Islamo-Fascism. The latest talking point issued from the Bush administration, something straight out of "Triumph of the Will." This isn't exactly the most timely response (well, nothing on this blog has been especially timely of late), but I hope to address the issue in a manner that has not yet been covered by the mainstream media.
Consider for a moment, what is the point of making the painfully consicous effort to parade about a "new and improved" phrase such as "Islamo-Fascism"?? Is it more descriptive, something new and helpfull in the public understanding of Salafi Jihadism (because an understanding of that phrase, however accurate, requires a greater attention span than can be realistically expected of "the public" at this point)? The phrase's proponents would certainly like to suggest that this new phrase has some greater explanatory power. But therein lies the falacy of "Islamo-Fascism."
Put simply, this is classical symbolic translation, something that I have discussed with regard to American "Patriotism" in Love Your Nation-State. Basically, some agreed upon "good" quality of a nation, such as freedom, is associated with a symbol, such as a flag. Then, through symbolic translation, the flag can now be held up as a substitute for some underlying, actual freedom, and the actual freedom can be conveniently dispensed with. "Islamo-Fascism" is similar in many respects. "Fascism," as a word reminiscent of a mythology (mostly, admittedly, quite deserved) that has been built up in popular culture about war-time attrocities and abuses of Hittler's Germany, is a symbol to which much negative sentiment has been effectively attached. This symbol, when attached to the modifier "Islamo-" serves to attach that negative sentiment to a current enemy.
This much is rather obvious, but the logical fallacy that seems to be passing unseen is that the new term Islamo-Fascism ONLY expands upon our existing understanding ofSalafi Jihadism to the extent that the former FALSELY attributes characteristics to the latter. To the degree that the public can be educated about the attrocities and abuses of Salafi Jihadists, and hence to the extent that the new label is accurate, they have already incorporated understanding of those abuses and attrocities into their understanding of the Jihadist phenomenon before the addition of the new symbolic language. Therefore, the only value added by the actual articulation of this new "Islamo-Fascism" label is falsity--it is the association in the public perception of attributes and attrocities of Nazi Fascists that are in fact not accurate when attributed to Salafi Jihadists. And it is in that sense that labels such as "Islamo-Fascism" are the purest of propaganda--they serve no purpose but deception. Leni Riefenstahl would be proud.
11 comments:
Fascism is a new fashion for avoiding Godwin’s law. It’s indeed another fallacious political trick!
But Fascism is even more potent and sneaky than Nazism as people don’t really know what is it really about (Gabrielle D'annunzio ?!?).
The “funniest” part is that Fascism has a lot to do with Catholicism but so little to deal with Islam.
Bush Admin should have used Islamo-Poujadism or Judeo-Anti-Semitism. Mouarf… THEY make me cry…
Good to see you didn't fall off the planet, Jeff, but I guess CNN has provided evidence enough that you must be pretty swamped at work these days....
Anyway, thanks for this one; I was going to write something similar myself, as a counter-weight to an article I wrote recently arguing that the Likud party in Israel actually does deserve the "fascist" label. Some time ago, I wrote a different article, decrying the dilution of the word "fascist" and how we use it sloppily, so that it comes to mean almost nothing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the defining points of fascism that it is a mystical-nationalist, but ultimately secular form of authoritarianism? I mean, theocracy and fascism are both authoritarian, but theocrats cannot, by definition, be fascists, correct?
I think that fascists often identify with religion (Hittler and the SS's mystical-christian mythology, Mussolini's evokation of the "ghosts of Rome," etc.), but in the end they tend to use it to an end, rather than work to it as an end in itself (which I would argue is a decent way to describe honest spirituality). I think that the Arab world has some good, genuine fascist examples to draw upon: the Ba'ath movement and Pan-Arab nationalism in Syria, Iraq, and the short-lived Pan-Arab Republic that flared up during the '50s-'70s. They sought to mobilize people with an appeal to Islam and the "ghosts of the Caliphate" without actually seeking what al-Qa'ida seeks in a genuine return to a caliphate and a theocracy. So in that sense I would agree that theocracy and fascism, while superficially similar, are actually contradictions. I guess this gets down to the real point that I was trying to make in my post, that "Fascism" only has meaning to the extent that we attribute meaning to it symbolically. It can be used honestly as a descriptor only if the issue is actually discussed--as in 1) this is what we tend to think of when we hear fascism, 2) in many ways this accurately describes new situation X, but 3) these attributes of historical cases of fascism shoudl not be attributed to situation X. It is this honest discussion--as shown in the discussion of "Likud" and "Fascism"--that is required, and that is so conspicuously absent from the talking-point brand of pin-a-label-on-the-bad-guy propaganda dominating the airwaves of late...
In regards to being busy in response to current events, true enough, but sadly it is mostly composed of fruitless efforts to keep stupid responses from getting off the ground. I'm also working on an "Energy Theory of Value" to update Marx's Labor Theory of Value, but we'll see where that goes...
Howdy gang.
Good to hear from you again, Jeff. Hope you're having a swell summer.
Wouldn't it be more apropos to describe the Bush Admin and the Neocon Cabal as some form of fascism, especially in its blatant manipulation of the memes of Fundamentalist Christianity and rabid Nationalism?
There's a fantastic article on Kos I highly suggest:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/17/2036/57312[1]
Since Jason is in the mix, (congrats by the way on your nuptuals. I dug the Merlin article on liminality on your site), I just wanted to broach a Collapse thought that's been on my mind:
Dental Hygiene.
How are we to keep our teeth (and lives)in the coming years of hardship without the conveniences of toothpaste, let alone floride treatment?
Best to you all.
Okay, so delete the [1] at the end of the webiste I posted, and it ought to work.
Wouldn't it be more apropos to describe the Bush Admin and the Neocon Cabal as some form of fascism, especially in its blatant manipulation of the memes of Fundamentalist Christianity and rabid Nationalism?
I made another long argument to that effect in an older article, "Petroleum et Imperium Americanum." I think the better historical comparison for them is Imperial Rome than Nazi Germany, but much of modern fascism was also built on an idealized, Romanticized vision of Rome. I think they share more in common with the reality of Roman imperium.
How are we to keep our teeth (and lives)in the coming years of hardship without the conveniences of toothpaste, let alone floride treatment?
How do animals keep their teeth clean? Ever wonder why they don't seem to have the dental problems we have?
Our dental problems arise from bacteria that prosper in the unique chemical context that's created when the amylase in our saliva interacts with the carbohydrates in our cereal grains. Our dental problems are just one way in which we are not granivores. Stop eating grain (or just not as much), and you don't NEED much in the way of dental care. Dental care is a stop-gap that somewhat addresses one of the problems of a non-granivore eating a granivorous diet. Eat a human diet, and you'll have better teeth than any dentist. I still eat grain (because I can't afford much else, and I'm only learning to hunt this fall), but I eat less of it, and even that has amazed my dentist--with less brushing and day-to-day care.
Jason - although I agree that America shares imperial hubris with its forerunners the Romans, I would posit that the distinct dependence on corporations and the mutual benefit of the neo-con influenced Republican party (and not trailing too far behind the Democrats as well...)and the likes of the petroleum / military-industrial complex makes it a fairly different situation from ancient Rome and more on track with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. I'd also say that the prevailing socio-political concept of the nation-state (gotta love it!) also sets the contemporary paradigm of American politics apart from that of Imperial Rome 2,000 years ago.
There are many similarities of course, but what we're looking at now is a completely new beast, and historical comparisons don't quite hit the mark.
I think you're being too kind to the Americans with associating them with the (albeit romantacised) Roman Empire...not to endorse imperialism or colonialism, but the Romans brought writing and such where they went; we bring McDonalds and Coke. I'd personally opt for latin over a Big Mac in terms of my cultural genocide.
(Both are of course examples of violently imposed hierarchy, and ideally they would not happen what-so-ever and we would all coexist in rhizome simplicity, but you get my meaning).
The dental thing:
Good points; I appreciate your analysis, especially with regard to the amylase/grains. I wonder if a "human diet" is uniform for all people, whether they're from Lichtenstein, the Serengeti, Patagonia, or Mongolia. Generalizations are helpful, but especially with such subjective things like personal diet, I would be wary in making such sweeping statements.
All the best to you; it's invigorating to have such lively discussions!
sventastic said..."I wonder if a "human diet" is uniform for all people, whether they're from Lichtenstein, the Serengeti, Patagonia, or Mongolia. Generalizations are helpful, but especially with such subjective things like personal diet, I would be wary in making such sweeping statements."
There is no uniform humand diet. However it is only agriculture that makes diets high in grains possible. We evolved without agriculture, as hunter gathereres, and Jason is correct in his dental statement.
“I think you're being too kind to the Americans with associating them with the Roman Empire”… well, I guess after 2.000 years of Vatican brainwashing it’s hard to realize that the Roman Empire is humanity’s worst nightmare.
Compare to this, Isms from the 20th century look like teenager’s whims…
For Americans to hold a candle to Romans, they need to convert their Super Bowl stadiums into some kind of more “entertaining venues” where one can admire Judeo-anti-Semite dissidents being mangled by Louisianan black wrestlers and their crocodiles.
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m deeply convinced that political elites actually in charge have a crush on how Caesar transformed the republic. And that’s what I actually can’t stand - I can’t bear anybody who has stupid and/or uneducated admiration for the roman history. These elite just know enough to see the surface of culture but they can’t dig a little to find out how much more complex and rich the Greek heritage is. It’s just a waste of time; anyway those Greek nutcases were spendthrifts who squandered their fortune buying jewelry to the Arabs…
So I totally agree that the patterns appearing right now are reminiscent. They come from a really long time ago. But the bad news is that it looks like it’s only the preamble.
BTW: Jeff, happy 100,000 visitors!
Gilemon, my sentiments exactly. A comparison to the Roman Empire is not a good thing at all.
Anon - your grasp of sarcasm is underwhelming.
The implication of my statement was of course there is no uniform "human diet," as Jason puts it.
A Mongolian eating horse-milk curds and Kalahari bushman eating grubs probably have some different internal chemistries going on, and their diets are probably not compatible, both for their teeth and their nutrition. And from what I've seen, both of these groups that I've mentioned don't eat a significant amount of grains (especially when compared to the average American), and yet many in their populations are missing or have decaying teeth.
As for the fascism thread - as I wrote in my earlier post: [the Romans and Americans] Both are of course examples of violently imposed hierarchy, and ideally they would not happen what-so-ever.
What I'm trying to say is: of course the Romans were rotten bastards, as are the beligerant, imperialist Americans; we can all agree on this. In terms of these two committing cultural genocide, at least the Romans brought latin to folks such as the Celts, who put it to some good use after the collapse of the Roman empire. All we Americans seem capable of transmitting is greater dependency on oil and addiction to Coca Cola and suchforth. I don't see all that much that is redeeming in what Americans bring to their imperium; whereas along with mass murder, rape, and pillage that the Romans brought, there may be a few positive things as well.
The whole point of this was the association of American leanings towards what looks to me as a new variety of American fascism with either the actual 2 actual fascist states of 20th century Europe (not including Spain), and the "Roman Empire," of which there were many permutations of the course of a millennium.
There are more than 2 sides to every story, and we should all be wary of becoming black vs. white fundamentalists or reductionists.
Post a Comment