Further reply to Chip Berlet from Ed Herman:
Chip Berlet now says (see below) that when he listed points, quoting me, and then followed this with derogating comments, he "did not mean to suggest that he had articulated each statement." This is a remarkable claim, as his comments sometimes started with "so," and in this and other respects seemed to imply that they related to the text he had just presented and seemed to be criticizing. However, a close reader of his list of points will realize that his criticisms didn't hold for the entire set of issues he was addressing.
He now says that he interpreted my document to which he was replying as not just a critique of Hitchens but "as a swipe at anyone who raised the issue of fascism." It was not, and there was no suggestion in my remarks that it was, although there was an implication that using the issue of Taliban and Al Qaeda evil and their alleged "expansionism" in the context of apologetics for the Bush "war against terrorism" was objectionable. Berlet then and in this new attack is incapable of distinguishing between "apologizing for fascism" and opposing the use of "fascism" as an argument for imperialist war.
In his further effort to portray me as an apologist for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Berlet fails abysmally, but he does a nice job of demonstrating what was less clear in his earlier comments; namely, that he is an objective but unwitting apologist for imperialism.
This is clearest in his opening jibe here, where he once again derides my notion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not properly described as "expansionist," repeating the fact of 3000+ killed in the United States. I had thought that "expansionism" referred to the taking over of territory, not a terrorist attack, but Berlet conflates the two. Nowhere in his analysis is there any suggestion that the rise of Islamic radicalism is a product of the impact of globalization and Western bullying and humiliation, and that it is one among many reactions to imperialism. It is also partly a "blowback" from opportunistic U.S. policies of past decades that actively promoted that radicalism. Neglecting these points leaves the enemy as an irrational autonomously developed evil, justifying an exclusively forcible response.
Berlet doesn't seem to have noticed that those fascist expansionists not only haven't made any further expansionist moves, they are being pummeled badly by the United States and its allies and haven't even been able to retaliate at all to these attacks. But he is so eager to prove that the Clerical Fascists are imperialists, and to inflate their menace, that he has redefined expansionism to meet that need. Certainly if the Taliban and Al Qaeda are expansionary fascists the Bush war against them becomes more reasonable as a defense of the U.S. population. We await Berlet's indignant denunciation of U.S. expansionism in these exchanges. He is persistently calling on others to admit Clerical Fascist evils, but fails to provide the "balance" in his own writings that he demands of others.
In a further misinterpretation of my position, Berlet says that I believe "the rise of ethnonationalist violence and fascism is not about a real concern but is objectively a defense of US imperialism." This is untrue. I never make any such statement and don't believe it. It is certainly true that a focus on ethnonationalist violence can be a defense of imperialism, when it is used to rationalize it, to inflate its threat, and to ignore its links and interaction with imperialism. But ANY serious violence is a real and legitimate concern. I think Saddam Hussein is a nasty dictator whose violence is worthy of attention and severe condemnation, but I don't believe that denouncing the sanctions of mass destruction imposed on Iraq without at the same time denouncing Saddam constitutes "defending him." This is a point Berlet can't grasp.
In this new account, where Berlet spells out his "proof" of the threat of Islamic supremacists, who are trying to take over the world, it strikes me forcibly that this is so much like the claims about communism during the Cold War years. Searching through communist texts it was possible to prove, at least for purposes of effective propaganda needs, that the Reds were planning to conquer the world. Of course, there were counter-texts that had to be neglected, and most important, a neglect of the practicalities of power--the capacity and ends of the on-the-ground communists, their divisions, their problems in a world in which they were technically and organizationally backward and sought to adapt and survive. But the "texts" could prove they were Red imperialists and an acute and urgent menace to which right-thinking people should give great weight.
The intellectuals of the establishment like Elie Kedourie, Bernard Lewis, and William Pfaff have been trying for years to make the case that "terrorism" is deeply rooted in Islamic principles (a nice account is given in Karim H. Karim's book Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence). And here comes our friend Chip Berlet, proving that Islamic radicals are the new global "expansionist" menace, fascist, an international movement, the proof beyond 9/11 based heavily on textual analysis, barely mentioning any institutional problematics that might make their threat second or third order, and of course keeping U.S. expansionism--I wonder if Berlet thinks the word applies to this country?--and its dynamic relation with Islamic radicalism, pretty much out of sight. What a wonderful fit to the needs of the imperial center!
---
----- Original Message ----- From: Chip Berlet <cberlet at igc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Cc: <hermane at wharton.upenn.edu>; <lnp3 at panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Herman responds
> Hi,
>
> Let's reread some of Herman's rhetoric before dismissing my criticism so
> glibly.
>
>
> Herman:
>
> > >Anybody on the left recognizes that the real and
> > >frightening "expansionism," now in an accelerating and violent
> > >phase, is centered in Washington, and Bush's war is an ugly facet
> > >of it.
>
> So Islamic fascist expansionism is not "real" and not "frightening,"
> although they just killed 3000 + people in a terrorist attck on the US.
> Anyone who worries about fascist terrorisn is apparently not on the left.
>
>
> > > Bush is attacking the
> > >"Islamic fascists," just as Clinton was getting the "Serb
> > >fascists," and that is all that counts for the new Hitchens.
> > >
>
> According to Herman, concern over the rise of ethnonationalist violence
and
> fascism is not about a real concern but is objectively a defense of US
> imperialism. Really? Maybe for Hitchens. But is Herman really just
> criticizing Hitchens in this letter, or is he attacking anyone who is
> concerned with clerical fascism and is Herman demonizing us as not really
> being leftists?
>
> Read on.
>
>
> > > Can't you see the humor of Hitchens speaking about "Taliban
> > >expansionism" and proving it with nonsense about the Taliban trying
> > >to infiltrate and take over Pakistan, when the United States is
> > >spreading over the globe, has itself penetrated Pakistan and
> > >entered into closer alliances with other regional goons of
> > >convenience, and has always felt it to be its right to infiltrate
> > >and subvert on a global basis?
>
> Islamic supermacists are, in fact, trying to take over Pakistan, just as
> they have tried to take over Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They did take over
Iran
> for a long time. This is not to defend any of those regimes, but to argue
> that to just flick off the reality of Islamic supermacist exapnsionism is
> absurd. That is the only humor I can find in this paragraph.
>
> > >
> > > The idea that the Taliban is a fascist and expansionist threat,
> > >and that Islamic fundamentalism more broadly speaking is the same,
> > >doesn't hold water (Louis Proyect's note to you deals with this
> > >quite well). Hitchens has come to use "fascist" as an epithet to
> > >apply to any enemy of the moment.
>
> Actually, while there is disagreement, there are decent arguments to be
made
> that these folks are clerical fascists, although you are not going to get
> them from Hitchens. I agtree with Herman that Hitchens is using the term
in
> an opportunistic and problematic way.
>
> See my discussion of clerical fascism at:
> http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/clerical-911.htm
> Note this paragraph:
>
> [ 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. ]
>
> This is not a settled question for the left. Again, Herman is implying
that
> attempts to call these folks fascist is eseentially just a form of
> scapegoating in support of imperialism.
>
> Here's what I wrote in a discussion of clerical fascism:
>
> Although the concept of clerical fascism is used widely in analyzing
certain
> forms of fascism, is it fair to apply it to certain forms of theocratic
> Islamic fundamentalism? Armstrong mentions there are some similarities
worth
> noting.8 Walter Laqueur discusses its usefulness as a concept at length in
> Fascism: Past, Present, Future.9 A number of academics, however, disagree
> with the use of the term fascism in this context. Roger Griffin believes
it
> stretches the term fascist too far to apply the term `fascism' to
"so-called
> fundamentalist or terroristic forms of traditional religion (i.e.
scripture
> or sacred text based with a strong sense of orthodoxy or orthodoxies
rooted
> in traditional institutions and teachings)." He does, however, concede
that
> the United States has seen the emergence of hybrids of political religion
> and fascism in such phenomena as the Nation of Islam and Christian
Identity,
> and that bin Laden's al Qaeda network may represent such a hybrid. He is
> unhappy with the term `clerical fascism,' though, since he says that "in
> this case we are rather dealing with a variety of `fascistized
> clericalism.'"10
>
> 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.
>
> But according to Herman:
>
> > > The Taliban is a nasty local authoritarian group with very
> > >modest power and capabilities--before the U.S. attack, barely able
> > >to cope with controlling its own terrain.
>
> The Taliban and al Qaeda are part of an international movement of
> Ultra-Wahhabism and Salafism that seeks to overthrow the governments in
> numerous nations and replace them with even more authoritarian and
> patriarchal regimes. There is much scholarship on this issue.
>
> For a serious study of the theology of Osama bin Laden, see: "The
'Religion'
> of Usamah bin Ladin: Terror As the Hand of God." Jean E. Rosenfeld,
Ph.D.,
> UCLA Center for the Study of Religion.
> http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/Islam/rosenfeld2001.htm
>
> Islam and the Theology of Power, Khaled Aabu El Fadl, Omar and Azmeralda
> Alfi Distinguished Fellow in Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law; Bin
> Laden and Revolutionary Millennialism.
> http://www.merip.org/mer/mer221/221_abu_el_fadl.html
>
> Catherine Wessinger, Professor of Religious Studies, Loyola University New
> Orleans, editor of Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical
> Cases (2000) and author of How the Millennium Comes Violently: From
> Jonestown to Heaven's Gate (2000).
> http://www.mille.org/cmshome/wessladen.html
>
> Jamal Malik. "Making Sense of Islamic Fundamentalism," ISIM Newsletter
> (International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World).
> http://www.isim.nl/newsletter/1/research/01AD30.html.
>
> While fundamentalism is a reaction against the Enlightenment and
modernity,
> it is ironically a distinctly modern phenomenon. Jamal Malik, (see above)
> who studies Muslim identity, explains that with Islamic fundamentalism
> "Islamic tradition is modernized, since the imagined Islamic society is to
> compete and correspond with Western achievements. This would only be
> possible in a centralized Islamic state over which they would wield
control
> as the agents of God's sovereignty on earth. . . ."
>
> The result is a form of Islamic fundamentalism that is very repressive.
One
> leader of this movement, Abul Ala Mawdudi (1903-79) argued that his ideal
> Islamic State "would be totalitarian, because it subjected everything to
the
> rule of God. . ." notes Karen Armstrong. In the most extreme case, this
type
> of social totalitarianism based on theology has been called a new form of
> clerical fascism-similar to WWII European clerical fascist movements such
as
> the Romanian Iron Guard and the Croatian Ustashi. This is a disputed view,
> but not a stupid non-leftist view. Herman trivializes this research.
>
> >The general
> >ideology of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists are no more
> >proof of expansionism than any other ideology, like the Christian,
> >Jewish, or communism.
>
> And this, I argue, is where Herman ends up being an apologist for these
> groups. Perhaps this is based on a lack of research by Herman into the
> particular theology behind al Qaeda and the Taliban. Certainly there was
no
> evidence in the Herman letter of any complex or nuanced understanding of
> this theology. Ultra-Wahhabism and Salafism are not just generic forms of
> Islamic belief or even typical of all Islamic fundamentalism--they are
> rooted in an expansionist notion of millenarian transformation that
demands
> they overthrow the unpure governments in historic Muslim regions. This is
> their ideology/theology. The idea of clerical fasicsm is not just some
> fantasy spread by non-leftists dupes of US imperialism. This is what I
> thought was implied in the Herman letter, with its dismissive tone.
>
> Herman has now responded with some (nasty) clarifications of his postion,
> and that was useful, but there was a substantial basis for my original
> criticism. I have tremendous respect for much of what Herman has written
> over the years, but I have a serious disagreement with him and others over
> this question. I read his letter to not just be about Hitchens, with whom
we
> both disagree about the war, but a swipe at anyone who raised the issue of
> fascism. There is a difference between saying someone is a supporter of
> something, and arguing that someone is objectively serving as an apologist
> for something. I never suggested Herman was a supporter of these groups.
His
> trivialization of the question of fascism serves an as apologia for these
> groups. He now claims that was not his intent. Fine, but I was responding
to
> the content and tone of his original letter.
>
> Finally, my list of points 9at the bottom of this post)was meant to
unravel
> the set of issues involved, which I felt Herman had conflated, and I did
not
> mean to suggest that he had articulated each statement. That was unclear,
> and I apologize for having left that impression.
>
> -Chip Berlet
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Gar Lipow
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 2:37 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> > Subject: Re: Herman responds
> >
> >
> > Doug, I think Herman's snippiness was more than justified
> > given that the
> > post he responded to attributed a number of really awful
> > views to him he
> > did not hold.
> >
> > If someone accused you of supporting Osmama bin-Laden, of being an
> > apologist for Saddam, I bet you would get a bit snippy too.
> >
> > Herman seems to hold the view that a number of murderous
> > thugs who are
> > being called fascist are evil murderous thugs who do not fit the
> > definition of fascist. Even if he is wrong - this does not
> > make him an
> > apologist for evil murderous thugs, just wrong about the
> > definition of
> > "facist"
> >
> > Also people are giving Herman a hard time for praising a post
> > by Louis
> > P. Now Louis P has extremely weird views on a number of
> > issues, and some
> > perosnality quirks too; but he is also extremely bright,
> > and is quite
> > capable of writing well on particular subjects without the weirdness
> > showing.
> >
> > I would not judge something written by LP without seeing it -
> > since it
> > could range anywhere from completely bonkers to really first rate.
>
>
> ==================
>
> Chip's earlier post:
>
>
>
> Sloppy Logic / Slurpy Argument Alert # 666
>
> Once more for the thrill of it:
>
> Just because Hitchens abuses the term fascist does not refute its accuracy
> in terms of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
>
> Just because Hitchens uses the fascist to promote the US war does not mean
> all those who call the Taliban and Al Qaeda fascist support the US war.
>
> Just because Clinton was "getting" the Serb fascists through NATO and
> criminal bombing raids, does not refute that some of the Serb leadership
> were fascists.
>
> Just because some of us called the Serbian thugs "fascists" did not mean
we
> supported the NATO/US bombing.
>
> Just because the NATO attacks and the bombing were wrong, does not mean
that
> we should be apologists for Serbian Orthodox fascism, (or Croat Catholic
> fascism or Kosovar Islamic fascism).
>
> Just because the US attack on and bombing of Afghanistan were wrong, does
> not mean that we should be apologists for Islamic forms of fascism.
>
> I find it sad for the left that Herman has to become an apologist for
ethnic
> fascists in order to criticize US imperialism.
>
> How about NO to both imperialism and fascism...is that too much to ask?
>
> -Chip Berlet
>
> p.s. anyone have Louis Proyect's note, I can hardly wait.
>
>
> ==========================
>
>