>Ben Bella's use of the term Integralism is vital, because he is >arguing
against one of the core components of fascism--its >organicism. National
liberation struggles can move in several >directions. I am arguing that Ben
Bella was moving
>in a relatively progressive direction for that moment for that >society. I
would encourage that trend in any liberation struggle.
Me in reply:
In the BB piece he makes a distinction between 'fundamentalism' and 'integralism', though you point out his distinction does not follow your scholarly consensus (which is why I had a hard time figuring out why you use him as an example of a pattern since he seems to except it).
I did not necessarily see a critique of 'organicism'. Rather, I saw a rebuttal of any sort of extremism, which might include extremist organicism (metaphysical organicism), and most importantly VIOLENCE. But I was asking, are there elements even in someone as reasonable as BB's thinking, that might reflect or support or even lead to things like 'clerical fascism'. Rationally enough, no doubt, OBL thinks his use of violence is justified. As does Pres. Bush.
Major digression number one: In a way, this relates to the ongoing discussion about philosophy and current events (namely, Fish). Philosophy as I see it can in little or no way determine the flow of current events, but it is often a coherent, complex response to them. We need philosophy (surely social science departments do!) even as we anti-intellectually marginalize and deny it. We have post-modern thinkers like Baudrillard or Feyerabend or Guattari who respond to our times in extraordinary ways. They help to recast imaginations and bring us back to survey the wreckage.
Back to organicism. I do not see it leading or determining a path to fascism (I'm not sure you do either, but you do use the terms almost synonymously in places). An organic metaphor is a handy way of encompassing an entire society. We often use an implied sense of it when we speak about a people, their language, their culture. It might even reflect an anthropological, evolutionary and socio-biological reality. In philosophy, try Burke's conservatism.
Later, in reply to Carrol you write:
>Well, we can forgive Plato, but yes, organicism/integralism is part >of the
totalitarian aspect of fascist movements that lead to brutal >suppression of
dissent. Osama bin Laden envisions independent >organicist theocracies
across
>the Muslim world. Just like the fascist Third Position wants >independent
organicist racially-pure nation states.
What a freight train of -isms.
In the OBL that I've read, he talks of a unified, liberated Islam from Africa, across the ME, to SE Asia, not racially purified nation states. Perhaps there is an Arab racism involved here--they are, afterall, the original Muslims going out among the converted and 'correcting' their societies. I wonder if most Americans are aware of how much Islamic learning and Arabic literature are revered in societies like Malaysia and Indonesia?
Still, if anything his organicism is based on his current vision of Islam. But he has chosen revolutionary violence as a means to an end. This does not make him unique in history. And he has done so without a nation state (not counting the Taliban's Afghanistan because it clearly is not alone an effective base for and the Taliban had not even consolidated power on the terrtitory, let alone gone done some path of evolution--they were still at war). This is why I only half-jokingly said OBL most resembles Pancho Villa (which is why the recent attacks do not resemble the war of 1812 or Pearl Harbor but why we can find an historic precedent--a revolutionary who is not the leader of country who directly attacks the US).
This all brings me back to when I posted Camus. I've come full circle enough to say, truly, this time I've had enough. I might refer or allude to this thread, but I will not be using the thread title in anything I write from now on.
Charles Jannuzi