> Islamist> ideology is full of this shining light stuff when describing their> heroes.
Yeah, absolutely, but this is not unknown among other kinds of movements as I say.
Tahir: And as I also said, which is why I compared them in the first place. I didn't say that anti-imperialist movements emerge with the word 'fascism' emblazoned on their foreheads. I said that their natural tendency is to become fascist or something very like fascist. That was what I said and I am sticking to my point that there are no counter examples to this. None of them become 'libertarian'. Period.
> 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.
I did mention the lumpenproletariat, and I did not say that the working class are invulnerable to fascism: I am not, to put it another way, an imbecile. You seem to be extrapolating a great from what I do say in order to engage with what I don't.
Tahir: Then we agree that workers, lumpen and p.bourgeoisie are all sometimes receptive to fascism. Fine. But without a bourgeoisie the notion of fascism could never even arise. I'm through with this point now.
> Tahir: Give me one counter example with details.
I thought we agreed that there feminist, liberatory, marxist and other kinds of Islamic politics. So, by definition therefore, not all 'Islamic' forms of government are necessarily repressive.
Tahir: I said "islamic rule". Under islamic rule there cannot be democracy and I still challenge you to supply me with a counter example. The movements amongst muslims that are liberatory, etc. do not aim at islamic rule, by definition. For example the role that many muslims played here in SA was like that (there were also some extremely ugly fundamentalists around though and still are - scum one and all).
> 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.
First of all, I did not say that it is the "ideology" of the petit-bourgeoisie, so again you are engaging with what I don't say. I indicated that the ideology lacks coherence and takes on different forms depending on audience and vector.
Tahir: No sorry you did bring the p.b. into it.
But the relationship I did advert to doesn't *have* to be mechanistic. Recognising the correlation with a particular agency - which is, by the way, firmly empirically established - doesn't mean that the petit-bourgeois exclusively and automatically produces fascism in a crisis of capitalism.
Tahir: So why give them a privileged mention?
But why, for instance, is it the case that in Britain, the BNP's biggest successes have been among lower middle class areas - those Tory-voting regions outlying working class areas? Is it not a reasonable inference from the mountain of available data that the
Tahir: Huh, did you lose interest in this point? But after a tremendous phrase like "reasonable inference from a mountain of available data" anyone's mind would begin to wander. If you meant that you can prove this by numbers, why not tell me how many working class youth have supported the national front? Do you have that particular mountain at your fingertips?
> 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!
Or indeed Jacobins or Fifth Monarchists.
Tahir: Yep. So again no direct class connection with any of these.
> 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.
But you are conflating Leninism with Stalinism. I am a Trot, dear, and one with a libertarian bent at that, but you go ahead and swipe away if you think that's my chin you're aiming at.
> 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.
Well, it would be refreshing to know exactly what you think you mean by anti-imperialism even if you don't know what you mean by imperialism
Tahir: What is called 'imperialism' is an ineradicable aspect of capitalism. There is and can be no capitalism that is not imperialist in this way.
- but the revolutions that overthrew the Stalinist regimes were anti-imperialist in a fashion.
Tahir: What fashion? Choosing a new imperialism over your old one?
The Aristide movement was anti-imperialist.
Tahir: I'm not an expert on Haiti, but I seriously doubt this.
The overthrow of apartheid was surely anti-imperialist, since it overthrew a regime sustained by imperialism.
Tahir: Ha ha ha
> 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.
I don't know what "claims" you suppose you are referring to, but hostility to imperialism was precisely the basis for
Tahir: Ran out of steam again? Your claim was that certain anti-imperialist movements, specifically islamic ones, are democratic in nature. That is rubbish.
> Tahir: It never expanded its borders by an inch. So there you go,> fascism without expansion. So drop that criterion.
There appears to be some misunderstanding on your part. I have not suggested that expansionism is an invariant aspect of fascism. I have suggested that it is one of the tendencies in fascist governments, (I might add, particularly those in developed capitalist states).
Tahir: Invariant or not you used that point to try to counter my notion of fascism so it obviously had some importance to you. I didn't introduce it.
> 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!!!
One could apply that rationale to Christianity, but I suspect you would be more circumspect here.
Tahir: No I wouldn't. I have come to dislike all religions equally. No that's not true, it's only theoretically true. At the visceral level I have a special distaste for Christiantiy and its bloody iconography.
> Tahir: I was talking about the earlier period. Obviously not now, it> would be political suicide in the present global situation.
Oh, but excuse me, I thought you said that modern Islamic movements would be expansionist too? Or are you embarrassed by that little bit of essentialism?
Tahir: Oh lord a pomo trot! Two of my worst combined into one. They are essentially expansionist. If you don't know that about islamism then you don't know diddley squat on the topic. Please note that I am not alking about muslims here, I am talking about islamist movements, fundamentalists, whether sunni or shia.
> 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?
It's a formality,
Tahir: My point exactly!
but it also adverts to the Jacobin revolutionary aspects of the revolution (if any aspect of the title needs to be dropped, it is 'Islamic', since all of the 'Islamic' trappings carefully dress up a developmental capitalist state with bureacrats in religious drag and the Council of Guardians operating as the executive arm of the bourgeoisie). If you can bring yourself to avoid trying to prosecute before your imaginary tribunal, I would be grateful.
Tahir: ??? Yeah Jacobin with all the terror. None of that shit has anything to do with communism.
> 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.
No, that isn't what I said and again, I must caution you to pay attention to what you purport to be engaging with. Do you suppose the Ahwazis are not also Shi'ites? They are, and that being the case, it is preposterous to suppose that their repression (which dates back to the Shah) is about pre-Mahdist Political Islam or the vilayet e-faqih. The Ahwazis have always been repressed because the area is an economic and strategic asset to the nation-state as a whole
Tahir: Yeah, what I said, fascism.
and aspirations of independence therefore present a serious problem. If the Iranian nation-state is defined by anything, it is a kind of Shi'ite nationalism (this is actually supported by several aspects of the constitution - have a look at Sami Zubaida, “Is Iran an Islamic State?”, in Joel Beinin and Joe Stork eds, Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report, 1997.
> Tahir: You were the one said Islamic regimes were not dominative. Class> domination and nationalism are utterly inseperable.
No, I said that the forms of nationalism espoused by Arab nationalist regimes or even by the Islamic Republic were not and are not dominative in the sense that the racism inherent in fascist ideology is dominative (rather than merely aversive). Once again, and I'm sorry to have to keep saying this, you would have been better advised to read and think about what you think you are commenting on before setting fingers to keyboard.
Tahir: And I argued that racism is not inherent to fascism.
> 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.
Try pretending to be an adult. Try not clotting your prose with cliche (everyone else is dogmatic while your thought is deliciously supple). Try responding to what you are reading rather than inferring what you want to based on this 'type' that you have in mind.
Tahir: I've got nothing to add to my above point.
> 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?
Possibly you are an ultra-leftist, but your tendency toward hysterical denunciation and abstraction (strenuously decapitalised to avoid the suspicion of Hegelianism no doubt)
Tahir: Actually I'm an admirer of Hegel and on my keyboard it is less strenuous not to capitalise.
is more redolent of Stalinism than anything else.
Tahir: Hey you're onto something here. Why don't we just start calling each other fascists at this point?
> 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?
I suppose I should be counting down to mentions of Kronstadt and one-man management. I see no purpose in discussing that with you, since you've made it abundantly clear that you can't even discuss topics not usually riddled with sectariana without going off into your own loops of fantasy, imputation, misrepresentation, slander and so on.
Tahir: Oh fuck off, pedant.
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/uwc2006/content/mail_disclaimer/index.htm