Did anyone else do the essay due the 13th of April on Islamism and Fascsim? If so what did you come up with. My argument in a nutshell was that although Islamism and Fascism share interesting points of comparison Isalamist idealogy should not be called Fascist because Facism has to precise a political definition to be applied and is also such an emotionally loaded term to be helpful in discussion. But Islamism could be called Totalitarian in ambition.
I'd be interested to see what other people think.
I do prefer to use the way Xavier phrased the question on Blackboard, by calling it Extremist Islamism (or something to that effect).
ReplyDeleteI think you are dead right that the Extreme Islamism is not Fascism. Fascism was designed in early 20th century Europe whilst Islamism has significantly more history then that and has grown out of the middle east. As Fascism in itself is younger, perhaps you could argue that Fascism is a new European version of Islamism?
No. Although they certainly share several similarities, Islamism is a religious movement while Fascism is a secular political doctrine. Similarites can be observed, but otherwise they cannot really be compared.
ReplyDeleteThe most important aspect of Islamism is that it is Islamic and seeks to spread Islam to every corner of the globe, and for Sharia law to be universally adopted. This in itself is so far removed from Fascism that any similarties they do have are pretty much irrelevant.
Fascism (in the German and Italian sense) is anti-religion. Hitler and Mussolini were both strongly against religion. However, in the end both compromised with the Church because it would be more beneficial for them. Interestingly enough, many other European Fascist movements were very much based around Christianity. For example the Irish Blueshirts, the Belgian Rexists, many of the French Fascist parties, and the Romanian Iron Guard. Even despite this, they were first and foremost political movements, not religious ones, like Islamism.
Matthew, why is the fact of religion so important? Religion can be used ideologically, and fascism in its Nazi variant wanted to dominate the globe as well, no?
ReplyDeleteI would disagree. Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain. He was genuinely surprised when they declared war, and made repeated offers of peace to them, guaranteeing them their sovereignty and Empire in return for them allowing Germany a free hand on the continent. They refused of course. Hitler simply wanted a continental Europe which was subservient to Germany. Otherwise he wasn't interested in what happened in the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mussolini certainly wanted to expand the Italian Empire, but he had no interests outside East Africa and the Meditteranean. Certainly far from a vision of global domination in any case.
ReplyDeleteReligion is more powerful than politics. Islam, of the kind proposed by 'extremists', is certainly totalitarian, but it has a far more global vision than anything else, perhaps bar global communist revolution, but expecially more so than Fascism. I'm not quite sure how to explain what I meant though other than this.
I fully see your point Matthew. I guess the way I would describe it is the overriding goal of Islamism, as I understand it, is to spread Islam and Sharia law to everyone. And the best world is the world in which everyone is Islamic and follows Sharia law.
ReplyDeleteFascism is far more targeted centrally without assuming a global identity. It is far more exclusive in order to create a sense of National Identity. Fascist Italy would have loved to have ruled the world, (and I'm sure if you said to Hitler, here have the whole world he wouldn't have complained either) but Italy (or Germany) would still be the coolest place to be from whilst people from other places in the "Empire" would essentially be inferior as they would not be part of the original Nation.
Ya dig.
In reference to Matthews' points about Hitler/Mussolini's ambitions for a subservient Europe..
ReplyDeleteIt is true that they had plans for Germanic/'Roman' Empires that would reign for 1000 years and create a new world order. However, because they were fascist in nature, an extremely aggressive form of political rule, this empire would have to be continually expanding outwards via aggressive means. Fascist states can only sustain their continued dominance by channeling resources into ongoing warfare (these ideas are explored in the novel Captain Corelli's Mandolin) and conquest. Personally I can't imagine Hitler se ttling for just Europe (had he not been defeated in 1945) when outward expansion into Asia/Africa was possible.
Yeah thank you Ben. Radical Islam seeks to conquer the entire world and unite everyone under Islam, whereas Fascism sought to unify one group of people and then conquer their immediate neighbours, while largely ignoring what happens on the other side of the World.
ReplyDeleteIn response to books not bombs. Have you ever read Fatherland by Robert Harris? It roughly describes a way in which that would be possible, and very similar to the way in which Hitler also invisiged I imagine. It is an alternative reality crime thriller set in 1965, just before Hitler's 75th birthday. Basically the premise of the novel is that Germany won the Second World War. The Nazi regime sustains itself because a Cold War hassprung up after the Second World War between Germany and the USA, much in the same way that the USSR was able to sustain itself. Furthermore, a guerilla war continues in the Urals against Soviet partisans. These two situations forces a unity among the German people, and allows the regime to squash any and all opposition or calls for reform etc. A very interesting read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)
*That should be 1964. And "has sprung up".
ReplyDeleteI said that Islamism and Fascism had similarities but were not at a stage where you could group them as the same. I found it hard though :(
ReplyDeleteStating that Islamism and fascism are two different things seems to be the easy answer. But really they can be argued as ether the same or different. I guess that is what made it a good essay question. Using the argument that islamism is based on religion and fascism is a political ideology is the obvious main argument. However just because one is labelled religion and the other political, does not necessarily mean they are different. In effect both Islamism and fascism promote the same ideas, and do the same things. What the ideology believs and does is what defines it? What about al-queda who are considered an Islamism group. They are a political group. This argument seems to be about labels almost.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Paxton religious based fascisms are not inexistent and there have been some in the past. In Europe there was the Falange Espanola, Belgian Rexism, the Finnish Lapua Movement and the Roman legion of the Archangel Michael.
Also consider for a minute that both political ideologies and religions are human constructions, imagined and thought up.
I couldn't help but commit on this, not to persuade anyone to change their minds, just putting some different ideas on the table.