Walter Laqueur on Fascism, 'Antisemitism', and 'Islamophobia'

[Thomas777]

Thoughts on this?


http://www.laqueur.net/index2.php?r=2&rr=4

[Der Sozialist]

Thoughts on this?


http://www.laqueur.net/index2.php?r=2&rr=4

My own personal opinion is that the term is an empty propaganda term aimed at instigating pavlovian responses in the public—trying to insinuate that the various terrorist groups are somehow unified in goal and intention and are against the West due to ideological idealism instead of merely a response to the quasi-imperialism of the USA.

However, it is important to keep in mind that many of the attributes of fascism and Nazism (I distinguish between the two since Nazism is often viewed as a uniquely German phenomenon) are somewhat similar to Islamic fundamentalism—and such have been present much before the current "war of terrorism."

Himmler was known to praise Islam as 'warlike' and Jung even compared Hitler and National Socialism to Islam. However, I think Islamic fundamentalism can be understood separately from European industrial-state fascism and is more of a product of a region that is clannish, and brutal in nature.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Lacquer hits the mark quite frequently. I think the most important bit is

“Archaic fascism” is a contradiction in term, because fascism was a modern form of dictatorship quite distinct from older authoritarian regimes.

A worthy antidote both to the antifascist idea that fascism is simply an excuse for a sort of transhistorical despot-type individual to seize power and to the fascist idea that a clear multimillienial line can be drawn from the dawn of man to the dawn of them.

[Thomas777]

Both of you make very good points here.

What is most problematic to me about the "political Islam is merely newfangled clerical fascism" meme is that political Islam (especially the Sunni variant) was in active conflict throughout the 20th Century with nationalists on account of fatal conflicts of ideological interest.

Sayyid Qutb at one time believed that pan-Arabism could work as a progressive, auxillary tendency towards ultimately consolidating Muslim polities into a new Caliphate, but he eschewed these notions after the ascension of Ba'athism...he and many of the 'Muslim Brethren' (what I consider the be the ideological precursor to Al Qaeda) were put to death by Ba'athist and Nasserist authorities on account of their activities.

The bottom line is that Nationalism is in many respects the ultimate affirmation of the legitimacy of temporal political authority, and for this reason alone, its completely incompatible with political Islam.

[Thomas777]

It should also be noted that Qutb (and many other thinkers) considered the Nation-State (and the Dominant International Relations Paradigm) to be not only apostate notions that facilitated slavery/opression by temporal authorities but also uniquely Western-Chistian constructs that were and are fundamentally incompatible with Shar'ia..

[Kodos]

My own personal opinion is that the term is an empty propaganda term aimed at instigating pavlovian responses in the public—trying to insinuate that the various terrorist groups are somehow unified in goal and intention and are against the West due to ideological idealism instead of merely a response to the quasi-imperialism of the USA.

Hezbollah can be perhaps named as mostly a nationalist group...

Most islamic terrorist cannot, they are religious fanatics who believe they are carrying out a religious duty to wage jihad.

[Ixtab]

Both are totalitarian forms of political gregism.

[Daniel Shays]

Though I agree with his conclusion, I am very wary of even the tiny bit of totalitarian theory bullshit he succumbs to when he 'admits' that a clerical leader "fulfills a similar role" to a Fascist leader. Presumably this is largely based on the correlation of a Khomeinist Fatwa and Hitlerist Fuehrererlass? It is then fatuous. The Fatwas of Iran's Guiding Guardian (not "Supreme Leader") are by design vague and left open for interpretation by the Imams - they are strictly religious and are simply taken into consideration by the government. There is nothing comparable to Fuehrerprinzip in Iran.
But whereas “liberal” or “secular” might cause offense in the Arab world, the term Fascism (al fashiye and al naziye) has never been , nor have Hitler and Mussolini been considered great evildoers.
Is this supposed to indicate something? It is obviously because Hitler and Mussolini didn't invade Arab countries whereas the "liberals" and "seculars" did and ARE.
Hezbollah can be perhaps named as mostly a nationalist group...Hezbollah are not nationalist but they do participate in - indeed, lead - national liberation against enemies of Islam. If they were just regular boneheaded nationalists they'd have been against the presence of Syrian forces. The oft-stated goal of Hezbollah is to liberate all of Palestine without distinguishing between the territory occupied in the 40's and that occupied in the 60's. After the Zionists are forced out of Shebaa, Hezbollah will not disband, it doesn't consider itself a "trend" or "tendency", it is an eternal Umma-wide resistance that has declared it represents the interests of all Muslims.

[Daniel Shays]

But whereas “liberal” or “secular” might cause offense in the Arab world, the term Fascism (al fashiye and al naziye) has never been , nor have Hitler and Mussolini been considered great evildoers.
Actually I have seen Hezbollah videos where they have emblazoned swastikas on Olmert and John Bolton.

[Ahknaton]

A worthy antidote both to the antifascist idea that fascism is simply an excuse for a sort of transhistorical despot-type individual to seize power and to the fascist idea that a clear multimillienial line can be drawn from the dawn of man to the dawn of them.
I disagree with him and prefer Wilhelm Reich's analysis in the Mass Psychology of fascism. Fascism is just the psychological tendencies of the average man embodied in the modern nation state. While the particularities of the modern apparatus of the state may be relatively novel, the psychological underpinnings are as old as man.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

I disagree with him and prefer Wilhelm Reich's analysis in the Mass Psychology of fascism. Fascism is just the psychological tendencies of the average man embodied in the modern nation state. While the particularities of the modern apparatus of the state may be relatively novel, the psychological underpinnings are as old as man.

I'm unfamiliar with the work, but does Reich offer a comparative study, which would be needed to suggest that fascism is more in touch with the psychological tendencies of the average man than is any other economic or political system? In any case, I think it begs the question to the utmost to suggest that there is a transhistorical 'average man' psychological type, much less that the interests of such are captured in fascism.

[Mike Jahn]

I'm pretty certain that Laquer is a Jew. I've read a few of his books but I always keep in mind that he's a Jew.

[Jake Featherston]

If the term "Islamo-Fascism" had any validity, it seems that someone, somewhere, would have formed an "Islamic National Socialist Party." According to Google, they have not.

I read one of Lacquer's books, and I was not impressed by his description of Islamic Fundamentalism as "clerical fascism."