<html> <head> <style> P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body>Tahir Wood wrote: > Look, I don't spend a lot of time in the useless task of debating > leninists on anything, because as I have made it clear I don't respect > their positions on many things. So I can't guarantee that I will keep > this thread going, but I will make one or two brief replies below. > Tahir I haven't asked for a debate, but if you're going to reply to my comments you might try keeping a civil tongue in your head.  I don't particularly care whether you 'respect' my position on anything, but your intemperance in this case is entirely misplaced. > 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: 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.  But we don't disagree on anything in particular there. > 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: 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?   >, 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.   > 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, 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.  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.   > 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.   > 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?   > Ask women the > same question.    And this has to do with what aspect of nationalism?  This address what part of my argument?   >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.  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.  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, nor am I the ghost of your former self, so you can give up the purge.   <hr />Be one of the first to try <a href='http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d' target='_new'>Windows Live Mail.</a></body> </html>