Defining the enemy

Submitted by Peter Edgar (Australia), Aug 24, 2006 at 07:47

This is an important debate. Good on Daniel Pipes for getting it started.

I agree that 'fascist' is not quite right. For one thing, it is the communist's favourite term of abuse and the current totalitarian surge has much in common with communism, more so than the related national socialism of a Hitler. The point is that Hitlerian fascism is hierarchical, while communism poses as egalitarian (as in 'brother number one').

It was the communist Antonio Gramsci who understood the importance of getting control of a culture to change it, in his case bring it around to love the commune. It is as if a large group of Muslims has been subjected to a successful Gramscian revolution. The present world-wide movement also has much in common with the way the communists successfully subverted Vietnam (and before that China) through 'people's war'. The cadres swam like fish among the people/water. Those who helped were rewarded; those who resisted were subjected to horrors.

This type of warfare is ongoing in Baghdad and Lebanon right now. The enemy wants total control of all facets of life. Islamic Stalinists, or Islamic Maoists encapsulates my thought but does not quite fit either. There is also something of the kamikaze about the enemy and something of the Shining Pathers. Islamic totalitarians is not strong enough. These are people who go by the letter of the law rather than by its spirit. Maybe that would be an approach to name. The closest I have come, I think, is Islamic Stalinists. keep working at it.

Peter.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".