WHEN they counted the votes in the French presidential contest of 1851, it was plain that the incumbent had secured a landslide victory. Louis Napoleon - who clearly had never seriously contemplated relinquishing power after his earlier term in office - had the support of around 7.5m people, out of an electorate of just 8.0m.
Clearly, affirmation on that magnitude shows up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a lightweight in the ballot-rigging stakes. These things need to be done properly, or not at all.
Sections of the British left are obviously finding it difficult to orientate themselves to what is happening in Iran right now. But it seems to me that Marxists - well, those of them that actually have read some Marx, anyway - have an excellent ready-made guide to the political dynamics of a situation in which a rabble-rousing right-populist demagogue, basing himself on the poor peasantry and urban déclassé layers, manipulates an electoral process to secure continued political dominance.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon is the work in which Marx comes up with one of his most frequently quoted aphorisms, namely the observation that when history repeats itself, it does so the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.
The events now unfolding on the streets of Tehran are anything but farcical, of course. But elements of the situation are palpably parallel to a process that has been repeated many times before. Although they have no excuse not to know the script by heart, much of the left is failing to get a handle on the situation.
Some ostensibly leftist MPs stress that Ahmadinejad has substantial backing from the rural poor, for instance. That is true, as far as we can tell. But as Marx notes, Napoleon III also enjoyed the support of the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat. Indeed, if he did secure anything remotely like 7.5m votes, many workers must have voted for him. Yet rightly, Marx does not find this sufficient reason to extend political support to a reactionary.
Are the demonstrators CIA stooges, as some allege? Doubtless all the various wings of the US foreign policy establishment have analysed the situation and are exerting whatever influence they can to bring about a resolution favourable to Washington.
But for socialists, imperialist support for this or that faction of the Iranian bourgeoisie is both only to be expected and not decisive. Our opposition to Ahmadinejad does not mean we line up with Mousavi, either. We stand with those demanding democracy, both because we favour democracy over tyranny, and because of the space democracy opens up for the left.
I’m also bemused that some of those posting on leftwing blogs counter criticisms of Iran as ‘culturally universalist’, the basic idea here being that we in the imperialist heartlands have no right to disparage the actions of third world ruling classes, especially where they seem counterposed to the interests of our own ruling classes.
Like all projects located within a Hegelian problematic, Marxism is necessarily a culturally universalist doctrine par excellence. Its hugely ambitious aim is nothing less than to remake humanity completely, obliterating all distinctions of class or race or religion. We can argue about whether this is possible or desirable, or to what extent history is taking us there, but that is very clearly what it says on the can.
Marx’s journalistic writings on India, for instance, do not excuse suttee - the Hindu practice of burning widows to death on the funeral pyres of their late husbands - as somehow 'equally culturally valid' to giving an old biddy a decent pension.
So why should his followers be so intent on making excuses for Iran’s ‘semi-democracy’? There are impeccable Marxist grounds for suggesting that they should not be doing so.
UPDATE: Seems that Alan Woods of the International Marxist Tendency has beaten me to the title, which I did come up with independently. Great minds think alike, I guess.
Posted at 17:56, 21 June 2009
Comments (19)
A Chatham House analysis of the election result (including comparisons with previous votes) claims it is a "myth" that rural areas are staunchly conservative and pro-Ahmadinejad:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
Thanks for the link Dave.
I'm no Marxist myself but I did think the idiot Wight's bizarre utterings were rather removed from what I remember Marxism being about.
Why is this idiotic kind of relativism so prevalent amongst people who call themselves of the Left do you think ?
MMN
In brief, the rise of postmodernism in the Academy since the 1980s. Many of the kids that join the SWP simply don't understand that po mo is not Marxism.
I do have criticisms of classical Marxism myself. But at least I have tried to understand what it is first.
Well Chatham house, being a propaganda and intelligence operation, WOULD claim that.
Dave's piece here contains a lot of the usual 'humanitarian/war left' straw men, which is odd because I don't normally associate Dave with these people. I haven't actually read ANY 'leftists' who 'SUPPORT' Ahmadinijad, or hold to any of the positions not quite spelt out above; supporting him AGAINST Mousavi is quite another thing. Mousavi would promote policies which have made the poor poorer and undermined national sovereignty in every country where they have been practiced. What's wrong with saying that Ahmadinijad is better than that? Better an asshole than a worse asshole.
I think the point is to support people revolting against their repressive dictators, it is a very clear cut issue.
If you want to see some wacky views just read Noah/Wight's contributions at SU, but do it quickly things are getting deleted from that thread, as people show up the logical inconsistencies with Noah/Wight's reasoning.
You'd think it was simple, wouldn't you? As Orwell said (I'm going from memory here), "When I see a worker in combat withn his natural enemy, the policeman, I don't have to ask myself which side I'm on"
But the likes of Galloway andf other Stalinist/"anti-imperialist"/islamo-fascist-supporting third period scum have so debased the "common sense" of the contemporary "left" that I am no longer surprisedf by their scabbing on the Iranian uprising. And of course the loathsome Mr Galloway is now a bought-and-paid-for agent of the Iranian regime.
"Great minds think alike, I guess."
Fools seldom differ.
Thank you for the plug. It shows on my statcounter.
The positions of the MPs, is exactly what my group (IMT) was told at an antiwar meeting Saturday, where we tried to get support for the June 26th events, called by Labour Start. Never were we so isolated at an antiwar meeting.
Even with thousands of Irannian autoworkers in the streets, many on the left think it's middle class protest.
Iran is a turning point. It draws a line of demarcation.
"Seems that Alan Woods of the International Marxist Tendency has beaten me to the title, which I did come up with independently."
You lefties are such wags.
"Great minds think alike"
And fools, I fear, never differ. ;o)
"Like all projects located within a Hegelian problematic, Marxism is necessarily a culturally universalist doctrine par excellence. Its hugely ambitious aim is nothing less than to remake humanity completely, obliterating all distinctions of class or race or religion"
So WHO are we (loyal Labour party 2009) now supporting for speaker, Dave? Bercow or Beckett? "Hang Mandela or Hang Magnolias"?
Labour Life...nothing but (Hegelian)choices.
Is it possible for details of any pickets etc supporting the protestors in Iran to be posted on this site? I cannot find any details (not even on LabourStart's own website), and I would like to show solidarity.
George Galloway, seriously? Not even the SWP will give that guy the time of day any more. He's irrelevant to the modern left, not representative of it. Criticise individuals and organisations, but don't make vague attacks against "the left" just because some guy said something silly.
Sue,the Hopi blog is a good source of news &actions.I linked to it on another post here and also on my blog.Ill also try to advertise actions.
Galloway was getting a brilliant kicking on the Daily Record site. Bloody deserves it and more. One poster said that he is the 5th richest MP in the House of Commons, but I don't know if that is true.
This is one of the smartest summaries on the political problems brought about by the Revolts in Tehran:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4248#comment-135597
Well said, David!
Couple of quick points...
Rural poor did support Ahmadinejad in the 2005 elections. But they've been hard hit by 14-25% inflation. His appeal there has slipped. And Karroubi (who this time around got around 2%) scored 17.5% in the first round of the 2005 elections.
He's increased the wages for some people in different sectors: for example, saffron pickers, but it hasn't always had the desired effect.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Ahmadinejad doesn't possess ANY support., but certainly no where near the 2/3s that the recent fiddled election results indicate.
I mean, Ahmadinejad's even got a few supporters/excusers on SU blog.
So the reach of his racism is far and popularism is surprisingly, er, popular, when you throw around the money.
Socialists have long understood, or did once, that the ruling classes will often try to bribe differing sections of society to achieve their aim: holding onto power.
That happens in the West, Latin America (anyone remember Peronism) and certainly in the Middle East nowadays, it is universal.
While you are at it, it's worth mentioning the unprincipled stand taken by the SWP on recent events in Thailand. Both them and their allies in the country have been backing a movement, the red shirts0, controlled and financed by Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's very own Berlusconi. For Shinawatra read Ahmadinejad.
"For Shinawatra read Ahmadinejad."
Yes, of course, the situations are exactly the same. Except that Shinawatra is not in power and has twice had legitimate electoral victories thwarted through the intervention of the military.