Max is correct that there currently is a real political problem in the use of the term fascism to cover for US attacks. PRA warned about that on our web page discussion. I have no problem with people who say its use as a term is problematic right now, or who disagree on a scholarly basis. My critical ire is raised by people who glibly say not only is there no justification to even whisper the word fascism, but that the Taliban and al Qaeda really aren't all that bad compared to US imperialism. Well, in comparison they have done less damage, but objectively they really are bad.
Over on the Marxism list, or favorite son in exile Louis Proyect sez:
====================================== We are not in a fight with "fascists" but inchoate revolts in the third world driven by rage at global inequality. In a very real sense, they are linked in a highly distorted manner to the protests in Seattle and elsewhere. It is only imperial ideologues like Christopher Hitchens who want to do everything they can to deny these relationships. It is our job not to take the side of the imperialists against an enemy that has been inflated like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day float, but to find ways to win the masses of the Moslem world to a program of socialist emancipation. ======================================
Relationships? I don't want no stinking relationships! YUK!
I post Louis Proyect's prose in full at end of this post.
-cb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:44 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Herman responds
>
>
> The only credible explanation of 9/11 is in fact Islamic
> fundamentalist
> expansionism, possibly in coalition w/anti-U.S. Islamic
> militarism (i.e.,
> Iraq),
> particular w/respect to Saudi Arabia. The plan was to draw
> the U.S. into
> the big muddy of Afgh and do them like they did the Russians,
> meanwhile
> accelerating the IF influence in Pakistan, S.A., etc. How
> much of a threat
> this is (the attempt, rather than the completion) is a
> different matter,
> though
> by the recent experience something to be doubted.
>
> As the Chipster says, one can recognize this without forgetting about
> hegemonism and the 57 varieties of depredations from the U.S.
> One could
> even suspect that U.S. actions were knowingly geared to
> provoke *some kind
> of response* from OBL/Taliban. that of course does not
> justify any such
> actions
> nor indict any of the victims. (see what stupid things we
> feel compelled to
> say by way of qualification?)
>
> Altho I am soft on bombing OBL et al. I would be cautious
> about throwing
> around
> the term fascism, not because I disagree with how anybody in
> particular
> is applying it or not applying it, but because in a
> rhetorical/political
> sense it
> gives away too much to U.S. hegemonism. I think this is more the
> issue being argued, rather than some academic definition of fascism.
> It functions as a security blanket for gratuitous,
> unprincipled attacks on
> the left by Hitch & others. The implication is that anybody 'fighting
> fascism'
> could not themselves be fascist or otherwise have irredeeming
> features.
>
> mbs
> 'the vile one'
>
==========================
(Over on Henwood's list somebody named Chip Berlet has been arguing that this is the case. Berlet is a researcher with something called Political Research Associates that is based in Cambridge. (http://www.publiceye.org/) Like Morris Dees's SPLC, it has a vested interested in exaggerating the fascist threat since this is how they raise funds. They appear to be more above-board fiscally than Dees, but also tend toward the alarmist. In the passage below, extracted from a longer response to Edward Herman, Berlet describes The Nation of Islam as "fascist" as well. I haven't heard that kind of rhetoric since the early 1960s when Malcolm X was scaring the bejesus out of liberals like Mike Wallace. As far as I know, the Nation of Islam focuses most of its energy on selling bean pies rather than breaking up trade union or civil rights meetings. In fact, the big problem with the NOI is that it seems to lack ideological fervor of any kind. It is, as some commentators have pointed out, a self-help group in the Booker T. Washington mold.)
Chip Berlet:
>[ At PRA we feel the term clerical fascism can be defended for use in
>public discussions and when applied specifically to the Taliban and Osama
>bin Laden's al Qaeda networks. However some caution is required. The term
>fascism is often overused, and currently some use it in a propagandistic
>way. Therefore we feel progressives should only use the term clerical
>fascism where: it is not a justification for excessive and aggressive
>militarism; does not demonize or scapegoat Arabs and Muslims; and is
>differentiated from inaccurate and sweeping misuse. ]
COMMENT: We use it in a propagandistic way? What makes me think that Berlet and his fellow staff members put in some time in the "Marxist-Leninist" left? Don't they know that thinking in those terms went out during the days of disco?
>In any case, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda networks are
>revolutionary right-wing populists seeking to overthrow existing Muslim
>states. They not only want to rid all Muslim nations of the evils of
>secularism, humanism, and Western influence, but also seek to restore a
>"true" Islamic theocracy based on a militant fundamentalist version of
>Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia is an example of a repressive and reactionary
>orthodox Islamic theocracy, but it is not technically fascist. The point is
>not to be an apologist for the Saudi regime, but to suggest that theocratic
>Islamic fundamentalist totalitarianism would be worse than the already
>repressive Saudi oligarchy.
COMMENT: This is a startling refusal to come to terms with what other commentators have noted, namely al-Qaeda's utter lack of interest in questions of "Western values". For example in a Nov. 18th NY Times review of Peter Bergen's "Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden," we read:
"Bergen takes issue with Samuel Huntington's widely cited thesis that there is a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. He says bin Laden has a clear and specific political agenda -- changing American policy in the Middle East. He opposes the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of Iraq, support for Israel and for regimes, like those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that he considers apostates from Islam. Bin Laden has never, Bergen notes, railed against Coca-Cola or Madonna or homosexuals."
Or, if you look at Niall Ferguson's perceptive article in this weeks NY Times Magazine section, you find an analysis of al-Qaeda that places in the context of colonial revolts of the 19th century, a point that I have been stressing repeatedly:
"Like ''the coming oil crisis,'' the fall of the Saudi monarchy has been prophesied so often that many people have stopped believing it could ever happen. Don't be so sure. The position of the ruling dynasty increasingly resembles that of the shah of Iran in the late 1970's. Low oil prices may have been good for the West, but they have produced a significant fall in per capita income in Saudi Arabia, creating a reserve army of disenchanted young men who are the natural recruits of Al Qaeda.
"Make no mistake: radical Islam -- especially the Wahhabist strain found in Saudi Arabia -- is a revolutionary movement that has set the Middle East ablaze before now (in the 1880's for example, when a Sudanese holy man calling himself the ''Mahdi,'' or ''expected guide,'' emerged as the Victorian Osama bin Laden). A revolution in Saudi Arabia would be as traumatic a blow to the world economy as the Iranian revolution of 1979."
If you want a precedent for the Islamists of today, the Victorian era is the place to go, not Nazi Germany nor the 1930s. During the Victorian era, anti-colonial revolts were marked by atavism, religious fervor and very frequently a desire to return to a misty past. But this does not constitute fascism. The Taiping revolt in China was led by somebody who claimed not only to be Jesus Christ's brother, but sought nothing except to drive foreigners out of China. Not a demand that would be embraced by the Nation Magazine, nor Political Research Associates. But one that Engels took positive glee in. In a letter to Marx, he stated that it was about time the British got their comeuppance. It was no accident that Colonel Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who put down the Taiping revolt (hence his nickname) was then dispatched to quell the Mahdist revolt. It the USA that is the equivalent of the British empire today. We are not in a fight with "fascists" but inchoate revolts in the third world driven by rage at global inequality. In a very real sense, they are linked in a highly distorted manner to the protests in Seattle and elsewhere. It is only imperial ideologues like Christopher Hitchens who want to do everything they can to deny these relationships. It is our job not to take the side of the imperialists against an enemy that has been inflated like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day float, but to find ways to win the masses of the Moslem world to a program of socialist emancipation.
Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org