Iran: capitalist theocracy sui generis
Posted on Friday 28 August, 2009
Filed Under International
THE current edition of Weekly Worker – seemingly the least popular but yet most widely-read publication on the British far left – includes a 2,000 word review of two recent books on Iran, penned by yours truly.
The works in question are Ervand Abrahamian’s ‘A history of Modern Iran’ (Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp224, £14.99), and Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Mahjoob Zweiri’s ‘Iran and the Rise of its Neoconservatives’ (IB Tauris, 2007, pp215, £20).
As well as assessing the content of the volumes named above, I also discuss some of the characterisations of Iran advanced by British leftwing groups. Alex Callinicos of the Socialist Workers’ Party has reportedly concluded that the Tehran regime is somehow Thermidorean, while the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty considers it to exemplify clerical-fascism.
I’m not convinced that either position helps us understand bourgeois theocracy sui generis; read why here. Feedback in the comments box, please.
<<Go back
Comments
169 Responses to “Iran: capitalist theocracy sui generis”
SueR and Modernity:
I knew this would happen…
What I tried to do above was present the classical Marxist-Leninist position on national liberation struggles. I did that only because SueR seemed to have a mistaken view of this tradition. Nowhere did I state my own position on the Taliban. I deliberately avoided doing so.
Just for the record, I don’t think the Taliban is capable of leading a national liberation movement in Afghanistan, and I don’t give it one iota of political support. I’m not convinced that everyone fighting the occupation is Taliban, however. It’s hard to comment from thousands of miles away.
I would also point out that some elements of the puppet Afghan government are so similar to the Taliban–in terms of reactionary attacks on women, etc–that it essentially makes no difference.
I certainly don’t share your (implied) position that the Afghan people are better off under NATO/US occupation.
Hope that’s clear.
I thought you struck exactly the right tone James, thanks for taking the time to argue a good position.
Wonderful James, perfectly clear, but how does that relate to the material existence of women and girls attacked in Afghanistan by the Taliban?
[ops, incomplete comment]
Wonderful James, perfectly clear, but how does that relate to the material existence of women and girls attacked in Afghanistan by the Taliban?
I am glad that you find it hard to assess the situation concerning the composition of those planting bombs and committing suicide attacks “from thousands of miles away”, but I wonder how you can be so definitive when you say “that it essentially makes no difference.”.
Whereas as a Marxist, surely people’s material existence in this situation is rather pertinent?
At the moment there are schools and clinics for women, under the Taliban, there were none.
At the moment there is some degree of freedom, under the Taliban, there was none.
As far as I can tell the official Afghan government is not organising physical attacks on women, under the Taliban, there were plenty.
So from a materialist point of view, although the situation of women in Afghanistan is still poor, it is better than under the Taliban.
And you will notice if you follow the news that it has been the Taliban who have deliberately burned down schools, attacked teachers and even killed girls.
Whatever faults the Afghan government has, it hasn’t done that.
So it’s spurious to make them seem equivalent.
Modernity:
I’m with Malalai Joya on this question. And with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.
Ahh James, I believe that is what the middle classes call that a non sequitur?
It is a pity that some would-be “Marxists” can’t bring themselves to addresses these issues.
Modernity, might I ask for the millionth time why your adversity to the middle classes is never evident in relation to David T and co at Harry’s Place (albeit that in formal terms they would actually form part of the upper class, and maybe you don’t mind about them)
To return to the original point, doesn’t Fred Halliday’s parallel between the Iranian regime and classical Latin American populism do rather more work than any of your antique marxist procrusteanisms?
I really must protest. I do not support NATO and the American and British armies being in Afghanistan or Iraq. As an antique Marxist, I am in favour of national self-determination, and socialist revolution. I believe that socialists should advance correct slogans and advocate courses of action based on that, not on supporting groups who believe the Angel Gabrial revealed himself to a desert trader 1400 years ago. Can’t get more antique and procrusteanism than that.
To behonest, I think that the utter inability of Muslim countries to unite voluntarily to construct equitable societies may be what will allow the ‘West’ to continue to exist. I see in the paper today that it looks like Iraq and Syria are about to engage in a punch-up and we are all well aware of events in Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria etc etc. Interesting thesis though, that out of chaos comes order.
Probably this is the reason why the west and all imperial powers go out of their way to divide and conquer, both at home and abroad.
And crackhead pete, I would strongly argue that Modernity in no way comes close to any kind of Marxism.
“the utter inability of Muslim countries to unite voluntarily to construct equitable societies”
Can you give examples of non-Muslim countries who have united voluntarily to construct equitable societies?
“And crackhead pete, I would strongly argue that Modernity in no way comes close to any kind of Marxism.”
Well, JimD, as you smartarses can’t make a Marxist case for supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan (or whatever euphemism you wish to you), then clearly you and many others ain’t too hot on your Marxism either
Modernity,
There is no Marxist case for supporting the Taliban, as there is no Marxist case for supporting the occupation forces. At the end of the day while ever capitalism is the primary economic system these wars will continue.
Surely socialists should be mobilising people to oppose these wars, as opposition to war is opposition to capitalism.
Do you think we should support these wars and give advice on where to conquest next? This seems implicit in your replies -though you can’t bring yourself to actually say it.
Or do you think we just ignore these issues completely?
I don’t see that as any kind of Marxist internationalism.
“Do you think we should support these wars and give advice on where to conquest next? “
No JimD, I think socialists, progressives, etc should avoid arguing for policies which makes the situation of women, the working classes,etc worse in Afghanistan, that is a victory of the Taliban, even if people want to call it the “resistance”.
I expect socialists, progressives, etc to argue for something *positive*, some thing that benefits people like schools, clinics, etc and not make up specious arguments around some “resistance”, who’s only contribution is to blow people up or hack their fingers off.
That’s what I’d like socialists, progressives, liberals etc to apply a bit of history, remember what it was like under the Taliban, and give up on this vulgar third worldism.
That is such a ridiculous adolescent sort of a thing to say, crackhead pete, that I can’t even be bothered to consider an answer. But. as a mere former IMG feminist type, I suggest you ponder JimD’s comment.
morality opined:
“No JimD, I think socialists, progressives, etc should avoid arguing for policies which makes the situation of women, the working classes,etc worse in Afghanistan, that is a victory of the Taliban, even if people want to call it the “resistance”.
I expect socialists, progressives, etc to argue for something *positive*, some thing that benefits people like schools, clinics, etc and not make up specious arguments around some “resistance”, who’s only contribution is to blow people up or hack their fingers off.”
OK, morality, instead of demanding that socialists propose something positive to advance progressive politics in Afghanistan, why not do so yourself?
Here’s a starter – NATO troops out, yes or no? Give us your considered view.
Clearly, there is no Marxist, or human, case for any policy that would give aid or comfort to the Taliban fascists, in any shape or form. Any “socialist” who is indifferent to the treat of these vicious fascist gynophobes, deserves to be branded with infamy, if not a bullet.
No human case! So the Afghans are not human now!
No wonder you can react to their bloody occupation with such casual abandon.
Please state the human case for sending heavily armed troops to patrol the streets of Iraq, the ensuing mayhem, death and destruction, all for a great big lie!
Should those socialists that give comfort to our rulers to carry out such acts be shot or would that be too slow for them.
We argue what most socialists the world over argue for, that is, the end of these occupations. From that you say we support the Taliban, which using the same twisted logic must mean you support these actions and for you George Bush must go down as one of the great liberators in human history. Except that you really must believe this because you believe in your own twisted logic and because we reject your logic, we can say we do not support the Taliban.
To sum up –You say we support the Taliban but we disagree and say your logic is all wrong.
We say you regard George Bush as a great liberator and your logic means you agree with us.
Glad this has finally all been made clear.