WTF Is “Radical Islam�?

[Crux]

This should be a no-brainer but since I sometimes bump into pretty sketchy opinions even among the unrestricted I thought this might be worth posting here.




MoronWatch (http://moronwatch.net/)

Watching morons, so you don't have to

WTF Is “Radical Islam”? (http://moronwatch.net/2012/06/wtf-is-radical-islam.html)

with 33 comments (http://moronwatch.net/2012/06/wtf-is-radical-islam.html#comments)
http://moronwatch.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/union-jack-hijab.jpg (http://moronwatch.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/union-jack-hijab.jpg)Generally, sparring with morons online can be fun. Being told that I’m a pawn of the devil, or a self-hating Jew often makes me smile. But there are more disturbing moments. The ongoing fascist-style campaign to paint all people of Muslim descent as an evil threat to the Western World becomes ever-more reminiscent of what was done to the Jews across Europe and America in the 1930s. Usually, the offenders are semi-literate Bible-bashers, but increasingly, just as in the 30s, secular “liberals” can be found in the melee, swinging a punch or a kick.
Recently, for no apparent reason I could identify, I was accused by some fellow Atheists of “defending Islam”. Now, I’m not aware that I’ve ever “defended Islam”. In fact, that term itself has an Orwellian ring to it, like “supporting terror” or “promoting homosexuality”. It seems “defending Islam” is something that good, secular liberals everywhere must avoid, or face public condemnation. In response, I pointed out that defending Muslims from attack isn’t “defending Islam” – to which I was told: yes it is: because all Muslims uphold Islam, which (as any moron knows) is an evil ideology. I pointed out that I know people who identify as Muslim, but who don’t practise, or in some cases don’t even believe. But these Atheist defenders of rationality told me I was wrong: anybody who claims Muslim identity is bad by definition, I was told.
Fascist stuff indeed: identity, I’ve always believed, is for the individual to choose for himself, and nobody else to force upon him. In my own experience, I tend to feel most Jewish when I encounter anti-Semites (and least Jewish in the company of other Jews). And certainly, a similar transformation is taking place among European and American Muslims: hatred towards Muslims is growing at breakneck speed, and the more times someone has MUSLIM screamed at them, the more Muslim they will feel. Like Judaism, Islam is a deep culture, with its book, traditions and routines. I remember childhood Friday evenings lighting sabbath candles and being allowed a sip of red wine; the prayers and tastes of the Passover dinner; the unique smell of a room decked in fruit and leaves during Sukkot, the harvest festival. My nostalgia over those memories, and my feeling that I was enacting an ancient ritual, are still there, despite my Atheism – the Jewish religion still forms a part of my experience, memories and identity, although I reject its superstitious beliefs. Muslims likewise, both secular and religious, will remember the rituals, the tastes and smells, of their childhoods, and feel Muslim, however little they practise their religion.
The Nazi propaganda campaign against Jews was subtle and sophisticated. How do you persuade Europeans that a tiny minority could be a threat? Some conditions are required: first and foremost, the population must be ready and willing to believe. And indeed, hatred of Jews (and Muslims) is an old European (and Catholic) tradition, dating back many centuries. Next, you take some grains of truth. And then you build up layer after layer of lies.




Post-9/11, the far-right leaped into action and repeated Nazi methodology to the letter. The far-right British National Party didn’t mention Muslims at all prior to 9/11. Their target was “Asians”, but this hate campaign failed to gain much traction. Within days of 9/11, their leaflets were rewritten, and Muslims had replaced Asians as the threat. Those people attacking Muslims today use the Islamophobe’s favourite phrase: I’m not racist; Islam isn’t a race. But to attack Muslims in the UK means to attack Pakistanis, who have been the target of race hate since at least the 1970s. And French fascists now label North and West Africans (who they’ve always attacked) as Muslims. And Dutch or Spanish fascists now label Moroccans (who they’ve always attacked) as Muslims. Bit by bit, European and American fascists have clicked into gear with each other. The anti-Muslim messages have been standardised, strengthened and amplified.
Secular fascism has returned. The Muslim-hating Atheist spreads similar stories of hate to the Christian crusader. Of course, the secular fascist tends to be more intelligent, and more persuasive. Unlike the Christian fascist, the secular fascist can uphold gay rights and women’s rights without hypocrisy, and hence sound more compelling. Secular fascists can sound liberal, and then use their “liberalism” against Islam – or more accurately, against their definition of Islam. Or more accurately still, against Muslims, whatever they believe, and wherever they live. Because the target of European fascism isn’t a religion or ideology, but minority groups: fascism gains strength by demonising minorities. Pre-9/11, there was no coherent “threat” for fascists to unite around. 9/11 gave them a common narrative.
A favourite way to “confront Islam” (or bait Muslims) is to cherry-pick.
“Islam oppresses women”.
“How so?”
“Look at Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan.”
Note how these three countries are repeatedly chosen as examples, ignoring most of the other 50 Muslim countries. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is home to a fundamentalist cult, Wahhabism; or that war-torn Afghanistan is home to the ultra-conservative group, the Taliban; or that Iran is a theocracy. Never mind that these three countries have totally different cultures to each other. Never mind that the modern state of all three societies has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with 20th century Western and Russian foreign policy, with oil, and the American imperial war. In the mind of the moron, this argument is enough. Of course, anything can be “proved” this way: Christian countries have the world’s highest rates of rape. Therefore Christianity is the rapist religion – easy! But of course, fascism is doesn’t target Christians. It targets Muslims, Jews, Roma, blacks… any group that forms a distinct minority in the West.
This was the Nazi method by which the Jewish Problem was invented. The corruption of a Jewish financier, or the explosion of a Zionist bomb, or the “backwardness” of fundamentalist Judaism were unrelated issues. But a combination of clever propaganda and a moronic public turned them into the same thing. Never mind that most Jews who were eventually dragged into concentration camps were neither Zionists nor fundamentalists nor financiers. The Jewish Problem came to mean everything Jewish.
The modern equivalent of the Jewish Problem is Radical Islam. It is equally meaningless, equally misleading, and equally capable of persuading morons that a real threat exists. It is a term that can be stretched to include any group or event. The 9/11 attacks were by Radical Islam, not Saudi dissidents protesting against US occupation of Arab states. Radical Islam (not the conservative Taliban) stopped women from being educated in Afghanistan, and stops women from driving in Saudi Arabia.



Al Qaida, a terrorist organistion, and Hizbollah, which exists to defend against terrorism, are both Radical Islam. It’s enough that both groups are Muslim (although in fact, Hizbollah also has Christian members – details always spoil a simple story). The peace-loving Muslim who prays 5 times a day and the loud-mouthed protester who burns poppies in protest at British involvement in Afghanistan, are both Radical Islam. Support for Iraqi insurgents (and why shouldn’t anyone support those fighting against invasion of their own land?) is Radical Islam, and so is a group of teenagers throwing stones at Israeli soldiers who are helping to destroy their village’s crops. Palestinian activists who belong to the secular Fatah movement are Radical Islam. British Muslims who come out to defend their streets against EDL street thugs are Radical Islam. Women in burqas or hijabs are Radical Islam. The conservative, Islamist government of Turkey is Radical Islam. The conservative Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt are Radical Islam.
Fascism has risen again in Europe, and real people are being hurt today in real attacks – that is the real result of fascists, both religious and secular, “confronting Islam”. When street thugs target Muslim homes and businesses, they don’t care whether the owners are religious or not, political or not. While we’re easily distracted by the moronic antics of street thugs like the EDL, the most dangerous fascism now, as in the 1930s, lives among the middle classes. Generally, fascism is most prevalent among religious conservatives, but secular liberals can be the most persuasive and dangerous advocates of fascism.





Seeing some of my fellow Atheists joining the bullying campaign against ordinary people (whether religious or secular) saddens me, but doesn’t surprise me. After all, Atheism isn’t a movement – it’s simple a lack of belief in a god. I find the religious beliefs of Muslims (and Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists) to be ludicrous – but that debate must be one that accepts the right to believe. Using religious intolerance as a proxy for a race war isn’t a new trick – but apparently it’s one that is as powerful today as it always was.

[Blake's Baby]

Where's this from, Majakovskij?

Have you, really, been told by people that 'anybody who claims Muslim identity is bad by definition'?

If so, by whom? Are these people really 'liberals'?

[Ocean Seal]

Have you, really, been told by people that 'anybody who claims Muslim identity is bad by definition'?
Not so blatantly, but yes.

If so, by whom? Are these people really 'liberals'?
Yes.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Whenever I hear the term radical Islam I envision the prophet Muhammad skate boarding.

[Crux]

Where's this from, Majakovskij?

Have you, really, been told by people that 'anybody who claims Muslim identity is bad by definition'?

If so, by whom? Are these people really 'liberals'?
Yes, even from supposed socialists, in various more or less blatant forms.

As if liberalism would not act as a tool for the ruling class.

[Crux]

Consider this thread, for example: http://www.revleft.com/vb/muslims-problemi-t171321/index.html?t=171321&highlight=islam

[hatzel]

Have you, really, been told by people that 'anybody who claims Muslim identity is bad by definition'?

Yeah the minute I read that in the OP I thought 'well that's Nox's infamous party trick!' and now I see Maja's posted up a link to that exact thread so yeah clearly it happens. Even amongst those who fancy themselves as pretty radical or whatever. Actually I'm not going to lie to you I've personally found that many of the proudest racists are these very pseudo-radicals, framing their racism as part of a broader 'progressive' paradigm, as if it is an integral and necessary part of it.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, even from supposed socialists, in various more or less blatant forms...

Elysian doesn't count, he's a Radical Christian.

However, my use of that term doesn't in any way mean that I think 'anybody who claims Christian identity is bad by definition'. Though Elysian is.

As for Nox, well, yes, claimning that 'virtually all of them are reactionary' is a stupid and reactionary position.


...
As if liberalism would not act as a tool for the ruling class.

Your point?

Of course liberalism is a bourgois ideology. It is the ideology of inclusion par excellance.

Certainly some atheists seem to spend more time attacking Islam than Christianity. So do some feminists as regards islam v western democracy, and some LGBT campigners as regards islam v more 'tolerant' countries where LGBT rights are respected.

However, I suspect these people are often not actually 'liberals' but are more often nationalists and even neo-fascists using liberal triggers - 'but oppression of women is bad so kick the muslim darkies out coz they're all at it...' or 'you know who really hates fags... I mean our gay white brothers... muslims, so kick the darkies out' or 'well if there's one religion that's more barbaric than all the others it's islam so kick the darkies out...' etc.

Perhaps this has permeated over and has now become a matter of public discourse among the actual 'liberals' (ie those holding 'socially liberal' views). Sadly, if it's true, it'll be yet another symptom of the breakdown of capitalist society.

Obviously, my view is that all religions are reactionary, but as communists we should engage with workers no matter what their consciousness is, and we should never be writing off sections of the proleariat as 'too reactionary' or 'too barbaric' or 'too stupid' or anything else.

[l'Enfermé]

Hizbollah exists to defend against terror, and not to advance the interests of the Iranian ruling class in the Levant? Secret fascist conspiracies(the word is used 19 times in the OP, that's a record! - just yell "fascist!, fascist!, fascist!" at your opponent and that automatically makes you right, what a juvenile tactic). And what does the author of the OP have against liberals? He's a petty liberal himself.

There's no more fascism. It's gone. Democracy triumphed.

[Tim Cornelis]

Islamophobia is not fascism.

[Crux]

Uh yes, european fascism, which very much still exists, is today in the main based on islamophobia. I think you missed the actual point re Hizbollah, Borz.
And Tim Cornelis, yes fascism is fascism, islamophobia is islamophobia...your point was..?

[Rafiq]

Do these morons know how idiotic they sound when they say "Radical Islam"? What? Is Islamic Fundemantalism a revolutionary current now?

Word: Radical

Linguistic (?) Origin: Radica (French for root)

Origin of usage: French Leftist revolutionaries whom called themselves Radicals. Communists everywhere quickly adopted usage.

[Tim Cornelis]

Uh yes, european fascism, which very much still exists, is today in the main based on islamophobia. I think you missed the actual point re Hizbollah, Borz.
And Tim Cornelis, yes fascism is fascism, islamophobia is islamophobia...your point was..?

The author uses fascism without its actual meaning. It's quite annoying, like how EDL call antifascists fascists. The author implies as if these national conservatives (islamophobes) are fascists, which they are not.


Do these morons know how idiotic they sound when they say "Radical Islam"? What? Is Islamic Fundemantalism a revolutionary current now?

Word: Radical

Linguistic (?) Origin: Radica (French for root)

Origin of usage: French Leftist revolutionaries whom called themselves Radicals. Communists everywhere quickly adopted usage.

Radical simply means extremist, it has nothing to do with leftism or revolutionary credentials. Radicalism is actually used as synonym for liberalism because of the Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

[Comrade #138672]

The author uses fascism without its actual meaning. It's quite annoying, like how EDL call antifascists fascists. The author implies as if these national conservatives (islamophobes) are fascists, which they are not.



Radical simply means extremist, it has nothing to do with leftism or revolutionary credentials. Radicalism is actually used as synonym for liberalism because of the Enlightenment.Fascism is hard to define. What's your definition of fascism?

[Tim Cornelis]

Fascism is hard to define. What's your definition of fascism?

Palingenetic ultranationalism, the advocacy of staging a national rebirth by means of a totalitarian state.

[Rafiq]

Radical simply means extremist, it has nothing to do with leftism or revolutionary credentials. Radicalism is actually used as synonym for liberalism because of the Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

Radical doesn't equate to extremist, not at all. Indeed, it had origins in the enlightenment era, but afterwards, it became something revolutionary socialists across the globe proudly labelled themselves.

[Rafiq]

Palingenetic ultranationalism, the advocacy of staging a national rebirth by means of a totalitarian state.

That alone is a ridiculous definition, with several Liberal pressuposions ('totalitarianism') running amok already, with absolutely no class analysis taken into consideration.

Fascism is defined by a very exclusive movement in a very exclusive time frame. It represented the degeneration of capitalism, from the 20's to the end of World War two. However, the influence from said movement is well in abundance in modern times, across Europe, especially.

[Tim Cornelis]

That alone is a ridiculous definition, with several Liberal pressuposions ('totalitarianism') running amok already, with absolutely no class analysis taken into consideration.

Totalitarianism is an accurate description of a particular kind of social organisaion. It's senseless to dismiss it for... well no reason actually.


Fascism is defined by a very exclusive movement in a very exclusive time frame. It represented the degeneration of capitalism, from the 20's to the end of World War two. However, the influence from said movement is well in abundance in modern times, across Europe, especially.

That does not even contradict my definition.

[Comrade #138672]

Palingenetic ultranationalism, the advocacy of staging a national rebirth by means of a totalitarian state.What about some minority being the scapegoat of all problems? I thought that was important too. That's why islamophobia would fit fascism quite well.

[Tim Cornelis]

What about some minority being the scapegoat of all problems? I thought that was important too. That's why islamophobia would fit fascism quite well.

Then fascism and xenophobia would be synonyms which they are not. I don't think xenophobia is inherent in fascism. Falangism and Italian fascism did not scapegoat minorities for social problems as far as I know.

[Rafiq]

Totalitarianism is an accurate description of a particular kind of social organisaion. It's senseless to dismiss it for... well no reason actually.

It's dismissed on the basis that "totalitarianism" is an unscientific dismissal itself of very complex existing modes of organizations of the capitalist mode of production.



That does not even contradict my definition.


Well, your definition misses the point, of the distinctively qualitative features of Fascism both as an Ideology and a variant of the capitalist mode of production.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's dismissed on the basis that "totalitarianism" is an unscientific dismissal itself of very complex existing modes of organizations of the capitalist mode of production.

Science schmience. Do you also refuse to use the words "democracy" and "dictatorship"?


Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

How is this not a form of social organisation?


Well, your definition misses the point, of the distinctively qualitative features of Fascism both as an Ideology and a variant of the capitalist mode of production.

The ideology fascism: Palingenetic ultranationalism, the advocacy of staging a national rebirth by means of a totalitarian state.

This is what fascism advocates, perhaps not explicitly, but it's the red threat visible throughout the fascist ideology. From Mongolia to Norway, this definition is applicable.

[helot]

Then fascism and xenophobia would be synonyms which they are not. I don't think xenophobia is inherent in fascism. Falangism and Italian fascism did not scapegoat minorities for social problems as far as I know.

I don't know about scapegoating but there was severe discrimination and oppression of the Basques by the Falangists aimed at suppressing language and culture.

[Rafiq]

Science schmience. Do you also refuse to use the words "democracy" and "dictatorship"?

In this sense, yes. There exists only class dictatorship. I mean, how fucking vague can "democracy" be? Bourgeois democracy? Proletarian democracy?


How is this not a form of social organisation?


It's an imaginary form of social organisation, purely a Liberalist abstraction. Never before has a state existed that sought to regulate every aspect of private or public life whenever they could, openly. According to you, every state that ever was, was "totalitarian". What a shitty semantics game.



The ideology fascism: Palingenetic ultranationalism, the advocacy of staging a national rebirth by means of a totalitarian state.


No class analysis. We call things Fascist because of their class character, not because of ideological rhetoric that is exclusive only in certain time frames.


This is what fascism advocates, perhaps not explicitly, but it's the red threat visible throughout the fascist ideology. From Mongolia to Norway, this definition is applicable.


Perhaps to Bourgeois-Liberals.

[l'Enfermé]

Uh yes, european fascism, which very much still exists, is today in the main based on islamophobia. I think you missed the actual point re Hizbollah, Borz.
And Tim Cornelis, yes fascism is fascism, islamophobia is islamophobia...your point was..?
It exists like Marxism and Anarchism, i.e as an irrelevant sect. The BNP, for example, has only 4,000 members. The only EU country with a significant fascist movement is Greece, and well, Greece makes up only about 1/50th of EU's population. Fascists are more excluded from European society than pedophiles and necrophiliacs.

Fascism is a very specific thing. Right-wing conservatism is not fascism. If you're gonna throw the word around so meaninglessly, you might as well label the Tea Party fascist.

[NGNM85]

Do these morons know how idiotic they sound when they say "Radical Islam"? What? Is Islamic Fundemantalism a revolutionary current now?

Word: Radical

Linguistic (?) Origin: Radica (French for root)

Origin of usage: French Leftist revolutionaries whom called themselves Radicals. Communists everywhere quickly adopted usage.

You didn't seem to understand this a few weeks ago.

[Rafiq]

You didn't seem to understand this a few weeks ago.

Link, or you're full of shit.

[NGNM85]

Link, or you're full of shit.

My, you are an awfully hostile little fellow...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473468&postcount=21 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473468&postcount=21)

Like I said;

“I'm absolutely a Radical..."Radical' comes from the Latin; 'radix', for; 'root.' Being a Radical means seeking not just superficial changes, but fundamental changes, changing the underlying order of society. This is the difference between Radicals, and Liberals…”

To which you posted a baffling response, accusing me of ‘probably’ wanting ‘the capitalist mode of production without it’s inbreds’, which I won’t bother to attempt to decipher. Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, it’s irrelevant. Even if I believe what you accuse me of believing, (And I’m pretty sure I don’t.) and that that it is impossible to construct a stable Socialist society by such methodology, (Presuming, of course, it’s even possible to make such an assessment with any degree of accuracy.) it makes no difference. This is not a sufficient condition of; ‘Radicalism.’

[Rafiq]

My, you are an awfully hostile little fellow...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473468&postcount=21 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2473468&postcount=21)

Like I said;

“I'm absolutely a Radical..."Radical' comes from the Latin; 'radix', for; 'root.' Being a Radical means seeking not just superficial changes, but fundamental changes, changing the underlying order of society. This is the difference between Radicals, and Liberals…”

To which you posted a baffling response, accusing me of ‘probably’ wanting ‘the capitalist mode of production without it’s inbreds’, which I won’t bother to attempt to decipher. Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, it’s irrelevant. Even if I believe what you accuse me of believing, (And I’m pretty sure I don’t.) and that that it is impossible to construct a stable Socialist society by such methodology, (Presuming, of course, it’s even possible to make such an assessment with any degree of accuracy.) it makes no difference. This is not a sufficient condition of; ‘Radicalism.’

What a surprise! You are full of shit!

What? Do you think that because you call yourself a Radical, and I deny this claim, I don't know what a Radical is?

I've always known what a Radical meant, since fucking middle school, where I took French class.

Also:


Which you simply cannot provide, i.e. You want the capitalist mode of production without it's inbreds, you want Worker-Coop dominated society, probably something along the lines of Market Socialism or Autonomous communes (syndicates, if you will) ruling society, which doesn't even make a small dent in the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions. It may have partially addressed class contradiction, but the fact that it doesn't address the rest (Commodity production, Market contradictions, etc.) means that class contradiction is once again inevitable.

So, you're not a Radical.



You put quotes around "Probably wanting the capitalist mode of production wtihout it's inbreds". What a little shit you are. You quoted that, though, as one quick look at my response (which you were unable to address) http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2474163&postcount=25

You'll find that quote is no where to be found. What's wrong, NGNM, you can't win an argument, so you have to twist my words to adjust to whatever response you're capable of making? Pathetic.

[The Burgundy Rose]

Fascism is hard to define. What's your definition of fascism?

Fascism is a political ideology which generally takes the form of a totalitarian dictatorship driven by the purpose of preserving the traditional proletarian culture, and commonly the gene pool, and expunging the elements that diverge from this main culture in the belief that it is pernicious to the country.

Essentially fascists hold one leader in exaltation and all that is done by the state is done in order to reinforce the moral, religious, cultural and ideological 'norms' or beliefs of the people as dictated by a strong sense of traditionalism and ancestral legacy.

To that end the fascists permit private ownership where it is beneficial to the aforementioned objective and favour state ownership and governance where private ownership is deemed detrimental to their objectives.

also, class struggle is recognised not as an intranational struggle but rather as an international struggle between bourgeois states and proletarian states, and it is viewed that proletarian states are the ones that will win.

Fascists seem however to be more well defined by what they oppose and their reasons for opposing them rather than what they actually are. For example they oppose communists, liberal democracy, plutocracy [they are surprisingly distrustful of money], and of course minorities among other things.
it seems that they generally deem all political systems to be inadequate and so stipulate a 'third way' that transcends the political left and political right. so people seem to resort to elements of fascism out of frustration to a failing of contemporary political systems or ideologies. so it is a reactionary position that seems to be more of a reflex by the people to a failure of the status quo or in other words, of the capitalist system. this reflex generally runs along similar lines with its main objective being the overthrow of the state in order to establish in its place a firm dictatorship that reinforces the perceived agenda of the nations majority, which encompasses the unifying edifices of that people's culture and the extirpation of anything contradicting that. it is then perhaps a defensive political manoeuvre to what is generally perceived as an internal threat to the national interest.

it is, then, fair to say that islamophobia is a connotation of fascism and that it runs along the same reactionary political reflex as what genuine fascism does, even though it does not entail all that fascism does and does not embody the entire ideology of fascism but merely a part of it.

perhaps we should term islamophobia to be quasi-fascism?:unsure:

[Crux]

It exists like Marxism and Anarchism, i.e as an irrelevant sect. The BNP, for example, has only 4,000 members. The only EU country with a significant fascist movement is Greece, and well, Greece makes up only about 1/50th of EU's population. Fascists are more excluded from European society than pedophiles and necrophiliacs.

Fascism is a very specific thing. Right-wing conservatism is not fascism. If you're gonna throw the word around so meaninglessly, you might as well label the Tea Party fascist.
I think there is a definite overlap and that todays islamophobia is using much the same tricks as yesterdays antisemitism. Front Nationale is back in the French parliament, the FPÖ and BZÖ are still big players in Austria etc etc.

[Althusser]

Whenever I hear the term radical Islam I envision the prophet Muhammad skate boarding.

Damn, are we allowed to do that?

[Rottenfruit]

Hizbollah exists to defend against terror, and not to advance the interests of the Iranian ruling class in the Levant? Secret fascist conspiracies(the word is used 19 times in the OP, that's a record! - just yell "fascist!, fascist!, fascist!" at your opponent and that automatically makes you right, what a juvenile tactic). And what does the author of the OP have against liberals? He's a petty liberal himself.

There's no more fascism. It's gone. Democracy triumphed.


Hamas destroyed most if not all of the painkillers in Gaza,they have even started
jailing people for owning tramadol which is the weakest opiod that exist, if you have cancer your screwed.

The Taliban are technophobic almost on par with anarcho primitivits

Boko Haram a Nigerian terroist group behind numerous bombings of churches has the most extreme idology of any terroist group in Islam ive ever heard about,they makemake the taliban and al quida moderate in there views, they want to ban all westren mediicne,cut off all foreign aid to nigeria and ban all books but the quran

The leader sad that everything in the quran is true, if quran would say the moon did not exist that would mean the moon would not exist :laugh:

[Rottenfruit]

The author uses fascism without its actual meaning. It's quite annoying, like how EDL call antifascists fascists. The author implies as if these national conservatives (islamophobes) are fascists, which they are not.



Radical simply means extremist, it has nothing to do with leftism or revolutionary credentials. Radicalism is actually used as synonym for liberalism because of the Enlightenment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)

The goal of groups like Al quida is to create a envoriment in the west that breeds groups like the Edl that in turn radicilize and disfranicze muslims and turn them to the side of the extremists, the more muslims that turn to extreism the larger groups like Edl will get. It's a dangerous cycle

[Rottenfruit]

Elysian doesn't count, he's a Radical Christian.


Obviously, my view is that all religions are reactionary, but as communists we should engage with workers no matter what their consciousness is, and we should never be writing off sections of the proleariat as 'too reactionary' or 'too barbaric' or 'too stupid' or anything else.

Would you work with Fred Phelps and the westboro baptist church if they supported communism but would still cling to there views that all homosexuals are cursed from god and must be killed?

[Positivist]

Islamophobia is not fascism.

Yes fascism is a specific ideology, but just because this ideology isn't expressly claimed by an individual or group, does not mean that they don't adhere to it (just as claiming adherence to a specific ideology doesn't mean that one actually adheres to it.)

[Positivist]

It's an imaginary form of social organisation, purely a Liberalist abstraction. Never before has a state existed that sought to regulate every aspect of private or public life whenever they could, openly. According to you, every state that ever was, was "totalitarian". What a shitty semantics game.

Actually totalitarianism was coined by Benito Mussolini to describe his ascendent regime.

[Blake's Baby]

Would you work with Fred Phelps and the westboro baptist church if they supported communism but would still cling to there views that all homosexuals are cursed from god and must be killed?

'Work'? I said 'engage'.

I wouldn't condemn all Christians because of the Westboro Baptist Church, nor would I condemn all Muslims because of a few hate-filled clerics and their congregations, either.

Is Fred Phelps a worker? I don't think he is.

[Crux]

Hamas destroyed most if not all of the painkillers in Gaza,they have even started
jailing people for owning tramadol which is the weakest opiod that exist, if you have cancer your screwed.

The Taliban are technophobic almost on par with anarcho primitivits

Boko Haram a Nigerian terroist group behind numerous bombings of churches has the most extreme idology of any terroist group in Islam ive ever heard about,they makemake the taliban and al quida moderate in there views, they want to ban all westren mediicne,cut off all foreign aid to nigeria and ban all books but the quran

The leader sad that everything in the quran is true, if quran would say the moon did not exist that would mean the moon would not exist :laugh:
Aside from your glaring lack of sources, sure all the groups you mentioned are extremely reactionary groups. Your point was?


The goal of groups like Al quida is to create a envoriment in the west that breeds groups like the Edl that in turn radicilize and disfranicze muslims and turn them to the side of the extremists, the more muslims that turn to extreism the larger groups like Edl will get. It's a dangerous cycle
Let me just go get my tinfoil hat.

[Tim Cornelis]

In this sense, yes. There exists only class dictatorship. I mean, how fucking vague can "democracy" be? Bourgeois democracy? Proletarian democracy?

Words are used to convey meaning and messages. If refuse there is not enough of a difference between Sweden's political system and Syria's then all discussions and meanings of words become meaningless.


It's an imaginary form of social organisation, purely a Liberalist abstraction. Never before has a state existed that sought to regulate every aspect of private or public life whenever they could, openly.

All social organisation is then imaginary and we should refrain from using words like "communism," "dictatorship of the proletariat," and "feudalism." All liberalist abstractions I'm sure.


According to you, every state that ever was, was "totalitarian". What a shitty semantics game.

Except it's not.


No class analysis.

Unless you explain why class analysis is a requirement in defining ideologies, it is a fallacy.


We call things Fascist because of their class character, not because of ideological rhetoric that is exclusive only in certain time frames.

No. Definitions of ideologies are what its advocates want.


Perhaps to Bourgeois-Liberals.

I'm a bourgeois-liberal, now that we've got that out of the way, we can stop the meaningless attempts at ad hominems.

[NGNM85]

What a surprise! You are full of shit!

What? Do you think that because you call yourself a Radical, and I deny this claim, I don't know what a Radical is?


I don't claim to have any insight into the rats' nest between your ears. What I do know is what you've said. Again; whatever this baffling accusation means, even if it is true, and I'm fairly certain it isn't, does not support your contention. Again; the sufficient conditions, the only conditions of; 'Radicalism', in this context is; 'One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'. I do that. I've been very explicit about it. Therefore; you either don't understand this, or you're just being difficult. It matters not.



I've always known what a Radical meant, since fucking middle school, where I took French class.


See above.



Also:




You put quotes around "Probably wanting the capitalist mode of production wtihout it's inbreds".

I put quotes around it because it is a quote. That is the purpose for the existence of quotation marks. Hence the name. I would have used the quote feature, but I decided not to because it was a post from another thread. More importantly; no, that's not what I did, at all. I specifically separated the word 'probably' from the following quote very clearly indicating that the word; 'probably' did not directly precede the word; 'want.' It was you that annexed these together, not I. This is a perfectly servicable, and honest paraphrase, that doesn't, in any considerable way alter the meaning, or the substance of what you said. Furthermore; in the interests of total transparency, I took the liberty of providing the hyperlink so that anyonewho was actually interested could read the entire statement, in context. You have no point.

Since you've decided to make a mountain out of this particular molehill, I should point out that while I did not misquote you, you did misquote me. I said I was more 'revolutionary' than Karl Marx, not that I was more 'radical' than Karl Marx. This transposition actually does fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence. However; I just chalked this up to carelessness and have no intention of making a federal case out of it.


What a little shit you are.

That's about the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you.


You quoted that, though, as one quick look at my response (which you were unable to address) http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2474163&postcount=25 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2474163&postcount=25)

No, you have this nasty habit of declaring victory whenever anyone declines to respond to your posts, which given your penchant for obscenities and ad hominem attacks, is perfectly understandable. Just because Ido not choose to respond does not mean I concede that you are correct, nor would any rational person assume as much. The heart of the matter is that you have the emotional maturity of a banana slug. Even when I have agreed with you, you have responded with a flurry of obscenities, and recriminations. That you continually respond with such extreme, and totally unwarranted hostility demonstrates that you are simply constitutionally incapable of civilized conversation, even by the exceedingly low standards of a chat forum, which is really saying something.



You'll find that quote is no where to be found.

Again; the separation of the quotation marks clearly indicates that the second word does not directly, chronologically follow from the first, you can't accuse me of hiding something when I've painstakingly advertized it.


What's wrong, NGNM, you can't win an argument, so you have to twist my words to adjust to whatever response you're capable of making? Pathetic.

I didn't 'twist' anything. The substance of the statement, which I provided a link to, is completely intact, and unchanged.

All of this ignores the central point. Again; the sufficient conditions of; 'Radicalism', the only requirement is; 'advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'. Yes; I do that. In fact; I'm even more 'revolutionary' (In the vulgar sense.) than Karl Marx. (The mature Marx, at that.) You are simply being petty, and spiteful.

[Rafiq]

Words are used to convey meaning and messages. If refuse there is not enough of a difference between Sweden's political system and Syria's then all discussions and meanings of words become meaningless.

The difference between Sweden and Syria, in this regards, amounts to the differences in which Bourgeois dictatorship is expressed. Syria, of which adheres to a Populist, mutated form of Liberalism, and Sweden, of which, Liberalism. Syria is no more of a dictatorship than Sweden is. The fact that Bourgeois dominance is exercised in Sweden more efficiently and in a manner more durable, doesn't revoke it of it's class character.

Indeed, if you find such a difference between Syria and Sweden, that you classify them devoid of any real class analysis makes all discussion meaningless for any Marxist.


All social organisation is then imaginary and we should refrain from using words like "communism," "dictatorship of the proletariat," and "feudalism." All liberalist abstractions I'm sure.


Well, in a sense "Communism" is imaginary and is utilized a lot of the time on this site as a useless abstraction, yes. Though, the difference is that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Feudalism exist in correlation with material reality, i.e. Feudalism being defined as not only the dictatorship of a class and it's relation with other class, but this whole system of both the complex relationship between classes and their relation with a process, i.e. the Mode of production itself (or means of production, in this regards). A dictatorship of hte proletariat would be the class dictatorship of an existing class, manifesting as the highest expression of it's own class interest. Though, on the contrary, "totalitarianism" represents a mystified analysis of already existing societies, (Bourgeois societies in degeneration, or 20th century Communist states) and thus, this is why we call it a useless abstraction. When we call something Feudal, in it already signifies an understanding, perhaps, of existing class relations. To call something "totalitarian" amounts to "BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT TRYING TO CONTROL DA PEOPLE AND DA PEOPLE HAVE NO BREATHING SPACE". You could probably see where the problem lies here.


Except it's not.


Well yes, every existing functional state does, to a certain extent, utilize resources to "control" aspects of public life, or public life that they can control. You don't think the Bourgeoisie in the United States would find it preferable to keep a good grasp on the populace? What the hell do you think the Red Scare was? Countless propaganda campaigns? The difference, is that the United States, moreover, the entire western world, did this intelligently, did this in a way in which the proletariat was mystified with a form of false consciousness, within a form of false consciousness. I mean, Stalinist states, or "Fascist countries" were much more honest and less "totalitarian" in this regards. The relationship between the ruling classes, or, the State, with the proletarian population, or, as you would put it "The people" was much clearer, less mystified, etc. Why do you think people from the Eastern Bloc were so cynical? So with it being said that every state is "totalitarian", this in itself destroys the terms usage. I mean, it also draws us to obscure conclusions as well, for one, that there is an evil, secret order of reptilians whom tried to brainwash everyone. No, I don't buy that, and never have. The American (or German and Italian during Fascism) Bourgeoisie is just as much involved and driven by the process that is the capitalist mode of production and as anyone else is. They don't "control" it, it's a process. Otherwise, this existing financial crises would already be solved, with the snap of their fingers.


Unless you explain why class analysis is a requirement in defining ideologies, it is a fallacy.


Because every Ideology itself is a reflection of the interests of an existing class.


No. Definitions of ideologies are what its advocates want.


Who cares? They obviously don't state "So, yeah, we want to be in a better position of class dictatorship, and save capital from it's impending destruction", but rhetoric to cover it up. And even when they're not intentionally being the boogyman, Ideology would be the expression of their unconscious (with has an intrinsic class interest). In the same way Freud described Art, as the expression and reflection of our uttermost unconscious.


I'm a bourgeois-liberal, now that we've got that out of the way, we can stop the meaningless attempts at ad hominems.


Well, whether you are one or not, your posts would certainly draw someone to that conclusion. My, my, I really do hate internet politics (reddit, anonymous, etc.).

[Rafiq]

I don't claim to have any insight into the rats' nest between your ears. What I do know is what you've said. Again; whatever this baffling accusation means, even if it is true, and I'm fairly certain it isn't, does not support your contention. Again; the sufficient conditions, the only conditions of; 'Radicalism', in this context is; 'One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'. I do that. I've been very explicit about it. Therefore; you either don't understand this, or you're just being difficult. It matters not.

Yes, yes, you're very explicit about expressing support for Bourgeois parties, on the basis of "hey, put your revolution aside, we need to do what we can".

But with that not even taken into account, no, Radicalism is much more than that. Radicalism is to advocate the destruction of existing social conditions. You can't be a radical if you target the offspring of those conditions, rather than the social conditions themselves. For example, to attack a CEO for being "immoral", etc. You're also a moralist, so that doesn't do you much justice, either. You'd sacrifice this revolutionary destruction, for the preservation of this cheap Liberalism.

You may formally call yourself a Radical, but subconsciously, you pressupose Bourgeois Liberalism and attempt to substantiate radical socialism with said pressuposions, and adjust Socialism to them accordingly. I mean, no wonder you're a fan of Chomsky, Zinn (Democratic Socialist, i.e. Liberal) etc.



I put quotes around it because it is a quote. That is the purpose for the existence of quotation marks. Hence the name. I would have used the quote feature, but I decided not to because it was a post from another thread. More importantly; no, that's not what I did, at all. I specifically separated the word 'probably' from the following quote very clearly indicating that the word; 'probably' did not directly precede the word; 'want.' It was you that annexed these together, not I. This is a perfectly servicable, and honest paraphrase, that doesn't, in any considerable way alter the meaning, or the substance of what you said. Furthermore; in the interests of total transparency, I took the liberty of providing the hyperlink so that anyonewho was actually interested could read the entire statement, in context. You have no point.

Save me your pretentious ramblings, we all know what you mean. The point I was attempting to make was, although you separated them with quotations, you chronologically placed them in an order which is misleading. If I said:

Because NGNM is under the impression that "Radicalism, in this context is", "the rat's nest between your ears".

And you know very well no one gives enough of a shit to click on the hyperlink, and, well, you're not particularly famous for having insightful and posts of great quality, posts that people would want to spend wasting their time reading.


Since you've decided to make a mountain out of this particular molehill, I should point out that while I did not misquote you, you did misquote me. I said I was more 'revolutionary' than Karl Marx, not that I was more 'radical' than Karl Marx. This transposition actually does fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence. However; I just chalked this up to carelessness and have no intention of making a federal case out of it.

I'm not even going to go back into that thread to try and disprove the validity of this claim, but if what you say is correct, than it wasn't intentional on my part, on the contrary to, well, you, who took the liberty of digging for phrases and sentences within my post to arrange them in a manner which you could reply to.


That's about the level of intelligence I've come to expect from you.


What the fuck? Have we not been down this road before? How many times do I have to tell you, NGNM, when I insult you, don't quote it seperatly. What, are you that desperate for attention?


No, you have this nasty habit of declaring victory whenever anyone declines to respond to your posts, which given your penchant for obscenities and ad hominem attacks, is perfectly understandable. Just because Ido not choose to respond does not mean I concede that you are correct, nor would any rational person assume as much. The heart of the matter is that you have the emotional maturity of a banana slug. Even when I have agreed with you, you have responded with a flurry of obscenities, and recriminations. That you continually respond with such extreme, and totally unwarranted hostility demonstrates that you are simply constitutionally incapable of civilized conversation, even by the exceedingly low standards of a chat forum, which is really saying something.

On the contrary, even if you would have responded to that thread, you'd still have been defeated. Of course being the last person to respond in a thread doesn't signify victory, but to bring it up in another thread, in a context which is simply dishonest, sais that you are incapable of responding to the post without defiling it ('defiling' in the sense of tampering, not defeating).

I argue with people in the same way universally. You don't need to bring up personal insults. If it makes you feel any better, if I had the privilege of being in your company, in real life, I'd insult you and debate you in the same manner that I do on this forum.



Again; the separation of the quotation marks clearly indicates that the second word does not directly, chronologically follow from the first, you can't accuse me of hiding something when I've painstakingly advertized it.


Quote a coincidence, that chronologically, in that specific post, it was placed, right after the quotation. Why are we bull shitting (?), how about I just quote you!:
To which you posted a baffling response, accusing me of ‘probably’ wanting ‘the capitalist mode of production without it’s inbreds’

So, I'm sure that when referring to me, saying that I accused you of 'probably' wanting 'the capitalist mode of production without it's inbreds', I'll just take your word for it, and draw to the conclusion that "wanting" wasn't in any way a linguistic bridge between probably and the capitalist mode of production. No, no, you weren't at all trying to make out a sentence, an attack leveled against me.


I didn't 'twist' anything. The substance of the statement, which I provided a link to, is completely intact, and unchanged.


The substance of the statement, amounts to:
Which you simply cannot provide, i.e. You want the capitalist mode of production without it's inbreds, you want Worker-Coop dominated society, probably something along the lines of Market Socialism or Autonomous communes (syndicates, if you will) ruling society, which doesn't even make a small dent in the capitalist mode of production and it's contradictions. It may have partially addressed class contradiction, but the fact that it doesn't address the rest (Commodity production, Market contradictions, etc.) means that class contradiction is once again inevitable.

So, you're not a Radical.

I didn't say, like the dumbass you attempted to make out of me, that you "probably" wanted the [you know], I asserted that you wanted the [you know]



All of this ignores the central point. Again; the sufficient conditions of; 'Radicalism', the only requirement is; 'advocating fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions'. Yes; I do that. In fact; I'm even more 'revolutionary' (In the vulgar sense.) than Karl Marx. (The mature Marx, at that.) You are simply being petty, and spiteful.

Yeah, yeah, I already addressed this garbage in the other thread. Shit out whatever mess you want to there. But anyway, no, declaring yourself something and being something are different. You can formally call yourself a communist, but does that mean the remnants of Bourgeois thought are extinct within you? Not at all.

[Tim Cornelis]

The difference between Sweden and Syria, in this regards, amounts to the differences in which Bourgeois dictatorship is expressed. Syria, of which adheres to a Populist, mutated form of Liberalism, and Sweden, of which, Liberalism. Syria is no more of a dictatorship than Sweden is. The fact that Bourgeois dominance is exercised in Sweden more efficiently and in a manner more durable, doesn't revoke it of it's class character.

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that it's handy to differentiate between these two forms of "bourgeois dictatorships" by emphasising their differences: parliamentary democracy vs. dictatorship.


Well, in a sense "Communism" is imaginary and is utilized a lot of the time on this site as a useless abstraction, yes. Though, the difference is that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Feudalism exist in correlation with material reality, i.e. Feudalism being defined as not only the dictatorship of a class and it's relation with other class, but this whole system of both the complex relationship between classes and their relation with a process, i.e. the Mode of production itself (or means of production, in this regards). A dictatorship of hte proletariat would be the class dictatorship of an existing class, manifesting as the highest expression of it's own class interest. Though, on the contrary, "totalitarianism" represents a mystified analysis of already existing societies, (Bourgeois societies in degeneration, or 20th century Communist states) and thus, this is why we call it a useless abstraction. When we call something Feudal, in it already signifies an understanding, perhaps, of existing class relations. To call something "totalitarian" amounts to "BIG SCARY GOVERNMENT TRYING TO CONTROL DA PEOPLE AND DA PEOPLE HAVE NO BREATHING SPACE". You could probably see where the problem lies here.

Not really, but whatever.


Well yes, every existing functional state does, to a certain extent, utilize resources to "control" aspects of public life, or public life that they can control. You don't think the Bourgeoisie in the United States would find it preferable to keep a good grasp on the populace? What the hell do you think the Red Scare was? Countless propaganda campaigns? The difference, is that the United States, moreover, the entire western world, did this intelligently, did this in a way in which the proletariat was mystified with a form of false consciousness, within a form of false consciousness. I mean, Stalinist states, or "Fascist countries" were much more honest and less "totalitarian" in this regards. The relationship between the ruling classes, or, the State, with the proletarian population, or, as you would put it "The people" was much clearer, less mystified, etc. Why do you think people from the Eastern Bloc were so cynical? So with it being said that every state is "totalitarian", this in itself destroys the terms usage. I mean, it also draws us to obscure conclusions as well, for one, that there is an evil, secret order of reptilians whom tried to brainwash everyone. No, I don't buy that, and never have. The American (or German and Italian during Fascism) Bourgeoisie is just as much involved and driven by the process that is the capitalist mode of production and as anyone else is. They don't "control" it, it's a process. Otherwise, this existing financial crises would already be solved, with the snap of their fingers.



Because every Ideology itself is a reflection of the interests of an existing class.



Who cares? They obviously don't state "So, yeah, we want to be in a better position of class dictatorship, and save capital from it's impending destruction", but rhetoric to cover it up. And even when they're not intentionally being the boogyman, Ideology would be the expression of their unconscious (with has an intrinsic class interest). In the same way Freud described Art, as the expression and reflection of our uttermost unconscious.



Well, whether you are one or not, your posts would certainly draw someone to that conclusion. My, my, I really do hate internet politics (reddit, anonymous, etc.).

Okidoki.

[Rafiq]

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that it's handy to differentiate between these two forms of "bourgeois dictatorships" by emphasising their differences: parliamentary democracy vs. dictatorship.


I don't recognize the existence of dictatorship, should this conception of dictatorship amount to the dictatorship of the interests of a single man, politically. That definitely wasn't the case in Syria (or any other state, at that). And while we can recognize that Bourgeois dictatorship in Syria, grants the proletarian populace a lesser form of mystified freedom, it's still important to comprehend the fact that this shouldn't let us come to obscure conclusions about real, already existing or previously existing forms of Bourgeois dominance, because this amounts to nothing more than a simplified formulation, usually stemming from a broken means of analysation.

[Crux]

Hold up a second there, just for clarification, Tim Cornelis, are you arguing that the difference between Sweden and Syria has something to do with Islam?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Whenever I hear the term radical Islam I envision the prophet Muhammad skate boarding.

Muhammad probably drank Mt. Dew.