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 
, 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.
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.
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
