MUDDLEHEADED lack of clarity has unfortunately been a defining aspect of the commentary provided by the British left on events following the Iranian election. Whether this is motivated by reluctance to criticise a regime sometimes characterised as anti-imperialist, or generous subventions available for hosting programmes on Press TV, I am not sure.
Even where these factors are not obviously at work, generous resort to qualifying adjectives is certainly notable. Thus the election is described not as rigged but as ‘widely seen to be rigged’. Ahmadinejad is not confidently proclaimed the winner; instead it is noted that he ‘was declared the winner’. Protesters are described as ‘fearing the election had been rigged’.
A degree of prevarication is perhaps justified. Even Robert Fisk – who probably knows more about the Middle East than any other living Brit journo – has yet to pronounce definitively one way of the other. Let us therefore suspend disbelief and admit it is logically possible that - just maybe, however unlikely it looks - this was a fair fight and the incumbent won. That still leaves the left having to decide where its sympathies lie.
Now the problem becomes one of analytical framework. Read the standard leftist histories of the last century, and political explosions are always described in terms of class dynamics. The books detail the tactical debates had out within working class parties, or the reasons why capitalism financed the rise of Nazism.
When we discuss the October Revolution or the Bavarian Soviets or the Spanish civil war or the attempted coup in France in 1934, we know that in broad terms the workers lined up on one side and the bosses on the other.
These days, we prettify revolutions by naming them after colours and flowers and trees, precisely because that is no longer the case. What can possibly be deduced about the nature of uprisings routinely described as Cedar or Tulip or Rose?
It won’t be long before somebody comes up with equally dumb nomenclature for what is happening in Tehran this week. Yet the basic point to grasp is that the leadership of both camps are factions of the Iranian bourgeoisie.
Sections of the left regard Ahmadinejad as an implacable anti-imperialist with substantial support among the poor peasantry. That way, they can conveniently overlook both the brutal nature of the state he heads and the obvious analogy between the Ahmadinejad layer and the ruling class in the USSR prior to 1989.
If re-elected, the masterplan is to privatise state-owned holdings – especially the oil industry – for the private enrichment of a few hundred individuals.
Nor should Mousavi be mistaken for a liberal democrat. He was one of the props of theocracy in the 1980s, and instrumental in the murder of thousands of leftists. While he is promising an end to some of the more obvious discrimination against women, and a relaxation of state attempts to control private morality, his economic programme is essentially neoliberal.
Given the choice, socialists must extend solidarity– not to mention whatever concrete support they can possibly give – to the courageous young protestors on the streets today. If they are successful, they will open up a the space in which an independent labour movement and a genuine left can re-emerge in Iran.
But that is despite and not because of the class composition of their movement, and despite and not because of the policies of the man in whose name they march.
Posted at 14:40, 18 June 2009
Comments (33)
At teh risk of sounding a dry-as-dust Marxist - the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, IIRC, provides sueful stuff (and not too bad an analagous situation) a populist authoritarian relying on fixed plebiscites and support of the peasantry, who, IIRC, also engaged in public works that would be seen by Obnoxio as left-wing. That of course ended in the cross class Paris commune.
Just a thunk.
The 'cross-class' Paris commune? Does the SPGB have a somewhat distinctive perspective on this one?
But yes you are right, at first glance the analogy seems reasonable. It is a text I have been meaning to re-read, BTW.
The commune contained liberals, Jacobins and was elected on a universal suffrage, with many non-worker deputies. The internationalists weren't even a majority (which makes their impact more astounding). Calling it cross class was naughty, perhaps, but compared to what some leftists say...
"Sections of the left regard Ahmadinejad as an implacable anti-imperialist with substantial support among the poor peasantry. That way, they can conveniently overlook" [I'll add] that Ahmadinejad uses speeches peppered with racism to keep much of that supposed support.
"the obvious analogy between the Ahmadinejad layer and the ruling class in the USSR prior to 1989."
You'll need to explain that one I'm afraid, I must be missing the obvious.
Eddie
If you, er, read the next sentence, all is revealed.
Sometimes I write cleverly like that ...
I'm sorry Dave but the bit I have quoted above is the end of a sentence,
The next sentence says;
"If re-elected, the masterplan is to privatise state-owned holdings – especially the oil industry – for the private enrichment of a few hundred individuals."
What is the connection with the Soviet Union prior to 1989 ?
Was there an election in the USSR in 1989 ?
I believe what Dave is suggesting is that post 1989, people similar to those that ran the USSR enriched themselves (the oligarchs, ex-KGB, etc) and so when Iran privatises things, then the ruling classes of Iran and its friends will enriched themselves and really benefit from any changes, as it was in post-USSR setup.
Or something like that.
"post 1989, people similar to those that ran the USSR enriched themselves "
But that isn't what happend in the former USSR, it is certainly what happened in some other former communist countries, but in the USSR the current crop of billionaire oligarchs largely did not come from the old ruling elite; more typicaly the big winners were formally entrepreneurs on the edge of the black economy. Look at the backgrounds of those well known in the UK, Abromavich, Romanov and Gaidamak (although he is a second generation exile from Russia, his father did have a direct hand, in mentoring some of those who did enrich themselves).
Dave: "Sections of the left regard Ahmadinejad as an implacable anti-imperialist with substantial support among the poor peasantry. That way, they can conveniently overlook both the brutal nature of the state he heads "
It is a shame that dave's politics are so shallow, becasue he does write well sometimes.
It is quite possible to both think that Ahmadinejad is consistently opposed to US imperialism in the region, and to simultaneoulsy agree that the Iranian regime is brutal and repressive.
Calling it cross class was naughty, perhaps, but compared to what some leftists say...
Such as Marx and Engels for one!
For once I almost agree with Andy Newman.
It is quite possible to see Ahmadinejad as the front man for the Iranian ruling class that uses faux "anti-imperialism" as a method of control and a way to limit popular resentment over unemployment (some 2.5 million last year), the failure to invest in infrastructure, etc. and simultaneously agree that the Iranian regime is brutal and repressive.
Previously, socialists had long understood that ruling classes (including those in Iran and other repressive states) use these techniques to stifle opposition, crush dissent and present a united front.
Ahmadinejad's crude mix of popularism, racism, demagoguery and largess shouldn't fool anyone.
Still less should experienced socialists and political activists have illusions about who he represents and what he wishes to achieve: beat down the opposition and maintain the power of the Iranian ruling class.
However, the way Ahmadinejad is almost given a political pass in the West you'd think that many people were fooled by his sloganeering and cheap tricks?
Socialists shouldn't indulge in self-deception about the front-men for the ruling classes, wherever they come from, Iran, Britain, Europe or Timbuktu.
The piece of the jigsaw that you're missing Andy, is what conclusions one should draw politically from those statements about Ahmadinejad. WWhat you've said up to there is true, but not very substantial in terms of what you'd therefore advocate doing.
"Ahmadinejad is consistently opposed to US imperialism in the region"
In what sense do you think that Ahmadinajad has consistently opposed US imperialism in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, to give the most pertinent examples?
ALso, at a sketchy level, this all sounds similar to events in thailand, a populist regime relying on the rural poor, opposed by the urban population (in Thailand's case, the urban population siding with the monarchy).
Its no use asking Andy to clarify his own position on this blog, when he's got a much bigger blog of his own on which he can set out his views at great length.
Except that for some reason he hasn't. Perhaps he thinks the massive million-strong protests on the streets of Teheran are less important than such pressing issues as the electoral success of Mebyon Kernow.
Hopi have set up a blog
http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/
"However, the way Ahmadinejad is almost given a political pass in the West"
Is he? Or is that just a delusion that paranoid Zionists like modernityblog experience.
Neither Washington nor Teheran...
i my simpleminded way, I always look upon these type of struggles as 'birth pangs of modernity'. The Law of Uneven and Combined Development comes in handy here. A country composed of some people living in medieval conditions, others enjoying the Space Age. What form of politics could unite them? Also, a globalised world means if you don't like the property laws or tax regime in one country, you can up sticks to another one. That goes for individuals as well as businesses. It actually makes democracy, let alone socialism, a lot harder to achieve. The philosophical basis of some form of democracy (even a bourgois one) is not 'natural', it has to be built and propagandised around, and for people involved in a hand-to-mouth existence it's not something that they can easily adopt. We did achieve it in Europe, but that may turn out to be a historical aberration.
It’s perfectly correct that neither side can be supported.
If I had to wildly guess, then I think it more likely that the incumbent won; a view I would only be likely to revise if I saw some poorer, weather-beaten faces on the demos, instead of the bourgeoisie looking students.
So I support the president? Absolutely not. But as the winner of the this "fair fight" election anyways? What "fair fight"?
There was a beauty contest between a few carefully selected reactionary men whose right wing credentials were cleared first by the ruling Council of Guardians who allowed them to stand.
Neither of them is a legitimate election winner (although quite possibly both are more popular (and so more of a mandate) in Iran, than Gordon is in Britain right now.
It has widely been reported that the winner declared himself such near immediately and also correctly pointed out how could he have known. That's correct, but then the other guy did the same - but quicker. Liars both.
Communists use space and the opportunity presented to them. It doesn't matter if the Western powers back the opposition guy - I mean they have a history of intervening in such a manner, the CIA and MI6 paid for a mob that helped overthrow a populist leader and reinstall the Shah - in the same way that some covert Western support for Solidarity didn't change the fact that Lefts would have supported it against the then 'socialist' leaders of Poland.
I wish every success to the anti regime protestors. In that space, we could grow
And so we would go onto the street arguing for ‘death to the dictator’ as many others are but also push to overthrow the system, not replace one ruler with another very similar one.
Death to the Dictator!
Well said SPP,
The protests in Iran could be a catalyst for further revolts in the Middle East, which is what many essentially conservative types (both left and right) are afraid of.
Fucking hell, I agree with both SPP and Modernity.
I'm either drunk or I need to get drunk.
I am waiting and seeing. Inspiring popular revolt? Maybe. The latest stage in the Project For A New American Century? Maybe.
And I agree with SPP, Mod and Darren. Consensus at last, gentlement!
Fuck, I agree with SPP, Mod, Darren, Dave...
btw the Hopi meeting today should be interesting.
Marg Bar Diktator!
Andy, you still have not blogged on it, and we is still watching you like 'awks.
Apart from the silence of the silent lambs, er...
Eddie, (Press Officer SSP), normally kept in an isolation box by the SSP for his involvement with the Islamicists, notably the soon-to-be-late Bob Pitt, comes up with, er what?
Don't ye have a gram of human sympathy for what, as plain as a pike-staff, is the popular masses' protest in Iran?
Can't ye feel in your bones the yearnings for freedom there. The beautiful Iranian People who have a left (which most of here back through the work of HOPI) which even to approach them with the the kind of cack you're talkling is such an insult I cannae even speak of it?
Can ye have no feelings for strivings of ..
Message ends..
This is the turning point in Iran, in light of the Supreme leader's speech, will the protests continue or be put down viciously?
and when that happens which side will you be on? (think on that for a moment)
I support the people of Iran, away with their dictators!
“We did not give blood to give up now” – Eye witness report of June 20 Repression:
http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/%E2%80%9Cwe-did-not-give-blood-to-give-up-now%E2%80%9D-eye-witness-report-of-june-20-repression/
Comrades, please repost this as widely as possible.
A few days ago George Galloway was predicting that the protests would "fizzle out" - presumably through those natural processes of the armed forces of the state using water cannon, tear gas and live rounds of fire on demonstrators demanding freedom, democracy and an end to dictatorship. From the footage we have seen through HOPI and others clearly the people remain defiant and determined.
he was also telling us what a man of the people Ahmadinejad is...
As shown by the comments here people from different left groups are united in support of the protests. Isn't it time for Respect members to have a word with George whose comments are leaving him and them by implication seriously out on a limb?
agreed David R,
I think revolts and revolutions have a way of showing who is really for people power and who's backing the status quo.
So it is with Respect, they'll be left in the dustbin of history, another vanity project, full of flawed yesterday's men (and they mostly appear to be that).
The Iran revolt is a turning point, much like Hungary 1956 and those essentially slow-witted and conservative types on the British Left are shown up by their inability to back the people against the Iranian ruling classes.
If you want to see what's going on, then I have provided a wide range of feeds and links to Iranian blogs and live video.
I thought that the HOPI stuff was very good.
"the soon-to-be-late Bob Pitt"
Blimey. That sounds worrying. Has Coates taken out a contract on me?
I think the 1956 comparison is a bit strong, Mod. Few leftie organisations have hundreds of members left to lose, for a start.
Sorry, Dave, I didn't explain, it is not the numbers I am talking about, but the ideas.
Come 1956 and how the Hungarian revolution was dealt with in the Left media, how workers became enemies overnight, how the Daily Worker misrepresented it, how some simply believed the Stalinist lies and other chose to break with the CP.
Now in the age of the web such lies shouldn't travel that far, but you see people with incredibly rigid thinking on Iran and they are not that far in their thinking from those that learnt to articulate the lies about the suppression of Hungarians in 1956.
See where I am going? It is that mentality that makes it possible, events change, times change but that lazy thinking persists.