On The 'Islamofascism' Misnomer...
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
Okay, now that you have had time to digest that portion...
Fascism today is defined by one or more of the following:
1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
It is not necessary to have all three... At least according to political science scholars it isn't....
I notice I have yet to give sourcing. Many of what I have to say came from my home encyclopedia, I have however found that much of the information is also contained herein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition
Fascism today is defined by one or more of the following:
1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
It is not necessary to have all three... At least according to political science scholars it isn't....
I notice I have yet to give sourcing. Many of what I have to say came from my home encyclopedia, I have however found that much of the information is also contained herein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition
Once again, if you don't like arguing definition then please go to another thread, maineman. This one was specifically made to argue this point. We are specifically taking time out to argue the definition of this one word. Attempting to point out how worthless you think it is is pointless in a thread made to do this.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I agree that all terms are debatable, that is why I am asking for those characteristics that seperate fascism from other similar ideologies to be isolated.
Looking through the two definitions you posted, do you notice that both definitions involve nationalism...
"that exalts nation and often race" & "in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants"
Nationalism tends to be a reoccurring theme in all definitions we are finding, from OED, OEPD, MW and D.com...
Taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say that I don't think that nationalism being a defining characteristic of fascism is really a bone of contention.
Can I say that your argument centres upon the Khalifate being Nationalistic in it's nature?
Looking through the two definitions you posted, do you notice that both definitions involve nationalism...
"that exalts nation and often race" & "in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants"
Nationalism tends to be a reoccurring theme in all definitions we are finding, from OED, OEPD, MW and D.com...
Taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say that I don't think that nationalism being a defining characteristic of fascism is really a bone of contention.
Can I say that your argument centres upon the Khalifate being Nationalistic in it's nature?
Last edited:
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
1. Nationalism
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
Looking at these definitions, you mentioned that it doesn't require all three to be fascism?
What differentiates between western economic capitalist corporatism and fascism?
By the definition in part three, this perfectly describes Soviet Communism, would you then describe Soviet Communism to be fascism?
P.S. I would say that if you take each of the three definitions in isolation you find ideologies that are pretty far ideologically from fascism.
If you combine the three, you isolate any other ideologies and are left with fascism.
2. Economic Corporatism
3. A powerful Dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
Looking at these definitions, you mentioned that it doesn't require all three to be fascism?
What differentiates between western economic capitalist corporatism and fascism?
By the definition in part three, this perfectly describes Soviet Communism, would you then describe Soviet Communism to be fascism?
P.S. I would say that if you take each of the three definitions in isolation you find ideologies that are pretty far ideologically from fascism.
If you combine the three, you isolate any other ideologies and are left with fascism.
Last edited:
It does, and it doesn't. I believe that the Caliphate does have nationalistic flavor to it. I did, however, also note that the second definition specifically states that only "one or more" must be present, not all three.
There are even more definitions listed on the wiki site as well as a real explanation that greater minds than ours have been arguing the definition of this word for decades and still no consensus has been reached. I also explained exactly what I believed to be nationalistic about the Caliphate and why it fit. The second definition is particularly striking in how it meshes with the current state of affairs in that region as well as being more clear that it isn't necessarily "place or race" that counts for nationalism....
This person may, but I would not as it wouldn't be definitive enough. Fascism, being as unclear as it is in current contextual definitions deserves to have qualifiers... Hence you hear of Italian-fascism, Nazi-fascism and other such words when reading the works of political scientists of our time and the recent past. In this case the word is being more specifically defined by the term "islamo" beforehand giving it it's own particular "flavoring", just as those other "flavors" are added beforehand in those works of the scholars.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Damo, I am leaving the office for a dirty weekend in the country so, unless we have internet access in the hotel and I can drag myself to it without risking bodily harm from the better half, we will have to continue this on Monday?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Works for me. That's the beauty of messageboards, the convesation will still be here when you get back....
This could be a long and interesting debate...
Enjoy your weekend.
Cheers bud. Going to the country without going fishing seems a bit pointless to me but the missus thinks it will be 'nice'....
Have a good one yourself...
This could be a long and interesting debate...
Enjoy your weekend.
Cheers bud. Going to the country without going fishing seems a bit pointless to me but the missus thinks it will be 'nice'....
Have a good one yourself...
those guys are communofascists, of course
this shows how inadequate Dixie's "definition" of fascism is. His "definition" applies to any and all authoritarian regimes.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Neither is the Republican party, yet some people have seriously argued they are Fascists, and have even compared Bush to Hitler. I don't recall this outrage from you over that.
If they exhibit the characteristics of fascism, they are indeed "fascist" in nature, whether this is the defining parameter, would be subject to individual interpretations. One might well argue, the brutal dictatorial oppression of Soviet Communism is fascist in nature, although it is not best described as "Fascism."
My question is, why are you so caught up on the meaning of "fascist" here? We are discussing a word that utilizes "fascist" as a root, which has its own independent meaning apart from pure Fascism. We've been through this already, you can't hold the new word hostage to the dictionary definition of the root word, there would be no purpose in establishing a new word if this were the criteria, we would simply use the root word.
maineman
Banned
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
please quit arguing about whether this word is real (it is clearly made up) or whether it is appropriate (does it really matter?) and discuss the reasons WHY this particular word is being used: to piggyback onto the inherent abhorence for fascism in the American people as a result of WWII... and to create fear and anger at our enemies....the fact that these neocons use this word to describe BOTH Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof positive that the word itself is not used with any degree of intellectual honesty, but only to create an emotional reaction.
please quit arguing about whether this word is real (it is clearly made up) or whether it is appropriate (does it really matter?) and discuss the reasons WHY this particular word is being used: to piggyback onto the inherent abhorence for fascism in the American people as a result of WWII... and to create fear and anger at our enemies....the fact that these neocons use this word to describe BOTH Hezbollah and Al Qaeda is proof positive that the word itself is not used with any degree of intellectual honesty, but only to create an emotional reaction.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Actually, that's a trick question. What many people don't realize is that angels can't dance. No, really: they've no sense of rhythm at all. Can't keep time to a clock.
Gaffer
Sanctimonious Prick
Islamo-facist sounds good for lack of something else. I have never liked the term terrorist to discribe these pieces of shit. They are pukes that need to be killed as fast as we can find them. The correct term would be islomists. That's what they murder for. That's what they worship. They are ruled by a single theocratic dictatorship. facisim is a right wing political form of government. It doesn't truly apply except in its extreme hatred and desire for conquest.
Word games can be played all day and into next year, we are at war with islam. therefore they are islamists. Just like not all Germans were behind hitler all muslims are not behind the islamists. But I bet the percentages are about the same.
Word games can be played all day and into next year, we are at war with islam. therefore they are islamists. Just like not all Germans were behind hitler all muslims are not behind the islamists. But I bet the percentages are about the same.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
On the need for a nationalist element in fascism.
Let's go a little further back and look at the requirements for definition.
"In Aristotle’s logical works, he creates a theory of definition. According to Aristotle, the best way to create a definition is to find the proximate group in which the type of thing resides. For example, humans are a type of thing (species) and their proximate group is animal (or blooded animal). The proximate group is called the genus. Thus the genus is a larger group of which the species is merely one proper subset. What marks off that particular species as unique? This is the differentia or the essential defining trait. In our example with humans the differentia is “rationality.” Thus the definition of “human” is a rational animal. “Human” is the species, “animal” is the genus and “rationality” is the differentia. "
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-bio.htm
Using Aristotle's model of definition we must firstly find the proximate group and then the differentia.
So what are the criteria of the proximate group for these negative regimes? They are all oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist.
And what is the differentia between these negative regimes? With the Soviet Communism species it is slavish devotion to the proletariat's revolution, with monarchy it is slavish devotion to the whims of the monarch, with theocracy it is slavish devotion to the doctrine of religion.
With this in mind, what is the differentia for fascism? What seperates this species from other oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist ideologies?
On the nature of Nationalism.
Can the fervent nature of a religious empire united under a reglious banner be deemed to be nationalism?
Consider this definition of nationalism:
"Nationalism is an ideology which holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and take precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief; above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, and that each nation is entitled to its own state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Using this definition it is extremely difficult to see a religious empire as a nationalist organisation, because by the definition of nationalism no other social or political principles can over-ride that of the nation state. In a religious empire, any notion of the nation is subordinate to religious doctrine. Nationalism sees the nation as the only legitimate basis for the state, the Khalifate sees religious doctrine.
Fervent belief in an ideology can be seen in this case as the proximate group, but the nation / religious doctrine is the differentia in this matter.
Let's go a little further back and look at the requirements for definition.
"In Aristotle’s logical works, he creates a theory of definition. According to Aristotle, the best way to create a definition is to find the proximate group in which the type of thing resides. For example, humans are a type of thing (species) and their proximate group is animal (or blooded animal). The proximate group is called the genus. Thus the genus is a larger group of which the species is merely one proper subset. What marks off that particular species as unique? This is the differentia or the essential defining trait. In our example with humans the differentia is “rationality.” Thus the definition of “human” is a rational animal. “Human” is the species, “animal” is the genus and “rationality” is the differentia. "
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-bio.htm
Using Aristotle's model of definition we must firstly find the proximate group and then the differentia.
So what are the criteria of the proximate group for these negative regimes? They are all oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist.
And what is the differentia between these negative regimes? With the Soviet Communism species it is slavish devotion to the proletariat's revolution, with monarchy it is slavish devotion to the whims of the monarch, with theocracy it is slavish devotion to the doctrine of religion.
With this in mind, what is the differentia for fascism? What seperates this species from other oppressive, dictatorial, totalitarian and expansionist ideologies?
On the nature of Nationalism.
Can the fervent nature of a religious empire united under a reglious banner be deemed to be nationalism?
Consider this definition of nationalism:
"Nationalism is an ideology which holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and take precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief; above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, and that each nation is entitled to its own state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Using this definition it is extremely difficult to see a religious empire as a nationalist organisation, because by the definition of nationalism no other social or political principles can over-ride that of the nation state. In a religious empire, any notion of the nation is subordinate to religious doctrine. Nationalism sees the nation as the only legitimate basis for the state, the Khalifate sees religious doctrine.
Fervent belief in an ideology can be seen in this case as the proximate group, but the nation / religious doctrine is the differentia in this matter.
Last edited:
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
or whether it is appropriate (does it really matter?)
Socrates died so we would understand the importance of the definition of terms...
Socrates died so we would understand the importance of the definition of terms...
Litmus
Verified User
Plus, we can also have internationalist fascism these days, which is a belief that no boundary anywhere on earth can stop corporations from doing what they want to people anywhere, regardless of national origin.
Internationalist fascism is also called globalization or "free trade"-ism.
Internationalist fascism is also called globalization or "free trade"-ism.