Original Articles Urdu Articles

انٹرنیشنل سوشلسٹ جرنل میں کامریڈ غیاث کا داعش پر ایک شاندار تفصیلی کالم – عامر حسینی

ISJ-website-banner

انٹرنیشنل سوشلسٹ جرنل میں کامریڈ غیاث کا ایک مضمون داعش پر شایع ہوا ہے اور اس میں ایک لمبی اور تفصیلی بحث کے بعد اس نے داعش ازم کیا ہے کہ عنوان سے بحث کو سمیٹتے ہوئے مڈل ایسٹ میں داعش سمیت سلفی تکفیری تنظیموں کو رد انقلابی ، فسطائی تنظیمیں قرار دیا ہے اور میں سمجھتا ہوں کہ کامریڈ غیاث نے سلفی تکفیری جہاد ازم کی جدلیاتی مادیت پرستی کے آئینے میں تشریح کرنے کی ایک کامیاب کوشش کی ہے اور نام نہاد جہادی تحریکوں میں شامل لوگوں کی طبقاتی شناخت پر بھی بات کی ہے ، پاکستان سمیت جنوبی ایشیا میں جو دیوبندی پلس سلفی تکفیری جہاد ازم ہے ، اس کی جدلیاتی مادی طبقاتی تشریح اس پیٹرن سے کی جاسکتی ہے

لیون ٹراٹسکی نے یورپ کے اندر فاشزم کو پروان چڑھانے والی سماجی پرتوں بارے تجزیہ کرتے ہوئے ان پرتوں کو ھیومن ڈسٹ کہا تھا

The social layers upon which fascism draws support are what he calls “human dust”, which he defines as town artisans and traders, civil servants, clerks, technical personnel and the intelligentsia, bankrupt peasants, to which we may add the unemployed.21

وہ سماجی پرتیں جن سے فاشزم حمائت حاصل کرتا ہے جن کو وہ ھیومن ڈسٹ کہتا تھا ، اس کی تعریف وہ یوں کرتا ہے کہ ان پرتوں میں قصباتی کاریگر ، تاجر ، سول سرونٹ ، کلرکس ، ٹیکنیکشن ، دانشور ، دیوالیہ کسان اور اس میں ہم بے روزگاروں کو بھی شامل کرتے ہیں شامل ہیں
غیاث کہتا ہے کہ یہ جو آئیڈیالوجی اور مخصوص سوشو اکنامک حالات ہوتے ہیں ان سے فاشزم کی تشکیل یہ ہیومن ڈسٹ کرتی ہے اور ہیومن ڈسٹ جو ہے یہ لوگوں کو طبقاتی بنیاد پر منظم نہیں کرتے بلکہ ایک ہجوم اکٹھا کرتے ہیں جن کا مقصد فطرت انسانی کو تبدیل کرنا ہوتا ہے اور وہ مارکسی دانشوروں کی جانب سے فاشزم ، فاشسٹ فورسز کی طبقاتی ساخت اور سوشو اکنامک حالات بارے کیے گئے تجزیہ کی بنیاد پر یہ نتیجہ اخذ کرتا ہے کہ داعش ایک فاشسٹ تحریک ہے جس کی تشکیل ہیومن ڈسٹ پر ہوئی ہے ، ہم یہ بھی کہہ سکتے ہیں کہ تکفیریت جدید ایک ہیومن ڈسٹ کی حمائت سے استوار ہوئی ہے
جو غیاث کے پورے مقالے کو پڑھنا چاھیں تو وہ اس لنک پر پڑھ سکتے ہیں

http://isj.org.uk/the-islamic-state-and-the-counter-revolu…/

What is Daeshism

A quick study of the evolution of ISIS as an organisation issued from the milieu of jihadi and ultra-reactionary Islamist currents would not be enough to explain its ideological and practical specificity when compared to the vast majority of jihadi organisations such as the dominant Al Qaeda. This shows that the very emergence of ISIS constitutes a rupture with those Salafist jihadi groups, to the point where ISIS was seeking to liquidate those other groups. On the other hand, one can notice a tendency towards the “ISISisation” of entire sections of jihadi organisations, the most important being the Nusra Front; indeed, it seems to be divided into two distinct groups, one emulating ISIS’s practice and stances, and the other remaining “true to itself”. The Ahrar al-Sham movement appears to be maintaining its Salafist Jihadist identity, even if some of its brigades are eager to adopt “Daeshism”.19 But the worst aspect of these tendencies is the fact that many reactionary jihadist groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS and its Caliphate throughout North Africa and other regions

Some will argue that there is no political or practical interest in trying to research and reveal other characteristics of ISIS, insofar as it constitutes one of the aspects of the reactionary counter-revolution. But this “novel” phenomenon cannot be understood, as we have seen above, outside of the material and socioeconomic context in which it thrives. It is not possible to oppose ISIS politically without firstly understanding the material conditions that have led to its emergence and expansion, before elaborating appropriate policies to confront it from the point of view of the oppressed and exploited classes, ie from a Marxist point of view

We have presented here the genesis of ISIS in a specific context, as a reactionary and counter-revolutionary force, and the expansion of its ­influence in Iraq and Syria. It is necessary to recall that we have focused on the established regimes and their brutal reactionary politics of marginalisation as one of the essential causes, along with imperialist intervention, that allowed for the emergence of ISIS. The US occupation of Iraq destroyed what remained of the country’s infrastructure and social fabric, and created conditions for the development of such movements. What is more, the “War on ISIS”, with the US at the helm of an imperialist coalition, will not defeat ISIS but will give it anti-imperialist credentials that it will use to attract popular sympathies

The emergence of ISIS, taking into account its specific character when compared to traditional jihadist groups, its sudden and surprising appearance in the context of a revolutionary process in Syria and the fact that it has crushed all manifestations of the revolution within its territories, imposing an ideological and social way of life on their inhabitants, and the construction of its “own” state, invites us to examine ISIS as a phenomenon through the experience of fascism. This approach does not refer to the details of fascism within Europe, but in relation to the new fascist movements, within a specific and limited context

This dangerous turn in the course of the Syrian Revolution and the country’s history has surprised many, and so “historical and individual fate suddenly became identical for thousands of human beings, and later for millions. Not only were social classes defeated and not only did political parties succumb, but the existence, the physical survival, of broad human groups suddenly became problematical.” That is how Marxist revolutionary intellectual Ernest Mandel described the rise of fascism.20 The definition given by the Stalinist Communist International (Comintern) in the 1930s and the common acceptance that fascism is “nothing but the power of finance capital” does not apply to ISIS, and in any case it was not enough to interpret either the emergence of fascism in Europe at the time or the new fascist movements that are progressing in Europe or elsewhere

Leon Trotsky was the most eminent Marxist intellectual to have explained and analysed the emergence of fascism in Europe. Not only did he say that fascism “is carried to power on the shoulders of the petty bourgeoisie”, but he provided a deep and thorough analysis of that ­phenomenon. The social layers upon which fascism draws support are what he calls “human dust”, which he defines as town artisans and traders, civil servants, clerks, technical personnel and the intelligentsia, bankrupt peasants, to which we may add the unemployed.21

Trotsky analysed fascism from the point of view of a class analysis of society, and used his deep understanding of uneven and combined ­development—where structures of production inherited from previous centuries, along with their relations and ideologies, can coexist with more modern structures, relations and ideologies. In his book Trotsky: A Study in the Dynamic of His Thought Mandel sums up Trotsky’s profound grasp of the fascist phenomenon:

Trotsky understood—along with other Marxist writers like Ernst Bloch and Kurt Tucholsky—the desynchronisation between socioeconomic forms and ideological forms; in other terms, that very strong ideas, sentiments and depictions inherited from the pre-capitalist period continue to exist in important sections of the bourgeoisie (particularly in the middle classes under threat of impoverishment, but also in the ranks of the bourgeoisie, the declassed intellectuals and even in various fringes of the working class).22

Better than anyone else, Trotsky drew the socio-political conclusions: in conditions of increasing and unbearable socioeconomic class contradictions, significant sections of the aforementioned classes and layers—whom Trotsky sagaciously called “human dust”—can fuse and form a powerful mass movement. Fascinated by a charismatic leader and armed by sections of the capitalist class and their state apparatus, such a movement can be used as a tool to destroy the workers’ movement by means of bloody terror and intimidation”

Trotsky also insisted on the distinction between fascism and Bonapartism and other forms of dictatorship. Fascism is a “specific form” of a “powerful executive apparatus” and an “open dictatorship” characterised by the total destruction of all working class organisations—including the most moderate like the social democratic organisations. “Fascism attempts to materially suppress any form of self-defence of the organised working class, by completely pulverising the working class. To argue that social democracy is laying the ground for fascism in order to declare social democracy and fascism to be allies, and banning any alliance with the former against the latter is therefore a mistake”.23

The depiction of the fascist phenomenon as a movement that rests on the masses of “human dust” applies entirely to the process of ISIS’s formation. Fascism usually forms as a party-militia to fight the current state and establish a fascist state. And the fascists, according to Italian historian Emilio Gentile “consider themselves an elite (aristocracy) of new men, born at war and destined to seize power to renew a corrupt nation”.24 Fascism aims to organise people “as masses and not as classes” and Gentile argues that historical studies have underlined that fascism does not really aim “to change the world or society, but to change human nature itself” by disciplining people and using brute violence

In that sense and only in that sense can we argue that ISIS has the traits of a new form of fascist movement, and that the Caliphate state is a fascist state of a particular nature in specific circumstances