Thanks. The article provides a good taxonomy of what is fascist and what is right-wing populist. Trump is the latter and not the former.

We all use terms rather loosely. I don't think that someone who says they don't like Islam is a bigot. People who would prefer to not have 1,000,000 more Moslem immigrants in the coming year are neither necessarily bigots, racists, nor xenophobic. They may well not want 1,000,000 more immigrants of any description. We don't accuse atheists that dislike Christianity, Judaism, or Islam "bigots" or "racists" or xenophobics. Why should Moslems, Jews, or Christians that don't like their associated religionists be automatically called bigots or racists (unless they have exhibited actual bigotry, hatred, or racial discrimination) or xenophobic?

I disapprove of lax control of borders and do not feel 10,000,000 Mexicans and Central Americans have earned a right to be here just because they managed to get here by evading border and passport control. About 1/5 of my block neighbors are Mexican or Central Americans and they make fine neighbors, to the degree that anybody makes (or doesn't make) fine neighbors. But 10,000,000 low to moderately skilled workers who find our low wages still better than their home-countriy's low wages has disrupted the labor market for low and moderately skilled Americans. I just don't see anything right about that. I don't think that makes me xenophobic, racist, bigoted, or right wing.

I don't especially like a lot of things -- I don't think I'm obligated to, for instance, like Bollywood movies, rap music, muzak, highly spiced food, eating insects, fundamentalists--whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Islamic, thugs, fat people in spandex***, people who can't take their eyes off their phones, women who wear intense, (insect-killing) perfume, reckless drivers, dog shit on the sidewalk, and more besides.

I wouldn't vote for Trump just because he promises to ban spandex on fat people***. It's a laudable goal, but not worth a vote. I won't vote for him just because we might agree about illegal immigration, either.

***I am both too fat and too old for spandex. It is justly a fabric for slim youth.

Donald Trump is a right-wing populist surfing on the newest version of the "Red Scare" in the US, which has reached the hysteria phase (that is the fear of Islamist extremism, which basically turns into fear of muslims). What his true impact is that such speech will be acceptable and favoured in American politics in the future.

Now that might open a door for something that really is equivalent to real fascism later, when some American politician has the brilliant idea that the problems in the country cannot be corrected because of democracy. But that still won't be totally in the traditional mold fascism, simply because nobody is likely to say that they are for fascism. Because it is a swearword.

Yet if some Americans love Trump, then on the other hand some Americans love Bernie Sanders. They aren't opposites, but still.

In the end Trump is a capable rodeo clown (and with a rodeo a clown I mean the American equivalent of a matador), which the American audience loves (those that like rodeo, anyway). In a way he's the republican version of George McGovern in the 1972 elections, now only in the totally opposite camp, but with the likely consequences for the Republican party. Because what is sure that Trump won't stop here with his outrageous remarks.

Btw, people that are responsible of US foreign policy will surely just love if Trump truly would get into office. Because Trump obviously as a former GOP commentator & hang around personality like Sarah Palin cannot think or doesn't care that his populist remarks to US voters could have other effects too. I could not image that even a GOP candidate could get a condemnation of his views from France, the UK (which had a hugely popular petition with over half a million signatures given to the Parliament about banning Trump from UK) and even condemnation from Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel (which Trump felt was inappropriate, but was OK with, and hence Trump decided to dump his visit to Israel). The Israeli Haaretz aptly called "Trump's anti-Muslim outrage makes him (Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi's useful idiot", which is totally correct.

(Seldom does a Parliament of one country debate a candidate from another country, with the administration giving such remarks like this of a potential future President:)


Great start for the possible next "Leader of the Free World".

Islamic fascism is alive and well. — Thorongil

Ah, Dubya's term Islamofascism! I would think that Islamism is a bit different.

Islamism is the term for a purely fascist enterprise, hence they are interchangeable, as I see it. I know nothing about whether Bush coined it. I don't care about him, except insofar as I think he was right on principle regarding Iraq and the dangers of Islamofascism.

Islamism is the term for a purely fascist enterprise, hence they are interchangeable, as I see it. — Thorongil

The term Islamism dates from the 18th Century. Fascism doesn't.

Islamism, basically the idea that the state should be organized by the principles of Islam, having Sharia law and where the state and religion are same. Basically that is the objective of Islamism is a theocratic state (with both Shias and Sunnis). And those kinds of states have existed before the Iranian Revolution, for example in history as the Ottoman Empire, just to give an example. The Ottoman Empire had a system where the political and religious leader was the Sultan and the state's primary responsibility was "to defend and extend the land of the Muslims and to ensure security and harmony within its borders within the overarching context of orthodox Islamic practice and dynastic sovereignty". The fact that these loonies like the IS want a Caliphate actually has a logic... to that old power that was destroyed by the Mongols. The Iranian theocracy is a bit different, but I would still consider it to be Islamist.

Now you might say that the above is fascist. But fascism is reaction against communism and the problems, real or imagined, in the democratic system of the early 20th Century. A better word would be in my view totalitarian / authoritarian, than fascist.

I'd recommend reading the article I posted a bit ago. I don't think the two are even roughly congruent. They seem to be quite at odds with one another, in fact.


The problem with totalitarian/authoritarian, at least as I see it, is that all states are totalitarian/authoritarian. They impose certain values and ways of life upon anyone within a geography. They just have different values.

But fascism is reaction against communism and the problems, real or imagined, in the democratic system of the early 20th Century — ssu

I already knew the history you described before this quote, while this quote seems to be your definition of fascism. In that case, I would merely point out that Islamism is squarely against both communism and democracy as well, so you've made a distinction without a difference.

About Trump? I agree he's not a fascist, technically speaking, though he has made fascist sounding remarks from time to time.

But using said criteria, I don't think you could classify militant Islam in the same category.

Okay, let's see, then:

Fascism rejects democracy - So does Islamism.

Fascism emphasizes violence for its own sake - Militant Islamism most certainly does this.

Fascism is anti-individualist - Islamism is anti-individualist too; it wants everyone to belong to a worldwide ummah and to be under Shariah Law.

Fascism doesn't really have much to do with economics - Neither does Islamism; Islamic caliphates of the past simply collected taxes and left maintenance of the economy to local governors; IS today is an "economy" based on theft, much like the Third Reich.

Militant Islam doesn't reject democracy as the problem, though -- Militant Islam as practiced by IS is based in an older world idea which predates the wide acceptance of democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, does.

Militant Islam does not emphasize violence for its own sake. It practices jihad, but that has a purpose greater than the violence itself.

I agree that Militant Islam is anti-individualist. With the latter as well.


Militant Islam is medieval Sunni society attempting to be reborn in the world today. That is a kind of throwback, but not to a mythologized past as much as to a past that had existed prior to centuries of Islamic interpretation and growth (in number, spiritually, and in time). So it is a kind of anachronism, but it's not the same sort of historical myth that Fascism builds.

The biggest difference, I think, are the views on the state. Militant Islam wants to establish a Caliphate, but this is theological significance. The state, or empire, is a tool, rather than "an organic entity" which can and must be purified for its own sake. Fascism establishes the state as its religion, where imperial theologies establish states for the sake of God.

ilitant Islam doesn't reject democracy as the problem, though -- Militant Islam as practiced by IS is based in an older world idea which predates the wide acceptance of democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, does. — Moliere

This is to split hairs, it seems to me. They both reject democracy, ergo they have this in common.

Militant Islam does not emphasize violence for its own sake. It practices jihad, but that has a purpose greater than the violence itself. — Moliere

Fascism too has a goal beyond merely glorying in violence, but I think the point is that much of the violence is gratuitous; it's often done with genuine pleasure and deliberateness, whether it's necessary to achieve said goal or not.

Militant Islam is medieval Sunni society attempting to be reborn in the world today. That is a kind of throwback, but not to a mythologized past as much as to a past that had existed prior to centuries of Islamic interpretation and growth (in number, spiritually, and in time). So it is a kind of anachronism, but it's not the same sort of historical myth that Fascism builds. — Moliere

It seems pretty similar to me. The Nazis, for example, were trying to return to a Pagan Germanic world which existed before the advent of Christianity.

The biggest difference, I think, are the views on the state. Militant Islam wants to establish a Caliphate, but this is theological significance. The state, or empire, is a tool, rather than "an organic entity" which can and must be purified for its own sake. Fascism establishes the state as its religion, where imperial theologies establish states for the sake of God. — Moliere

I see you making my own point for me here. Yes, the state and religion are one in the case of European fascism and Islamofascism. To speak of the state or its religion in fascism is to speak of the same thing, and it is indeed sought for its own sake.

This is to split hairs, it seems to me. They both reject democracy, ergo they have this in common. — Thorongil

Feudal France also rejected democracy. The parallel is in passing, though -- the reasoning why they reject democracy makes a difference, and is not merely splitting hairs.

Fascism too has a goal beyond merely glorying in violence, but I think the point is that much of the violence is gratuitous; it's often done with genuine pleasure and deliberateness, whether it's necessary to achieve said goal or not. — Thorongil

I would say that this is just human nature more than ideology. Violence against one's enemies is pleasurable, especially in the context of war. War is genuinely pleasurable in its own way, even for a society that tends to reject war-like values, for the soldiers in the war.

That isn't to say that this is a virtuous aspect of humanity -- I'd say it's the opposite -- but it's also the case. War gives people meaning and pleasure.

It seems pretty similar to me. The Nazis, for example, were trying to return to a Pagan Germanic world which existed before the advent of Christianity. — Thorongil

Except their version of history has no basis. It was pure mythology. I'd say there's a difference between anachronism and myth.

I see you making my own point for me here. Yes, the state and religion are one in the case of European fascism and Islamofascism. To speak of the state or its religion in fascism is to speak of the same thing, and it is indeed sought for its own sake. — Thorongil

But this is not the case with militant Islam. The state is a tool. No fascist worth there salt would look at the state as a mere tool to something greater.



I had this cool video pop up in my twitter feed: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/16/10240188/isis-history-background-qaeda a six minute history on ISIS.

Feudal France also rejected democracy. The parallel is in passing, though -- the reasoning why they reject democracy makes a difference, and is not merely splitting hairs. — Moliere

The parallel I wish to advance on this point about anti-democracy is but one pillar on which to base the claim that Islamism is fascistic in orientation.

I would say that this is just human nature more than ideology. — Moliere

I would agree with you, but "more than" does not mean it doesn't form a part of said ideology.

Except their version of history has no basis. It was pure mythology. I'd say there's a difference between anachronism and myth. — Moliere

Ah, but the Islamist's view of history is equally mythological, and especially IS's view of history.

But this is not the case with militant Islam. The state is a tool. No fascist worth there salt would look at the state as a mere tool to something greater. — Moliere

To this I must say a thousand times no. The state is the summum bonum and indeed the raison d'etre for the Islamist, militant or not. This is what IS and countless other Islamists are toiling to create right now. Not until they have created a state governing the whole world according to Shariah Law will they be satisfied.

Ah, but the Islamist's view of history is equally mythological, and especially IS's view of history. — Thorongil

Care to explain more? I don't see how this is the case, though I could certainly be wrong.

To this I must say a thousand times no. The state is the summum bonum and indeed the raison d'etre for the Islamist, militant or not. This is what IS is toiling to create right now. Not until they have created a state governing the whole world according to Shariah Law will Islamists be satisfied. — Thorongil

I'd say here is where we disagree the most, then. Governing the world isn't the goal. The apocalypse is.

I might also simply say that I have no vested interest in establishing with certainty the identity between Islamism and fascism. I merely wish to assert that the term "Islamofascism" is not some flippant, utterly inaccurate conjoining of two ideologies. They have enough similarities, as I see it, that using the term is permissible. The only way to object to its use would be to claim that fascism is an inherently 20th century European phenomenon, which I don't find that it is.

Care to explain more? I don't see how this is the case, though I could certainly be wrong. — Moliere

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West.

I'd say here is where we disagree the most, then. Governing the world isn't the goal. The apocalypse is. — Moliere

The two amount to the same thing, since we can be fairly certain that an apocalypse won't happen as described in Islamic eschatology.

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West. — Thorongil

Akbar the Great comes much later in the history of Islam, though. ISIL, to my understanding, is referring back to the 600-700's. Hence, an anachronism, but not mythic.

They may have false beliefs and hopes based off of falsity, and they are clearly not historically literate because anyone who takes a historical viewpoint would, well, avoid anachronisms.

But that's still different from the wholesale mythic Fascisms which have no basis in reality. They weren't even false.

The two amount to the same thing, since we can be fairly certain that an apocalypse won't happen as described in Islamic eschatology. — Thorongil

In terms of effects, perhaps -- well, not even then, because the fascists were better at fighting wars and playing politics -- but as far as ideology goes I would say that the falsity of this belief differs from the point I'm making. Namely, that their beliefs about the state marks the two political movements as significantly different.


It may just be a matter of opinion, as you point out in your previous post that you're justifying the use of the portmanteau as good enough, but I suppose I see the conflation is unhelpful and inaccurate. While neither is a desirable society to live in I don't see the motives behind fascism as the same as the motives behind militant Islam, nor do I see the ideological aspects as the same.

I don't see the motives behind fascism as the same as the motives behind militant Islam, nor do I see the ideological aspects as the same. — Moliere

Fair enough. I won't belabor the point. But at least you will know some of the reasons why I use the term, if you see me use it in the future.

What do you think are the primary reason why a fascist/totalitarian government is bad?

A dictator has complete control, so if they go off the deep end, everyone else and their mothers are screwed.

Also, a dictator cannot possibly do everything by him/herself, so they need a bureaucracy to help them out. In which case, this mitigates the advantage of having a powerful leader.

Independent thinkers will always be ostracized within fascist communities.

Fascism works in the short term, when people are scared or fed up with something. It thrives on destructive emotions. I believe Mussolini himself said war should be a fundamental part of the fascist state.

But after a while, people are going to get tired. The state will lose its momentum, and then will have to crack down on its citizens using violence and coercion.

Fascism doesn't have a long history (it was hatched in 1919 in Italy) and it is decidedly anti-intellectual. Consequently, there is no development of "fascist theory". Fascism is as fascism does.

Below are some characteristics of fascism, according to Stanley G. Payne. I underlined those that I think apply to Islamist "fascists".

• It is antiliberal, anticommunist, and anticonservative. It will ally with other groups for convenience, and destroy them later.

• mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships
• Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects
• Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance
• Exaltation of youth above other phases of life
• Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command

• Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture
• Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models
• Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
• Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use violence and war
• The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
  
  From Wikipedia; searched for "minimal definition of facism"

The Islamic State or Boko Haram or Al-Qaeda... are not prototypical fascist movements like those of Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco, but they have some strong semblences of fascism.

I might also simply say that I have no vested interest in establishing with certainty the identity between Islamism and fascism. I merely wish to assert that the term "Islamofascism" is not some flippant, utterly inaccurate conjoining of two ideologies. They have enough similarities, as I see it, that using the term is permissible. The only way to object to its use would be to claim that fascism is an inherently 20th century European phenomenon, which I don't find that it is. — Thorongil

Here also I have to disagree with you and agree with Moliere.

For Islamists religion come before anything else, for fascists the state came first. The Fascist state is nationalistic, the Islamist state isn't, it doesn't start from a similar view of people and a nation state. For the fascist state religion is just a tool for the state to control alongside others, while for the Islamists the state is just a tool for religion.

Also one has to note that fascism was a Western ideology, and basically Islamism starts from the idea that the Muslim community has gone wrong when it has started to mimick Western ideologies. Note that for example the secular socialism, Ba'athism, was the ideology of the ruling parties both in Syria or Iraq, and hence were the enemy of the Islamists. I would say that the Ba'ath ideology, a blend of Arab nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, secularism and anti-imperialism with an objective of an one-party state uniting all Arabs is far more of a fascist enterprise than Islamism. Islamism seeks to unite all Muslims, not just Arabs. And let's remember that the two countries were the Ba'ath party achieved power are marked are perfect examples of dictatorship.

I think it's perhaps very difficult to understand from our secular point of view just what kind of defining role religion and religious objectives have played in history. We tend to think that the reference to religious aspects has just been window dressing for secular political gains. That many times isn't the case, especially when you look at history.

The various Islamic caliphates of the past were not anything near the utopias they imagine them to be. Islamists would also be surprised and appalled at certain facts about these regimes. Take Akbar the Great of the Mughal Empire, for example. He had Hindu wives and maintained cordial relations with the West. — Thorongil

For me though this is an example of how a term like 'islamofascist' is more descriptive of the society generating the term than of the movement it's trying to describe. Akbar introduced a quasi-Persian society into his rule. The Sunnis who form Al-Qaeda and ISIL don't think of someone like Akbar as any kind of hero, and the Shi'ites reciprocate: Iran is as anxious to eliminate ISIL as 'the West' is.

Yet the term islamofascist was widely used in the United States about *Iranians* for a period when Ahmenijad was running things there and occasionally dripping anti-Jewish venom.

There are many sorts of Islam about. For myself, I don't think of any of them as resembling fascism in any meaningful way. People will use the words they feel like using, but 'islamofascist' denotes to me an undifferentiated fear of Islam when that religion is allied with State power, and the word is a poor description of any of the political movements currently holding sway.