuss of Austria (before the German Anschluss) or the Greek Military Junta.

The second variant is usually a more or less open dictatorship by the bourgoise while the former is usually the result of failed revolutionary potential and the diversion of the working class towards fascism.

Now, there are usually religious elements in fascism, but that is mainly the result of the cultural context (Eg. the Belgian catholic Rex movement, Integralism,etc) where religion is a major element in the 'national identity'. Hence you will never see fascist movements aiming at 'national unity' whilst supporting a minority relgion, since this support will threaten national unity.

Now it might very well be possible for fascist movements to express support for Islamism (Islam as a political movement) in a country where Islam is a major force, in fact the Turkish Grey Wolves are such an example.
However, it should be noted that this support is only in the national context, the Grey Wolves oppose radical Islam which disregards the 'Turkish Identity' such as Al-Qaeda's Islamism.

Hence we can conclude that fascism and Islam are combinable but only when it serves the cause of national unity in an authoritarian fashion.

Thirdly, movements like Al-Qaeda cannot be considered 'fascist' because they are internationalist in nature. They aim for a global Califate with Islam as their identity, seeing nationalism as dividing Islamic Identity.

Sure, Al-Qaeda's ideologe, Sayyid Qutb, displays ideas similar to a lot of radical traditionalist fascists. But it is his internationalism that sets him apart from them. Even rabidly religious fascists like Codreanu's Legion of the Archangel Michael/Iron Guard are nationalist in nature and are thus different from equally rabid religious movements like Al-Qaeda or Hizb ut Tahir which are internationalist and focus on religion as their choice of Identity Politics.

So in short, Yes some far-right Islamist movements show remarkable similarities with fascism but they aren't fascist. The best label I can think of would be clerical-authoritarian.

Now on the issue of combatting these groups, yes they need to be confronted but let us first look at the main issues involved here:



Are these groups a significant political force? No they are not. Scientology, Libertarianism,etc are all reactionary groups with some support in each of our respective countries but they are not a mayor force. So wasting our time combatting these groups should not be a priority. Sure when these groups openly manifest, grow in support or start showing some political significance we should confront them. Same goes for Clerical-Authoritarian Islamists.
Most certainly combatting these groups should follow a different line of thought than "DEY TUK UR LIBERTAYS, DEY THREATAN UR CULTURE, DEY DERK UR DERBS", it should follow a radical left-wing line with a focus on class struggle, minority rights (women, homosexuals,etc).

So yes, these groups need to be combatted but only when they show the potential of being a significant political force or being able to be the bootboy for some other significant reactionary political force (such as various small-time bonehead groups do for larger political forces such as the BNP,NPD or Vlaams Belang).

[Steveo78]

I feel sorry for our gay comrade. He's got a point as well when you think about it.

I'm certainly going to look into it.

[Ravachol]

I feel sorry for our gay comrade. He's got a point as well when you think about it.

I'm certainly going to look into it.

IF , for one bloody second you would have taken the time to let go of that cock in your hand, read my previous post, thought about it and it's relation to your 'gay comrade' and my position (and that of most of the radical left) on the issue of far-right Islamism you would not have posted such an ignorant post. Secondly, you are another obvious troll with 6 posts all relating to the EDL. Let me spell it out for you sugarpants:

We will never support far-right groups like the EDL, whether they oppose the BNP/C18/Blood&Honour or not (they smash each other's heads all the time).
Whether you claim to stand for 'gay rights' or not.
Whether you post a gazillion times more or not.
We will keep opposing the EDL and similar movements wherever they arise and kick you off the fucking streets when necessary.
We will oppose far-right Islamism in our own way, from a radical-left, class struggle point of view.

Now heres some free advice:

Stop making new accounts with different proxies and free email services and get a goddamn hobby.

[Jethro Tull]

This discussion on fascism, 'islamofascism' and what is fascism and what not seems to be going on for bloody ages.

This is the Internet you're talking about...


Fascism, by it's very name [...] is [...] always nationalist in nature.

I don't think this is inherently true. I'd say the "pan-aryan" tendency is quasi-internatonalist. (Many fascist ideologies put the sovereignty of traditionally defined nation-states on the back burner in favor of a global "whiteness" which is somewhat similar to the "Islamic" identity of Islamist clerical-fascists.) Many extreme primitivist fascists advocate destruction of the nation state. etc.


open dictatorship by the bourgoise [...] authoritarianism [...] through rigid, undemocratic vertical bureaucracies

See, now you're just describing every manifestation of capitalism.


the Grey Wolves oppose radical Islam which disregards the 'Turkish Identity' such as Al-Qaeda's Islamism.

Yes but as you pointed out, fascists attack each other.



Are these groups a significant political force?

Are we?

[Devrim]

I think that's a legitimate definition of fascism, however, it also discredits the use of the term "anti-fascist" by U.S. activists who confront Christian Patriots, Dominionists / Identity Christians, the Minutemen, neo-Confederates John Birch Society, etc.

Yes, I think it needs discrediting. To me this is an example of people screaming fascist at every right wing thing.


I disagree. There is a complicated series of conditions that lead to the emergence of fascism in Europe, I don't think the "crushing" of left-wing revolutionaries was one of them. (For one thing, the left-wing revolutionaries in Europe were never entirely "crushed".) This is just more banal leftist triumphalism.

I think if you look at the countries where fascism emerged, Italy, Hungary, Spain, Germany, they were all places where the counter revolution, often led by the 'socialists' had triumphed against the working class with force of arms.


Mussolini never described fascism as "corporatist", that's an urban legend.

But the Italian fascist state was corporatist.


Fascist regimes have certainly incorporated trade unions into the state. If that is a characteristic specific to fascism, Lenin and Roosevelt would have to be regarded as fascists.

That is why I said overtly. Also it is not the only characteristic.


Now it might very well be possible for fascist movements to express support for Islamism (Islam as a political movement) in a country where Islam is a major force, in fact the Turkish Grey Wolves are such an example.
However, it should be noted that this support is only in the national context, the Grey Wolves oppose radical Islam which disregards the 'Turkish Identity' such as Al-Qaeda's Islamism.

The BBP would be a better example of this point.

Devrim

[Ravachol]

I don't think this is inherently true. I'd say the "pan-aryan" tendency is quasi-internatonalist. (Many fascist ideologies put the sovereignty of traditionally defined nation-states on the back burner in favor of a global "whiteness" which is somewhat similar to the "Islamic" identity of Islamist clerical-fascists.) Many extreme primitivist fascists advocate destruction of the nation state. etc.


The 'pan-aryan' or 'pan-white' identity movement, which usually manifests as 'white nationalism' regardless of existing nation-states is not internationalist, it's still nationalist since it takes a static 'nation' of people as it's base.
The NSDAP looked towards pan-germanic nationalism, hence ignoring existing nation-states. That does not make them internationalist however.
The main difference is that nationalism takes a static base of subjects, defined by some birth or environment-given conditions such as ethnicity, 'race' and in some cases 'culture'. This 'nation' might be dispersed throughout existing nation-states, but that is irrelevant. Clerical-Authoritarian Islamists disregard the nation-concept as a whole, since anyone can become a muslim and join the global Caliphate which desires to span the globe as opposed to nationalism. Of course there are a lot of different angles and definitions possible, but as far as I'm concerned, Pan-Islamism is different from Pan-Aryanism mainly because the former is centred around an Ideology anyone can adapt to, hence making it internationalist in nature, whilst the second is a static identity one either is or is not part of.

As for the 'primitivist fascists' (I assume you are referring to the national-anarchist tendency as advocated by Troy Southgate and those jokers of Cercle de La Rose Noir) they do not in fact advocate abolition of the nation-state at all. They simply decentralize it, seeking to establish a federation of communes all based on a single static identity (Eg. 'germanic', 'nordic',etc) based on exclusiveness. Although these communes are decentralized they limit the free association that comes with real anarchist communes. Since these communes have a 'nation' based on a static identity as their subject base and not the free association of their subjects, they are as much a nationstate as any nationstate advocated by 'casual' fascists. But I really don't want to delve into the 'theory' of these 'nouvelle droite' clowns (whether National-Anarchist, National-Bolshevist or god knows what).

Now before anyone thinks I oppose struggles of national liberation, no I do not (dear lord, protect me from the angry left communists about te beset me from all sides) because in my opinion nationalism is possible in a non-exclusive context and organizing around a certain identity that for some reason experiences class struggle more intense than another is no more than normal. For example, Black liberation and Women liberation are two such struggles where certain identities ,although constructed as such by capitalism (no black people are really black, what I mean is the identity of 'the black man' as it is today in capitalism), experience the hardships of class struggle more intense than others, because their position in capitalist society allows the bourgoise to exploit them even harded than other identities. The same goes for imperialism, where the workers of the repressed nation experience class struggle way more intense than the workers of the opressing nation do. This heightens class conciousness and the resulting struggle for national liberation (or as mentioned before, black or women's liberation) is a manifestation of class struggle. What must indeed be watched out for is that this national liberation does not turn into a struggle for national unity, which is something different since it seeks to unite AROUND a national identity (including bourgois members and becoming exclusive in nature eg. against immigrants) and not seeking to struggle from a national identity in the context of class struggle.

Let it also be clear though that I desire internationalism and see class struggle as the only struggle achieving a better world and that I oppose nation-states as such. My support for struggles of national liberation comes mainly from the fact that I see them as manifestations of class struggle and from the fact that it weakens imperialist capital and usually heightens class conciousness.

It's all a little difficult yes and requires some nuances.:laugh:



See, now you're just describing every manifestation of capitalism.


No i'm describing ONE of the facets of Fascism, which is capitalism in it's most authoritarian form. You're making a logical error here.
Every manifestation of fascism contains capitalism in it's most authoritarian form.
But not every manifestation of capitalism contains all facets of fascism.

See, no bi-implication there.



Yes but as you pointed out, fascists attack each other.


So? That does not define a fascist. The ideologies of the Grey Wolves (or as Devrim pointed out the BBP) and Pan-Islamism are inherently opposed. Different strains of fascism just fight because of internal power struggle, exaggerated minor differences (which the left is no stranger to either) or general boneheaddedness (the most common case).


Yes, I think it needs discrediting. To me this is an example of people screaming fascist at every right wing thing.


I can understand mobilizing against far-right reactionary movements that aren't exactly fascist under the label of anti-fascism though, I've done so myself quite a few times. The Anti-fascist movement simply incorporates (or should incorporate) a broad resistance against any reactionary ideology, Christian Identity, Minute Men,etc and yes, HuT included, depending on their political significance since we haven't got the manpower to oppose all those movements, especially if they're rather small it's a waste of time.



The BBP would be a better example of this point.
Devrim

True, forgot about them. The Grey Wolves/MHP are a bit more well known here in mainland Europe.

[Jethro Tull]

The 'pan-aryan' or 'pan-white' identity movement, which usually manifests as 'white nationalism' regardless of existing nation-states is not internationalist, it's still nationalist since it takes a static 'nation' of people as it's base.
The NSDAP looked towards pan-germanic nationalism, hence ignoring existing nation-states.

The internationalist right-wing Islamist movements we've been discussing though, have a cultural standard of Muslim-ness that is very similar. I would say they bear less similarity to racialist and nationalist fascists, than they do to, for example, the New Apostolic Pentacostals, who, unlike the Dominionists and Identity Christians, allow for members of ostracized and stigmatized ethnic groups (Blacks, Latinos, Indians, Jews, Pennsylvania Germans, Catholics, etc.) to cast away their "generational demons" and assimilate into their Leave It To Beaver WASP paradise.

So, you are very correct, there is a difference between fascist ideologies which primarily appeal to racialism or nationalism, and far-right, populist insurgencies which substtue the nation or race for a vey strict religious or cultural volksgemeinschaft. However, the difference, to tell you the truth, is not that substantial. The similarities, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, still very obvious and strong. Therefore it is more appropriate to refer to, say, extremist Mormons, Latter Rain Pentacostals, or internationalist right-wing jihadists as fascists than, say, Paul Wolfowitz or Nancy Pelosi.


That does not make them internationalist however.

This is arguably true of the Islamist groups too, as they assimilate everyone into the cultural values of (their interpretation of) Islam. In theory this could be seen as internationalist, however were it actually somehow put into practice on a global scale (which it obviously never will) it would invole the obliteration of hundreds or thousands of ethnic identities whose expressions conflict with these far-right groups' percepton of Islamic values.


The main difference is that nationalism takes a static base of subjects, defined by some birth or environment-given conditions such as ethnicity, 'race' and in some cases 'culture'. This 'nation' might be dispersed throughout existing nation-states, but that is irrelevant. Clerical-Authoritarian Islamists disregard the nation-concept as a whole, since anyone can become a muslim and join the global Caliphate which desires to span the globe as opposed to nationalism.

Yes, but you yourself have alreay (correctly) named Evola as an influential fascist intellectual. Evola's ideology bears more in common with the far-right clerical Islaamists we are discussing, than with "standard" fascism. For example, (although I'm not as much of an Evola scholar as others may be) Evola viewed being "Aryan" as existing in a spiritual state - it was something he believed any member of any race or nation could achieve. (This put him at odds with the Nazi status quo at times) Very similar to the right-wing concept of Islam, actually...(or certain Christian-fascist concepts of Christianity, etc.)


As for the 'primitivist fascists' (I assume you are referring to the national-anarchist tendency as advocated by Troy Southgate and those jokers of Cercle de La Rose Noir) they do not in fact advocate abolition of the nation-state at all. They simply decentralize it, seeking to establish a federation of communes all based on a single static identity (Eg. 'germanic', 'nordic',etc) based on exclusiveness. Although these communes are decentralized they limit the free association that comes with real anarchist communes. Since these communes have a 'nation' based on a static identity as their subject base and not the free association of their subjects, they are as much a nationstate as any nationstate advocated by 'casual' fascists. But I really don't want to delve into the 'theory' of these 'nouvelle droite' clowns (whether National-Anarchist, National-Bolshevist or god knows what).

There are other nouvelle droite-style groups (such as the appropriately named American Nihilist Underground Society) which are similar to the Cercle de la Rose Noir but not explicitly or even particularly nationalist or racalist. (If you want a laugh, read their article "Creating the African Superman") The groups currently marginal and irrelevant, however, I'm merely attemtping to illustrate the varous bizarre permiations the parasite of fascist ideology may take.


Now before anyone thinks I oppose struggles of national liberation, no I do not (dear lord, protect me from the angry left communists about te beset me from all sides) because in my opinion nationalism is possible in a non-exclusive context and organizing around a certain identity that for some reason experiences class struggle more intense than another is no more than normal.
For example, Black liberation and Women liberation are two such struggles where certain identities ,although constructed as such by capitalism (no black people are really black, what I mean is the identity of 'the black man' as it is today in capitalism), experience the hardships of class struggle more intense than others, because their position in capitalist society allows the bourgoise to exploit them even harded than other identities. The same goes for imperialism, where the workers of the repressed nation experience class struggle way more intense than the workers of the opressing nation do. This heightens class conciousness and the resulting struggle for national liberation (or as mentioned before, black or women's liberation) is a manifestation of class struggle. What must indeed be watched out for is that this national liberation does not turn into a struggle for national unity, which is something different since it seeks to unite AROUND a national identity (including bourgois members and becoming exclusive in nature eg. against immigrants) and not seeking to struggle from a national identity in the context of class struggle.

I strongly agree with all of this.


Fascism, which is capitalism in it's most authoritarian form.

I disagree. Democracy is as authoritarian.


we haven't got the manpower to oppose all those movements, especially if they're rather small it's a waste of time.

It's not a waste of time to pick on the "small" oppressors to those people, no matter how few, who are oppressed by them, especially since in order to advance our causes we must focus on directly intervening in local politics. A single mom-and-pop restauraunt whose owner is notorious for sexually harassing his female employees is a worthy target of resistance regardless of its size. The Scientologists, who keep popping up as an example for some reason, from what I understand, have the police force of Clearwater, Florida in their pockets. Thus, anyone who would attempt to confront capitalist oppression in Clearwater would end up crossing the Scientologists.

My primary point, in all this, as I've said before, is sometimes it makes strategic sense to attack a small target. Look at Huntingdon Life Sciences...

It's also worth pointing out that right-wing Islam is certainly not a small and irrelevant phenomenon. Right now we are smaller and more irrelevant. It's certainly not anarchists who are causing the U.S. military so much grief in Pakistan right now. It's certainly not anarchists who paralyzed the US economy by blowing up a prominant icon of American capitalism.

You are of an intellectual calibur higher than that of most folks on RevLeft, I've enjoyed arguing with you...

[Jethro Tull]

Oh, I'd like to add that I think we should focus less on the ideological justification (be it defense of a declining or obsolete nation-state, protecting a percieved racial identity, proliferating a set of religious values, etc.) and more on the material causes of insurgent right-populist movments.

[Ravachol]

This is arguably true of the Islamist groups too, as they assimilate everyone into the cultural values of (their interpretation of) Islam. In theory this could be seen as internationalist, however were it actually somehow put into practice on a global scale (which it obviously never will) it would invole the obliteration of hundreds or thousands of ethnic identities whose expressions conflict with these far-right groups' percepton of Islamic values.


Hmmm that much is true, but that would require extending the definition of fascism (or at least, my definition) from a focus on ultranationalism to a focus on homogenity-enforcing identity politics. Although I don't oppose that per se I don't see the merits of stretching the definition of fascism solemnly to include internationalist far-right Islam, especially since it would blur distinctions between national-islamist movements such as the aforementioned Turkish BBP and Internationalist-Islamist movements such as Hizb ut Tahir. Both obviously strive for homogenity enforcement, something obviously anathema to the left, but I remain convinced the context of this homogenity differs. However, if (not that it's ever gonna happen) a global far-right Islamist caliphate would emerge we might indeed consider it a 'nation of Islam' (no reference to the existing group intended) with all the traits of exclusive nationalism inherent to fascism.



Yes, but you yourself have alreay (correctly) named Evola as an influential fascist intellectual. Evola's ideology bears more in common with the far-right clerical Islaamists we are discussing, than with "standard" fascism. For example, (although I'm not as much of an Evola scholar as others may be) Evola viewed being "Aryan" as existing in a spiritual state - it was something he believed any member of any race or nation could achieve. (This put him at odds with the Nazi status quo at times) Very similar to the right-wing concept of Islam, actually...(or certain Christian-fascist concepts of Christianity, etc.)


No I must say, I'm not too familiar with Evola either, I've read summaries of his work and 'Eros and the Mysteries of Love', just for chuckles.
His conception of 'Aryanism' as a spiritual state regardless of ethnicity is indeed at odds with race or ethnicity-based fascism. He did however consider this state more achievable to some races than to others due to intrinsic 'spiritual mechanics'. But this is indeed nitpicking.

My main conviction in this debate was that I consider fascism as focussed around a static 'nation', one based on a certain trait not achievable through adaption. Arguably this disclassifies Evola as a casual fascist, which would be rather odd considering the totality of his opinions.
I suspect the main reason this debate is rather difficult is because the entire concept of 'nation' is vague itself.
At times it has been solemnly ethnicity-based, at other times a mix of ethnicity and culture (or culture as an extension of ethnicity, the 'natural order of things in an ethnic community') and at other times a purely spiritual concept. Now my personal definition of nation includes only the former two since the latter would extend the nation concept to any community bound by identity ties, which would almost approach the concept of community itself. So in my view, a 'nation' is a community of people bound by common ancestry, shared heritage and cultural ties as en extension of these.
In the fascist conception this nation is exclusive as common ancestry and traditions are required for participation, excluding 'newcomers' with a different ancestry and tradition.
Far-right Islamism usually (although some incarnation make this discussion even more troublesome) presents an open image of it's community, enterable for anyone willing to submit to it's laws.

Both however strive for internal unity at any cost, making co-existance with different 'nations' or communities within theirs impossible, so both strive for homogenity indeed. I think that the difference lies with the inclusiveness or exclusiveness to the outside.

It should however remain clear that this is not a 'who is worst' discussion, for those wondering :D, I reject both vigorously.



I disagree. Democracy is as authoritarian.


Hmm this is a difficult one indeed. First of all democracy is a rather difficult concept. Unless you support the idea democracy (even as presented benificially by the radical left) is undesirable, like Wildcat (UK) did/do (which I disagree with), I prefer to refer to it as 'liberal democracy'.

Now both incarnations are repressive, but the reality of repression in fascism, that of the razzias, the violence, the executions,etc differs objectively from the repression in liberal democracy, the repression through surveillance, targeted campaigns by state intelligence.
The former is what I'd like to call 'hard repression' whilst the other is 'soft repression'. Neither are nice to be on the receiving end of, but In my eyes hard repression is less desirable since it objectively interferes more with active Class Struggle and does more damage to it's participants (if only because it is physical). Let it be also clear though that I do not fight fascism to preserve liberal democracy, an error made by many liberal antifascists. I fight it to defeat both.




It's not a waste of time to pick on the "small" oppressors to those people, no matter how few, who are oppressed by them, especially since in order to advance our causes we must focus on directly intervening in local politics. A single mom-and-pop restauraunt whose owner is notorious for sexually harassing his female employees is a worthy target of resistance regardless of its size.


I strongly agree. What I meant to say was (and I should have been more clear about that) that I and most groups I work in or with do not have the manpower to be everywhere at all times. So I and the groups I work with have to set priorities, in which case I choose the most threatening ones.



You are of an intellectual calibur higher than that of most folks on RevLeft, I've enjoyed arguing with you...

Thank you, I've enjoyed our discussion as well, it's good to exchange viewpoints once in a while and reflect upon theory and the resulting strategy from time to time.:cool:


Oh, I'd like to add that I think we should focus less on the ideological justification (be it defense of a declining or obsolete nation-state, protecting a percieved racial identity, proliferating a set of religious values, etc.) and more on the material causes of insurgent right-populist movments.

I agree. I like theory and I think it's important since without theory there can be no solid analysis of reality and a resulting strategy.
But we should indeed not neglect the conditions giving rise to right-wing populism in whatever incarnation it manifests itself. Analysis of those causes usually proves important in analyzing the causes of our failures as well.

[Moon23]

Hmmm that much is true, but that would require extending the definition of fascism (or at least, my definition) from a focus on ultranationalism to a focus on homogenity-enforcing identity politics. Apart from Islamist want create a caliphate which is also a form of state, so in this regard they want to create an international state. That's a form of ultranationalism in my book. The definition of Fascism is hard to pin down, but some academics on the topic of fascism have done a reasonble job. Whose defitinition where you refeering too?


Although I don't oppose that per se I don't see the merits of stretching the definition of fascism solemnly to include internationalist far-right Islam, especially since it would blur distinctions between national-islamist movements such as the aforementioned Turkish BBP and Internationalist-Islamist movements such as Hizb ut Tahir. Both obviously strive for homogenity enforcement, something obviously anathema to the left, but I remain convinced the context of this homogenity differs.My take is that some movements want to create a pan-global caliphat and others want to work within existing elitist structures of the nation state, both are forms of fascim in my definition.

[QUOT]Analysis of those causes usually proves important in analyzing the causes of our failures as well.[/QUOTE] Quite, which is why you owe me an apology for accusing me of being an EDL stooge, and failing to engage with me.

Tell me talking of strategy failures what have any of us done to oppose what I call Islamic fascism and you call far-right global Islamist Jihadist. I include myself as I have attended anti-EDL demos but have never done anything against these Islamists.

[Ravachol]

Apart from Islamist want create a caliphate which is also a form of state, so in this regard they want to create an international state. That's a form of ultranationalism in my book.


No it is not. Read the thread carefully, I said that once the global caliphate is established, it's internal desire for homogenity will bear great similarities with what those of nationalism. It doesn't make it nationalist. As I said before this isn't about whose worse, it's a simple matter of not waving the word 'fascism' in front of everything. I pointed out there are Islamist Fascist movements (BBP, Grey Wolves), but internationalist far-right Islamism isn't fascist.



Quite, which is why you owe me an apology for accusing me of being an EDL stooge, and failing to engage with me.

Tell me talking of strategy failures what have any of us done to oppose what I call Islamic fascism and you call far-right global Islamist Jihadist. I include myself as I have attended anti-EDL demos but have never done anything against these Islamists.

I don't owe anyone an apology. The strategy failures referred to the focus on justification instead of material causes that give rise to fascism. It's nice to hear you where present at the anti-EDL demos, that way I won't have to state collaboration with the EDL is unacceptable. As for opposition to far-right Islamism, I have campaigned against that. If you are really concerned with clerical authoritarian far-right movements, I honestly support any effort you will undertake to campaign against far-right Islamism and Christianity from a radical-leftwing egalitarian point of view. Nobody is saying you can't do that.