They are NOT radicals

One of the most common words used in reporting on events in the Middle East is “radicalisation”. And in the UK the current media furore centres on a debate about what to do with “radicals” returning from the Iraq/Syria conflict. The fear is that these “radicalised” people will pose a threat to security in this country.

I do not want to get into that debate in this article. What I want to do is question why people who went to Syria to fight the Assad regime are now being described as “radicals”. The way the word is used has been changed, and the reasons for the change have sinister overtones for those of us who want to see the end of capitalism and the start of a fully democratic socialist society.

A radical is someone who wants to see a fundamental change in society. Until recently the word was always used to describe groups who agitated for the forward movement of society, to a future. When you look at the ideology of Islamist funamentalism, you find a world view based on the outlook of a medieval society. The main thrust of the ideology is of going backwards; it is a “return” to true faith, as interpreted by its adherents. It is a reversion to the fundamental and original teachings of the man they call the Prophet.

But backward movement is not radical. It is reactionary.

I am a radical. I think the capitalist system of production and social control has long since run its course, and the time to move forward to a new, more advanced, rational and equitable society is long overdue. That is radical.

What I do NOT want to see is a return to some form of pre-capitalist economic system. And I definitely do not want to see a return to the strictly hierarchical society that existed in the Middle Ages. I do not want to see the return of an absolute monarchy (or a caliph, or a sultan). I do not want to see the return to dominance of the Church (or of imams, or of religious scholars). That would be a backward step.

And stepping backward is reactionary. So let’s get the terminology correct.

They are not radicals. They are reactionaries.