Wojtek rebuts:
> A point of clarification: my quarrel is not with the islamic doctrine or
> theology. I use the term 'islamic fundamentalism" as a mere label (mea
> culpa) to denote a certain social movement in that part of the world.
I had not discerned a quarrel, was not taking issue with you, and in fact
was surprised that you in particular responded. Nearly all of us are
equally guilty of sliding into the cozy rut of that cliche'.
> And based on my limited knowledge of the subject matter, I think that
> movement shows uncomfortable resemblance to the Nazis: both are a reaction
> to the gradual dissolution of traditional power structures, emancipation of
> women, decline of traditional institutions, failed promises of capitalist
> development, immiseration etc. Both movements are essentially reactionary -
> in principle they want to turn back the clock, return to some imaginary
> "golden past" but in fact allow the oligarchs to cling to their eroding
> power, both are extremely misogynistic and oppose the emancipation of
> women, both even use the same imagery of 'safe space' where women's dignity
> is to be protected. And most importantly, both are based on the same
> unholy class alliance of "rye and iron" or feudal lords and industrial
> magnates. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
Well, as long as you're talking.... It seems that you're trying to build
a universal model of fascism, equally applicable to the Hindu Kush and
the Ruhr. No way. Dr Najibullah and Ernst Thaelmann talking shop about
their common conditions and prospects? Can't imagine it!
Such parsimony offers more damage than help in explaining reality.
valis
