who coined 'islamo-fascist'

that's from Lew Rockwell, so it may be some kind of Alien-Zionist conspiracy code.

http://www.somethingcool.ca/backissues/111703/hitler34.jpg

The term has gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. It has been attributed to Christopher Hitchens, Khalid Duran, Stephen Schwartz, and Michael Savage, but was used earlier than any of them by Malise Ruthven, in an article for The Independent on 8 September 1990 (p.15). Ruthven wrote:

Nevertheless there is what might be called a "political problematic" affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say "Islamo-fascism", is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan.

Although they might want to look at that "other non-Western traditions" bit.

I agree with them as it goes, but they over egg the custard; nearly every Nick Cohen has a near hysterical 'here's someone else the liberal left have let down in their blindness to the evil of islamofascism' which as gets more shrill as it is increasingly obviously shoe-horned in because Cohen is labouring under an obsession.

There seems to be a link between him, Hitchens and the bloggers on the UK pro-war (or is it anti anti-war?) left at Harry's Place who all venerate Orwell. I should start a thread on this perhaps.

Speaking of USF reminds me of the excellent Tamara Sonn, however, whom I believe might now be teaching at William & Mary. If you've not read her or heard her speak, I recommend seeking her out.

Stalin wasn't a fascist! Lots of awful, authoritarian regimes are not fascist!

And as far as US politics are concerned re: using the term to remind liberals what we're fighting, I'm not one for the "well at least our fascism is better" argument.

I hereby ban this word from intelligent IR debate. So Michael Savage can still use it.

A great comfort to those who live under them, no doubt.

I'm just arguing that the word is being hideously misused here, not making any evaluation of fascism.

That said, Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco enjoyed some measure of popular support. I can't say that the Taliban ever had this.

Alot of the Administration's defense of the 'enemy combatant' status was that the Taliban, unlike other armies, didn't wear a common uniform and therefore weren't entitled to Geneva Convention treatment. Maybe it wasn't a uniform, but it ain't hard to tell these guys have something in common, eh?

(BTW, while searching for that photo, I found this little-known story... some might say 'good riddance,' but it would be interesting to know the US involvement, if any, in their disappearance:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/08/29/afghanistan.mass.graves/ )

Berman's book esp. useful cos the middle chunk is all abt Sayyid Qutb (who also got an MA in education from a college in colorado) (!!)

Fascism just seems to be a convenient adjective to categorise certain regimes into an "evil empire", thereby linking them to the Third Reich & stifling all critical debate. I prefer to think of extremists as Islamo-fundamentalists or Christian-fundamentalists. Really these two types of extremism are closer too each other than fascism. For a start, it is generally agreed that fascism is a movement that commands mass support. Both these fundamentalisms are fringe movements although there is growing support for Islamic extremism by the disillusioned and impoverished. Yet it is just dishonest and ingenuous to claim that it is in any way a mass movement.

Berman's book is thoughtful, concise, and disturbing; it played a huge part in making me support (initially) the Iraq war.

Can anybody explain where there is a connection between islamic extremism and fascism? Palestinian conflicts don't count--the PLO want a secular state.

yerce, but the PLO isn't the only player in the court, is it. you could make the case for sharon as judeofascist, maybe (though israel has a kind of democracy in place).

i don't think steve's ambitious definition holds water.

Why not?

well, capitalist states don't control property, they protect the institution of private property. and they have to control behaviour to do this. and fascist states control property, surely? but communism canNOT be called a mixture of fascism and capitalism, are you kidding?

no

in capitalism capitalists control the state (viz US right now) and use this to control behavious

with fascism the control of property originates through the control of behaviours (i.e., the way nazis confiscated property empowered by the behaviour based state (though how being jewish constituted a 'behaviour' took an enormous amount of idiotic logic)

the antebellum south I would call extreme capitalism, viewing humans as property (logic as idiotic as the nazis)

the results are sort of the same the difference is in the choice of what to use as a lever

the goals in both cases are to empower a minority (oligarchy) to dictate to the rest of the people

i guess I don't quite understand what you're getting at

N_RQ, I think you've given a reason why it is bad: it associates those states with Nazism. Also, even if someone reads Berman and is using the term "islamofascist" to differentiate some Muslims from others, the term will be read by a lot of people as simply conflating Islam and fascism. And given that Pat Robertson types on the religious right are busy saying that violence against infidels is essential to Islam ("[Muhammad] penned verses that declare that all infidels must be destroyed or submit to being totally subjected and humiliated," says Ted Haggard on the Pat Robertson Website), I think Islamofascist is a term that we shouldn't use.

I suspect that most people are doing vague free association when they use the word "fascist." Fascists bad guys, oppose us, use terror, kill people; terrorists bad guys, oppose us, use terror, kill people. Terrorists = fascists.

("Christo-fascist" funny, but no, Robertson is too much a traditionalist to be a fascist. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to empower [albeit behind a nationalist authoritarian leader] a new class that would supersede traditional power structures. They cut deals with capitalists, the aristocracy, and (in Mussolini's case) the Church, but fundamentally they wanted the state to embody a new breed. Robertson isn't nearly this ambitious or radical, as far as I know.)

No, they're demonstrating it.

Fascists demonize (jail, execute) those who don't go along with them, Capitalists bankrupt them instead (more civilized in a way, but just as ugly) -or just pollute them to death.

Both groups made common cause installing the current US government, sharing a fear of and hatred for those who think there's more to life than ideological/religous fanaticism and the acumulation of posessions.

Both groups made common cause installing the current US government, sharing a fear of and hatred for those who think there's more to life than ideological/religous fanaticism and the acumulation of posessions.

What? So government leaders jailing people is now on the same level as consumers (or the ambiguously named "capitalists") not supporting a business and forcing it into bankruptcy? Millions of people declining a service or product is on the same moral level as being jailed by the government?

I'd say yes. To me it isn't about left and right. In terms of how people are treated there isn't that much difference between Hitler and Stalin (and Khomeni) -the only distinction is which sector of the populace they choose to oppress or demonize on the one hand and cultivate or empower on the other. Venezuela seems like a case of populist (left leaning) fascists opposed to capitalist (right leaning) fascists. Some authoritarian leaders (Tito maybe or Chavez) do more good than others (Pol Pot), but it doesn't have much to do with whatever ideology they claim to subscribe to. The ascendancy of the rights and priviledges of one minority component of a society over another, whether based on religion, money, weapons, or philosophy is not representative of a "free" country.

What I meant to say was that, though maybe not as obviously as militarism or fascism, and more efficiently -as it requires less physical policing (using money and property as leverage more often than jail and execution)-, capitalism (in its modern american corporate, monopolist incarnation) is geared toward generating oppression. From the point of view of achieving general social "freedom" it is also antithetical because its goal is to create an ascendancy of power and priviledge.

In response to Cunga I wanted to challenge the notion that capitalism is somehow better than other ways for elites to consolidate power. The capitalist despot, Bush, has done more damage to the whole earth (through encouraging pollution) than Pol Pot did. This doesn't mean I think Pol Pot was anything but the foulest of pigs. The choice between oppressor "A" and oppressor "B" to me is a non-choice as both options require an unequal distribution of rights and privileges.

Taft had big moustash.

Ever is a long time.

America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see. The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They're seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations. These killers need to know that America, Great Britain, and our allies are determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty. With patience, courage, and untiring resolve, we will defend our freedom, and we will win the war on terror.

Thank you for listening.

They're seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations.

i wonder if bush has ever considered what the *positive* goals of these "islamofascists" are.... he makes out as though they were simply bent on pure destruction for its own sake. if they want to claim mideast nations as their own, it's only to "attack free nations."