Sharia Law and Islamofascism and Homophobia

[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.

[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.

[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 cities

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)

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 thread

To 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 movement

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.

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 class

And 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 here

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.

and we know its a far easier issue to target them directly then targeting the ruling class

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.

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 results

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.

just because you have used peoples prejudices in an attempt to get Communist's popularity amongst the class

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.

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 defense

Exactly. 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.

[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!

[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?