The violent tactics and promises made by two ideological systems—Islamic political theory and Marxist-Leninist communism. It argues that both systems claim that violence is necessary during a transitional phase for establishing a new order, while promising that this violence will eventually come to an end. However, history shows that both systems consistently fulfill the first promise of violence but fail to keep the second promise of stopping it.
1. Shared Goals: Both Islamic and Marxist systems share goals of violence, wealth redistribution, and societal control, fostering an authoritarian elite ruling class.
2. Promises of Transitional Violence:
Both ideologies assert that a period of violence against internal rivals is required to secure a stable society. This is known as a "transitional phase."
They claim that this violence is temporary and will eventually cease once the new order is established.
3. Historical Evidence:
Marxism explicitly discusses the violent transitional phase through the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which was meant to be temporary. However, various purges and acts of violence continued well beyond the initial establishment of the Soviet state, contradicting the promise of a waning state.
Islamic political theory implies similar beliefs without providing explicit definitions. Historical instances, such as the execution of apostates and various internal purges, illustrate ongoing violence long after claimed "settling" periods.
4. Examples of Violence:
The Red Terror beginning in 1918 under the Bolsheviks showcases rapid implementation of violent purges against perceived enemies of the state.
Historical Islamic conflicts, such as the violence against Musaylima’s followers during the Ridda Wars, highlight the use of transitional violence that did not cease as promised; instead, it became a recurring theme.
5. End of Transitional Violence:
In Marxism, promises of a withering state became numerous repeated failures, as evidenced by subsequent purges in Soviet history.
In Islamic history, likewise, past mandates against apostasy were reopened to justify new acts of violence, suggesting that the transitional phase never truly ends but can be invoked again as needed.
6. Nature of Transitional Authority:
Both systems possess a structure that allows the ruling authorities to continuously redefine what constitutes internal threats, thus maintaining a perpetual state of emergency and violence.
This lack of a clearly defined endpoint allows regimes to maintain control and justify ongoing violence against new threats.
Both Islamic political theory and Marxist-Leninism utilize transitional violence as a means to achieve and maintain political control. Despite their promises of temporary violence, history reveals that both have failed to halt aggressive actions against internal rivals. Such systems continue to invoke the need for violence, generating cycles of slaughter under the guise of maintaining societal stability. The patterns observed demonstrate that neither political ideology offers a definitive conclusion to its violent phases, thereby allowing for a sustained capacity for authoritarian control.
No comments:
Post a Comment