OK I'm still amused, so I'll make a few more points below. Tahir
> Tahir: I didn't discuss "political islam" as some kind of unitary>
phenomenon. There are democratic, feminist and liberation theology >
forms of islamic politics. If you look at my post again you will see>
that I wasn't discussing them.
Quite, but then I wasn't claiming that you had. I was suggesting that ultra-nationalism is inadequate as a definition of fascism, and I supplemented that with a couple of other points about Political Islam since someone else had suggested it could be considered a form of fascism.
Tahir: A better approach would have been to ask me what I meant by ultra-nationalism. I do think that the petit bourgeois connection is not correct. I think that the p.b. are susceptible to the fascist/nationalist message, but the nation is always bourgeois in its origins, precisely because it is always an element in capitalist accummulation. The p.b. are just the poodles of the haute bourgeoisie. But what I had in mind with ultra-nationalism is a movement of national salvation. It comes about when the ruling class is in a crisis of legitimacy (third world countries are often perpetually in this kind of crisis). The fascist is the national saviour. He emerges as a shining light to the nation and promises to restore their pride. Islamist ideology is full of this shining light stuff when describing their heroes. And BTW the idea that the working class are not susceptible to this is just junk - no mass movement could survive without worker and lumpen support.
> Tahir: I don't see any reason for preferring the fundamentalists to>
MEK. I doubt whether they are neocons, even today. I do think they are>
rather tacky opportunists, whereas they were perhaps something better>
circa 1979. They were at least better than the blithering idots of the>
Tudeh party who were quite prepared to suck the dicks of the clergy
just> as much as they were prepared to serve the stalinists. As for
democracy,> this is explicitly condemned by many islamist movements, and
implicitly> undermined by others. Take any of the definitive freedoms of
democracy,> freedom of speech, association, thought, whatever, they are
all> restricted under islamic rule.
By some forms of 'Islamic rule', yes.
Tahir: Give me one counter example with details.
> Tahir: No its not at all obvious; it's self contradictory. "Think in>
individualist rather than collectivist terms", so you go and found a>
"movement"!! What, a movement of one? Please think things through a>
little, even if it goes against the grain (I'm sure it does, but make>
the effort at least).
Individualist as in atomised, as in subservient, as in totally
distrustful of others but utterly reverent toward authority. It isn't a
controversial point I'm making: the petit-bourgeoisie by nature of its
class position does tend toward individualism rather than working class
collectivism. Precisely because of that, they have been ideal recruits
for fascist movements. Indeed, there as an interesting ideological
artefact of this: Kershaw notes that Hitler's ideology was profoundly
meritocratic - not that German society was that, but that the outlook of
the Nazis was. Instead of rushing for the nearest "gotcha", you could
try thinking about what you suppose you are commenting on, and treat it
as a commentary rather than a series of nails in an ideological coffin
for
you batter at.
Tahir: The incoherence was yours not mine. I have already told you that I don't buy the argument of fascism as the ideology of the petit bourgeoisie. That is some mechanistic stuff. A crisis of the nation affects different individuals differently and many p.b. types become communists. In fact a great many historically have become leninists!
> Tahir: Besides the fact that this ignores my argument (leave that>
aside, it's what I expect)
Why do you expect that? Do you think there's something between us, some unresolved issue? There isn't. I don't know you well enough to resent you, and without wishing to be rude, you can't know the smallest thing about me. Try and imagine for a second that I read your post and found it interesting enough to respond to - is that so improbable?
Tahir: You lead with your chin, pal, by identifying yourself as a leninist. Now that leninists do not have secret police and gulags to back them up so much, that chin is all the more tempting.
>, every one of these assertions can be> disproved by facts. Firstly on
the anti-imperialist question; all> fascist movements have their
anti-imperialist moments.
But these fascists, once in government, often have their imperialist moments. The Italian fascists were initially pacifist, but in government outgrew that: which speaks to my point about assessing fascism in terms of what it does rather than what it says about itself. See Paxton, referenced previously.
Tahir: My point is precisely that I don't trust "anti-imperialist" movements for this very reason. Without exception (you go ahead and try me on this one too) they end up becoming paternalist and authoritarian, whether or not they end up being "imperialist", whatever that means. In other words "anti-imperialist" beginnings have never been a basis for liberal democracy, social democracy, socialist democracy or any other kind of democracy. Your claims on this point are entirely bogus.
> Many> fascist movements are not expansionist. How expansionist was
Franco's> Spain, Pinochet's Chile, or indeed apartheid South Africa? Not
very.
SA was very aggressive militarily
Tahir: It never expanded its borders by an inch. So there you go, fascism without expansion. So drop that criterion.
, whereas the other two were clients of other military powers. The
point is well-taken however.
> Islam however has for most of its history been expansionist and>
imperialist - just ask the Indians - and I see no reason why some of
the> modern islamic movements should not also be expansionist.
That's a crock, and it's sadly redolent of something Bat Ye'or or Melanie Phillips would come out with.
Tahir: Have you read any history of Islam? How do you think it got as far as China, West Africa, Turkey, Spain. Through the fucking sword, man, not through wandering mystics!!!
How 'expansionist' has the Islamic Republic been? Or the Saudi monarchy? These have certainly had their role in global politics, but I haven't noticed Iran invading anyone, for instance.
Tahir: I was talking about the earlier period. Obviously not now, it would be political suicide in the present global situation. But in a different situation? There you need to look at the past for clues. BTW I like your respectful "the Islamic Republic". Do you also speak about "the People's Republic" as well?
> So there> again, not much of a point. Not "dominative"? Ask the
minorities of Iran> about that (including the Arabs).
The treatment of the Ahwazis is obviously a disgrace, but this is a classic problem of a claim to nationality or at least autonomy which governments of all kinds have tended to respond to with repression. If you want to see Persian supremacy in action, you really ought to speak to some of the exiles. It has nothing to do with Political Islam.
Tahir Oh I get it they're Islamic when they're busy with some things, then they revert to being Persian again when they are busy with other things. The one doesn't sanction the other. How very odd.
> Ask the workers of any country in the> middle east if their rulling
classes are not "dominative".
But you'll notice that I didn't say the ruling classes did not dominate: they do. By definition, this is what they do. What does this have to do with nationalism?
Tahir: You were the one said Islamic regimes were not dominative. Class domination and nationalism are utterly inseperable.
> Ask women the> same question.
And this has to do with what aspect of nationalism? This address what part of my argument?
Tahir: Same as above. (Clue: think about the word 'patriot' for a moment).
>I haven't got time to expand on this, except to say your> enthusiasm
for the notion of anti-imperialism, which I would guess you> have fairly
recently adopted... [snip]
The penny drops - you are angry with me for something I said previously on this mailing list.
Tahir: No it's your dogmatic leninist position in general. They're all taking this position on the obscurantist regimes at present. So you're just a type to me; can't be any other way. I mean how else can I relate to someone who takes lenin's name as his list name? I ask you.
This is your problem, not mine, and you are allowing your recently acquired perception of me and my politics to distort your reading of the argument. Incidentally, the fact that you have given up Leninism isn't indicative of anything beyond your own recent propensities. Many people have given up revolutionary politics, socialism, leftism, even any vestige of liberalism altogether - and they usually present it as if they have grown up, matured, or been mugged by reality.
Tahir: Ah but if you'd read any of my posts you would realise that I am an ultra-leftist, you know, the kind that leninists have always liked to dispatch to Jinnah?
Those who have had to give up previous political positions, often with some terrible regret, tend to condescend horribly to their former selves and to those who keep the faith. But I am not your political enemy
Tahir: See the above point on that. But tell me, now that we're getting acquainted, how much of leftwing communism are you familiar with? Are you one of those who nods his head sagely when reading "an infantile disorder" without knowing anything about the people Lenin is attacking?
, nor am I the ghost of your former self, so you can give up the purge.
Tahir: Purging is your strong suite Mr L.
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/uwc2006/content/mail_disclaimer/index.htm