Thursday, May 3, 2018

The Fourth Revolution

The idea of revolution in the United States looks like a long shot to many, even to the communist true believers out there, but what if an American socialist revolution isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, and is even, dare I say it, very likely? There is a line taken by many Marxist historians (popularized mostly by the Spartacist League, who, despite being ultra-left Trots of the worst kind, write decent history), and even some non-Marxist historians such as Eric Foner, that the United States has had three revolutions already. The first revolution was, of course, the War for Independence, which established the first modern bourgeois democratic republic; the second being the Civil War which ended slavery and ushered in a radical attempt at multi-racial democracy during Reconstruction; and the third being the Civil Rights Movement, which ended Jim Crow and segregation, and resulted in the full maturation of bourgeois democracy with equality under the law, and one person one vote.

If we adhere to this theory, which I do, the United States has more or less had revolutions on a 100 year cycle. The second revolution brought about a near total re-foundation of the American state, while the third brought about, if not quite a re-foundation, a major reconfiguration. While liberals may acknowledge this, they see it as evidence against a fourth revolution; liberals see history as being a straight line deterministic towards progress; when counter-revolution, or periods of reaction do occur, they are treated by liberals as either a hiccup, or a sign that things have gone too far. We can see this line applied often to the first two revolutions; while historian Charles Beard considered the constitution to be an oligarchic reaction to the more democratic Articles of Confederation, liberals treat it as a necessary evil to centralize the state; and Reconstruction is still often spoken of as a "disaster" for giving too much power to "those who weren't ready for it" (your average high school American history textbook repeats this line beloved by Jim Crow ideologues, albeit in more muted terms).

For many liberals, the Civil Rights Movement was the "last" revolution, and until the election of their bete noir Trump, American society was moving on a straight line towards progress (Nixon, Bush, Clintonite neoliberalism, the invasion of Iraq, etc... being treated, again, as hiccups, or necessary evils) that culminated in the election of Barack Obama as the first black president in 2008. Or, as liberal Saint Obama misquoted Dr. King, while his administration was bombing an unprecedented number of countries at one time, the "arc of the moral universe... bends towards justice". That Donald Trump was elected president is a major crisis for the liberal establishment, because it shatters their narrative of deterministic progress, and once again opens up the mainstream conversation to the possibility of revolutionary change. The Civil Rights Movement was supposed to have "solved" all of America's problems, so what is going on?

That periods of revolutionary change are usually followed by periods of intense reaction comes as no surprise to Marxists, who, unlike liberals, are able to analyze history in a dialectical and materialist manner. If we treat the election of Trump as the ultimate reaction against the Civil Rights Movement, that only shows the inadequacy and shortcomings of said movement. For all of its major changes, most of them were on paper, and didn't threaten the capitalist state; the latter adapted. In the place of Jim Crow capitalism, we now have "intersectional" capitalism, with an ever expanding rainbow of a ruling class, and an ever more alienated working class turning to either apathy, or outright reaction. This shows the necessity of socialist revolution, and such a revolution can only be led by a communist party armed with Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. The events of the past two years have only vindicated Marxism-Leninism, as an increasingly bold far-right movement stages more audacious campaigns and attacks, and have only been beaten back to some degree through counter-intimidation.

To sum up the discussion so far, a fourth American revolution looks likely; the bourgeois democratic state has reached the limit to which it can bend. There isn't going to be Nordic style social democracy in the epicenter of global capitalist power, because even such a small concession would be giving up too much power. Look at how the ruling class has fought at every turn against Obamacare, a neoliberal, market-driven form of "universal" health care. Bernie Sanders isn't happening. We need a communist party, there just isn't one yet. The main challenge is that the American left is in its own process of re-foundation, having been eviscerated by neoliberalism, identity politics, and a constant tailing of the Democratic Party. So far, no grouping (they can't really be called parties) has been able to formulate a correct position analyzing American history and its revolutionary prospects.

The American working class is hardly revolutionary, and is, in many cases, conservative and nationalistic, especially the "White Working Class". The Roseanne revival curled the blood of many liberals, aghast to find the once liberal Conners have become Trump supporters. Except the Conners didn't change, what passes as the "left" changed. Patriotism is a potent force among the American working class, and to ignore it, or to take a knee-jerk anti-Americanism position is political suicide. This is not to suggest leftists should embrace American nationalism, but we also have to be careful to separate the American state from the American nation and the American people. With the exception of Puerto Rico, Guam, and other nations under American colonial occupation, separatism has ceased to play any kind of significant role in American radical politics. However, because the idea of a socialist revolution in the United States appears to be so remote, some leftists have embraced the idea of just destroying the American state altogether without thought of what would come next. Usually the proponents of "let chaos reign" are the ones who would be the least affected by it, i.e. petite bourgeois liberals who like to "play" "revolution". Should such a scenario come to pass, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the "marginalized" they claim to champion.

For socialism to triumph in the US, revolutionaries must believe in it, and build their organizations with the conviction that they can actually win. America may appear to be invincible to the outside world, but like all empires, the cracks are building up. To believe that things will just stay this way, and that there is no possibility for transformation is a liberal idea, not a Marxist one. While the American state may not have the history of constant re-foundation like, say, France has, its upheavals tend to be far more significant in scope and impact. There is no material reason to indicate that this will not continue to be so. For victory, we must embrace a politics of victory that centers the working class as its revolutionary vanguard.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

The Anti-LARPer Manifesto

This past week, screenshots of a private chat between well-known YouTube Marxist The Finnish Boleshevik, and a 16 year old girl emerged, in which FinBol describes in graphic detail his grotesque fantasy of raping this underage young woman. There is a common thread among these YouTube "Marxists" who have a love for sexual deviance and degeneracy like Jason Unruhe, Matt Florence, Pierre Tru-dank, et all: they are LARPers. For those unfamiliar with the term, LARP stands for Live Action Role Play. It's basically Dungeons and Dragons in real life with foam swords, but it can also be applied to a certain type of bad praxis; i.e. talking a lot and doing little. Given the fractured state of the revolutionary left in the United States (to the extent that a revolutionary left actually exists), and in many cases, the western world in general, it should come as no surprise there has been a proliferation of "Marxist" LARPers; self-proclaimed leftists who (literally) wave the red flag, and make numerous YouTube videos about how Stalin did nothing wrong, but are unable to engage in any meaningful way with workers in their own real world community. For "Marxists" like the aforementioned, Marxism is not a guide to action, but a means to gain an identity (and be an edgelord).

Other types of LARPers should be familiar to those who have spent any time on the left: Third Worldists like the Red Guards who publish incomprehensible screeds on how first world workers are parasites; Trots who show up at every vaguely progressive event selling newspapers; keyboard cult leaders with authoritarian fantasies who are obsessed with demanding ideological purity and absolute obedience; that one guy who goes everyone with a print-out portrait of Bashar Al-Assad pinned to his shirt, handing out fliers on why we need to "defend" the Taliban; third world petite-bourgeois students who love queer theory and chose kissing the ass of western academia over working with revolutionary movements in their home countries.

I could go on. Because of the modern capitalist state's extraordinary means and ability to coerce, co-opt, and outright repress any nascent revolutionary movement, we are all to some degree LARPers. This is as much a self-criticism as it is a criticism. It is difficult, if not impossible, to envision a socialist revolution in the west, let alone in the United States, without some kind of major outside support. But this is not an excuse to do nothing, and wallow in nihilism and cynicism. Any amount of education and engagement will help further our goals in the long run, even if immediate tangible results are minimal or non-existent. The following are some guidelines to help avoid the pitfalls of LARPing. Most of these are developed based on my own firsthand experiences and investigations, and should in no way be considered comprehensive or definitive.
  • As the great African revolutionary Amílcar Cabral said, "Tell no lies, claim no easy victories." There is a tendency to get over-excited when discussing revolutionary theory and practice, and often it falls into the camp of romanticism. Building a viable revolutionary socialist party is hard work, and will not happen overnight. Potential comrades need to know from the start that victory is neither easy nor imminent; treating it as if it is will only attract flakes. Similarly, success must not be treated as a substitute for victory. For example, Socialist Alternative continued to trumpet Kshama Sawant's election to the Seattle city council as a major victory for socialism in the US, even though in the big picture, it meant very little, and the restraints of using bourgeois institutions as anything other than a bully pulpit emerged quickly. Instead of using her election to illustrate these points, they chose the easy way out of treating a small success as a major victory. To their credit, they have made progress in moving in the opposite direction; the SAlt website home page contains not a single article about Sawant.
  • Drop the fixation on political correctness and crude identity politics. Sorry, but "queer liberation" is not the future, and attacking workers for using words like "faggot" isn't going to win you points. Political correctness is a product and tool of the ruling class. The overwhelming majority of workers don't have time to worry about if their language meets the standards of blue-haired campus activists. This is not to suggest that misogyny, homophobia, racism, and other reactionary behaviors should be ignored, but behaviors are different from words, and battles need to be picked carefully. Tone policing the single mother janitor who works all night for minimum wage isn't going to win you a comrade, but it may win you a kick in the ass.
  • The Beatles may have been reactionary bourgeois popstars, but they were right when they said "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow". Look at the Communist Party of Great Britain-Marxist-Leninist; all they do is show up at rallies with giant Stalin portraits and banners. Save the Stalin and Mao for the initiated. Most people don't care about the Moscow Trials or the Cultural Revolution. They care about making ends meet. By all means, once they've been won over to revolutionary socialism, break out the Little Red Book, but until then, engage with them on their terms, not your terms. When picking material for new recruits, go for the accessible and succinct; for example, Mandel's An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory over the unabridged edition of Capital, or even short video lectures by David Harvey or Richard Wolff. Material that people can engage with when they have a few minutes of free time. There's a reason reformist organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America are growing while more theoretically robust Marxist-Leninist organizations are ossified and stagnating.
  • Have a sense of humor. Few things are more alienating than being overly serious and gloomy. There's a tendency among many leftists to look down on humor, and some of that ties in with the fixation on political correctness. Humor isn't politically correct; it's often crude and offensive, but it is an excellent way to present complex ideas in a way that is accessible and engaging (I can't keep emphasizing the need to be engaging enough, it's the foundation of both recruiting and keeping cadre).
  • Center women. And by women, I mean humans of the female sex (it's sad that needs to be said). Women are not just oppressed, but straight up exploited, and they bear the brunt of capitalism in a very thorough way. Many leftist organizations remain male dominated, using women as tokens, or as gophers. Denounce pornography and prostitution, and exercise vigilance against sexual harassment; transgressors should be dealt with firmly and swiftly. Since most women are mothers, and perform more labor outside their "official" jobs, there needs to be child care at events so that mothers who don't have the means to arrange it themselves aren't shut out from political activity.
  • Read as much material as possible. Having good practice requires good theory, and reading Wikipedia pages isn't enough. And don't limit yourself to just reading Marxist texts, read bourgeois theorists, too. Mao was an expert on all of the major classics of Chinese literature and philosophy; he was able to attack reactionary traditionalism in such a thorough and pointed manner, because he had researched what it was he was attacking. And remember Marx studied under Hegel, who considered the Prussian Catholic absolute monarchy as the ideal form of state. If this sounds like a defense of the well-rounded classical education, that's because it is.
As I've already said, the above suggestions are not meant to be comprehensive or definitive, nor are they listed in any particular order. The main purpose of this piece is to be a conversation starter. If we have any hope of building a socialist future, we need to get serious about how we approach our own practice.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

The Ayatollah in the Moon: On Class Power and Dynamics in Islamist Iran

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was one of the great democratic events of the twentieth century. In terms of numbers alone, it was one of the largest revolutions in contemporary history, with about 10% of the population taking place.[1] It put to an end over 2500 years of monarchical rule, and promised the establishment of a revolutionary democratic republic. But the subsequent theocratic counterrevolution with its brutal repression, continues to mystify many, including Iranians themselves. Much of this mystification is deliberate; both the theocratic regime and the scions of American imperialist foreign policy derive their legitimacy from the obfuscation of the revolution’s origins, and the true nature of the regime in Tehran. Those overly focused on the regime’s theocratic characteristic miss what it aims to conceal; the brutally exploitative rule of the Iranian bourgeoisie. However, those on the left who completely dismiss the theocratic element in favor of total class reductionism are also missing the big picture. The Iranian bourgeoisie did not “choose” theocracy on a whim; the establishment of the Islamist regime was the result of Iran’s 20th century political and economic development. What follows is an explanation of how the Iranian bourgeoisie arrived at this point, as well as its contemporary internal divisions, and what these mean for the future of the revolutionary left in the country.

The Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906 was one of the first great revolutions of the twentieth century. At the time, the Iranian bourgeoisie was weak, concentrated in the urban centers of the country, and heavily dependent on the British Empire, which controlled Iran’s oil wealth, and benefitted from unequal economic treaties. The majority of the country remained under a moribund feudal rule, mired in corruption and poverty, supporting a decadent aristocracy. During this period the first political parties and societies were formed by the embryonic nationalist bourgeoisie, which, taking inspiration from Europe, aimed to establish a constitutional and democratic state, and liberation from foreign control over the economy. After 12,000 revolutionaries camped out in the gardens of the British Embassy, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar agreed to allow the election of a parliament.[2] This parliament, elected by universal male suffrage, declared itself a constituent assembly, and promulgated a constitution. But the death of the Shah the following year led to an attempted counter-revolution by the nobility with British and Russian backing, culminating in the shelling of the parliament in 1908 by the Russian army. In 1909, the revolutionaries re-took Tehran and re-established the constitution.

This first democratic period was undermined by chronic instability, and the weakness of the national bourgeoisie. Iran remained under the foot of British imperialism and the collaborationist bourgeoisie. Mirza Kuchik Khan, a veteran of the 1906 revolution, launched a new uprising in 1914 centered in Gilan Province, which aimed at a complete overthrow of the monarchy, and the establishment of a secular and democratic republic. Backed by the Soviets, he established in 1920 the Persian Socialist Soviet Republic. But Khan’s refusal to enact more radical reforms led to a split between his faction and the Persian Communist Party. Despite this, the revolutionaries were prepared to march on Tehran and solidify their rule.[3]

Before we move on to the rule of Reza Pahlavi, it’s important to note here the defining weakness of these early revolutionary movements. They were not mass revolutionary movements. As already noted, Iran was still a predominately feudal society. The bourgeois democratic revolution remained impossible to complete in a society with such a small and fractured bourgeoisie. And the proletariat, the class needed for the socialist revolution, was even more barely existent. Furthermore, Iran was a highly decentralized state, with a stratified peasantry. Any unity on that front would have been difficult to achieve as well.

The British, frightened by the prospect of a socialist Iran, convinced the leader of the Persian Cossack Brigade, Reza Pahlavi, to launch a coup d’état, force the parliament to make him Prime Minister, and crush the rebellion. Unable to overcome its internal divisions, the Republic’s forces were crushed.[4] Originally, Pahlavi had planned to establish a republic of his own, inspired by the Turkish Republic of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. A coalition between the Socialist Party and the Revival Party won the 1923 elections, with the Socialist Party supporting Pahlavi’s republican program.[5] However, the clergy and the British convinced him to drop his plans for a republic and to crown himself Shah instead.[6] The reality was that Reza Pahlavi was a political hack; the new face for the continued rule of the comprador bourgeoisie. He had no real guiding program and ideology aside from whatever best served his backers. The Socialist Party which had initially supported him, moved into opposition and found itself smashed by his newly-established police state. While not a fascist himself, he did take some inspiration from Mussolini’s regime; aping his militarism, personality cult, and single-party rule. Most of his rule rested on a vague program of modernization, nationalism, and anti-clericalism. What Pahlavi did manage to accomplish was the modernization and centralization of the Iranian state, and with this, the emergence of the Iranian working class. But this centralization also fueled emergent ethnic conflict, and state repression of national minorities such as Kurds, Azeris, and Arabs intensified under the guise of Iranian nationalism. His aggressive anti-clericalism also served to alienate the conservative and devoutly religious peasantry, which, suffering under the yolk of landlords and feudal remnants, found itself susceptible to nascent religious fundamentalism. Furthermore, while the national bourgeoisie began to increase in numbers and strength, the comprador bourgeoisie remained in control.

During the 1930s, Pahlavi increasingly allied his regime with Nazi Germany, and a German political and economic presence was cultivated in the country. With the outbreak of World War II, Pahlavi remained neutral, but continued friendly relations with Nazi Germany. The UK and the Soviet Union looked upon this relationship with concern; at risk were Iran’s oil fields and allied supply lines. Under the pretext of expelling German nationals from Iran, the UK and Soviet Union invaded Iran and deposed Reza Shah. They placed on the throne his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and ostensibly restored constitutional democracy. The 1940s and early 1950s were marked by an increasing struggle between the national and comprador bourgeoisie, and the rise of the communist Tudeh Party. The conflict between the national and comprador bourgeoisie played itself out in the electoral arena between the pro-British Prime Minister and the independent nationalist Mohammad Mosaddegh. Around Mosaddegh convened a coalition that would eventually become known as the National Front, the political party of the national bourgeoisie; its inception was marked by the unifying of the bourgeois democratic forces against ballot rigging and electoral fraud committed by the comprador bourgeoisie.

The Tudeh, meanwhile, began to establish deep roots among urban workers, and while it struggled to gain parliamentary representation, it was able to effectively mobilize the working class. The Tudeh was a strong early advocate of women’s rights, pushing for universal suffrage, increased social rights, and paid maternity leave. Additionally, its armed wing, the Tudeh Party Military Organization, which included military officers, struck fear into the ruling classes, and after it attempted to assassinate Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1949, it was banned, and a widespread crackdown was launched against its members.[7] Despite its ban, the Tudeh continued to be a powerful force within Iranian society of the era. However, the Tudeh found itself unable to put forward a cohesive and effective program. Its one consistent goal was for the establishment of a republic, but it vacillated between a liberal popular front strategy, including making overtures to religious fundamentalists, and a more militant revolutionary strategy.

In 1952, the national bourgeoisie was catapulted to power when the National Front won a landslide victory in elections. The National Front appointed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, and it appeared as if a new era of democracy and prosperity were to be ushered in. Like his contemporaries Nehru in India, and Nasser in Egypt, Mosaddegh was a staunch nationalist, who favored a strong social democratic economy, secularism, and anti-imperialism. His defining policy, and the one that ultimately drove him into direct confrontation with the forces of imperialism was his nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. Unlike these other rising nationalists throughout the third world, Mosaddegh was never able to secure the support of a solid base. The comprador bourgeoisie resented him, as did much of the royal and military establishment. Though Mosaddegh was able to convince the parliament to grant him emergency powers to carry out land reform, curbing the power of the monarchy, and bringing the military under the control of the elected government, he was both unwilling and unable to go all the way and smash the comprador bourgeoisie and the monarchy.[8] What was needed was the culmination of the national democratic revolution that had begun in 1906. And one of the key players in making this happen was the Tudeh. The Tudeh, however, never took a firm stance in support or against Mosaddegh; sometimes denouncing him as an agent of imperialism, and at other times providing him with crucial support. Though their armed wing had suppressed an attempted military coup against Mosaddegh, he forcefully suppressed a TPMO demonstration demanding he finally oust the Shah and declare a democratic republic. In response, the Tudeh dissolved the TPMO; the next day Mosaddegh was overthrown in the British and CIA-backed coup.[9] With the return to power of the Shah, the national democratic bourgeoisie and the Tudeh were thoroughly repressed, and Iran became a vassal of the United States, a pawn of Cold War American imperialism.

What damned Mosaddegh and the Tudeh was the inability of both to take the decisive steps necessary to secure the completion of the democratic revolution. The Tudeh alone was not strong enough to take power and establish socialism in Iran, but at the same time that was not even part of its program. It adhered to the “Stalinist” conception of two-stage revolution, and was therefore unable to create a program that could bridge its demands for democratic reform to the ultimate goal of socialist revolution. Additionally, it denounced Mosaddegh when it should have thrown its full support behind him until the democratic revolution had been fully consolidated. Mosaddegh, on the other hand, as already stated, was too much in thrall of parliamentary procedure and the formalities of liberal democracy. He had the mass support of the Iranian people, and significant factions of the military; to complete the revolution, he should have used his emergency powers to suspend the 1906 constitution, dissolve parliament, oust the monarchy, and establish a republic. Mosaddegh, the committed democrat, needed to become a dictator, at least temporarily, in order to defend democracy. This he did not do. What defined this era of Iranian politics was a lack of decisiveness on the part of the revolutionary and democratic forces; the forces of reaction were able to seize upon this infighting and take the decisive step their enemies were unwilling to.

The Shah’s dictatorship that followed the overthrow of Mosaddegh was surely one of the most corrupt, incompetent, and brutally repressive of the twentieth century. Totally dependent on the United States and the CIA, the Shah looked down upon the Iranian people with nothing but contempt. Though he tried to present himself as a modernist and a nationalist, the people were not fooled. When confronted about this contradiction in 1961, he said “When Iranians learn to behave like Swedes, I will behave like the King of Sweden.”[10] In 1976, Amnesty International said of the Shah’s Iran that it “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.”[11] His “White Revolution”, a massive plan of modernization was a disaster; seeking to create a new base among the peasantry by breaking the power of the old feudal landlords, he enacted sweeping land reform. Instead of winning him support, this land reform created a mass of impoverished peasants and landless vagabond workers, unable to secure a livelihood for themselves.[12] These peasants, devoutly religious and conservative, continued to resent the attacks upon the religious establishment and were increasingly becoming radicalized; they loathed the rule of the corrupt and decadent comprador bourgeoisie. Lacking class consciousness, and the ability to understand their desperate situation, these peasants continued to be drawn to the flame of religious fundamentalism, thirsty for justice against the secular establishment they perceived as being responsible for their miseries.

Opposition to the Shah’s rule was diverse, ranging from the old National Front to the liberal Islamist Freedom Party to the underground Tudeh. But three new forces emerged in the 1960s that would be decisive players in the coming revolution. The first were the Organization of Iranian People’s Fedai, which launched a guerrilla war against the Shah’s regime. Led by the Marxist revolutionary Bijan Jazani, the Fedai opposed the moribund policies of the Tudeh, rebuking it for failing to ally with Mosaddegh, and toadying whatever the current Moscow line was. The Fedai believed that the Iranian people had to be stirred out of their traditional attitude of passivity, and to this end it conducted armed attacks upon military and police targets, with the goal of rousing the people to their feet. It was also against the Tudeh’s passive policy of survival and reformism, openly calling for a socialist revolution and the establishment of a workers’ democracy.[13] The second force was the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, led by Massoud Rajavi. Inspired by the “red Shiism” of philosopher Ali Shariati (think an Islamic variety of liberation theology), they preached Islamic socialism and democratic revolution. The Mujahedin allied themselves with the Fedai, fighting alongside them in the guerrilla and propaganda war against the regime. However, the Mujahedin soon split between its Islamic socialist wing and its Marxist wing, which later became the Maoist party Peykar (League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class). The third force was that of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Contrary to apologist accounts which present Khomeini as a democrat turned tyrant, he never hid his theocratic ambitions. For Khomeini, the Shah’s sins were his westernization and secularism. One of the key points of the White Revolution was that it allowed non-Muslims to hold public office. Khomeini denounced it as an “attack on Islam”, and openly denounced the Shah. After his arrest, riots broke out in support of him. From exile in Paris, Khomeini continued to agitate against the Shah, but in order to broaden his base, he made overtures to leftists and liberals.

The Iranian Revolution smashed the comprador bourgeoisie. During and after the overthrow of the Shah, revolutionary workers’ councils were established.[14] It appeared as if Iran were heading towards a situation of dual power, and socialist revolution. But there was to be no Iranian October. Khomeini, upon his return from France, proved himself to be a master political manipulator; his anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist overtures won support from much of the left, including the Tudeh and elements of the Fedai. The Mujahedin, Peykar, and the Kurdish communist parties opposed his establishment of the Islamic Republic, but the lack of leftist unity doomed them to defeat. Initially, Khomeini respected the norms of liberal democracy; free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections were held in 1980. His Islamic Republican Party won a majority, but faced a significant parliamentary opposition. Additionally, the president, Abolhassan Banisadr, was a veteran human rights activist and democrat, and was opposed to Khomeini’s moves towards a more religiously conservative system. The battle lines were drawn in preparation for an ultimate confrontation.

With the comprador modernist bourgeoisie smashed, and the revolutionary situation in flux, the national bourgeoisie found itself unable to directly rule on its own. If the left were not smashed, eventually it would regroup and finish the revolution. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie threw in its lot with Khomeini. Any move towards a genuine democratic system would have resulted in a victory for the forces of the revolutionary left. In classic Bonapartist fashion, Khomeini declared himself above class interest, claiming to represent divine rule. Khomeini was a master politician and propagandist. The IRP made strong overtures to the workers’ movement, declaring in propaganda posters that “Islam is the only supporter of the worker”[15], and organizing massive May Day rallies. That other classic repository of reaction, the lumpenproletariat, also mobilized itself in support of Khomeini; eager for wealth and power they formed the nucleus of his Revolutionary Guard. The conservative peasantry finally got its revenge, too. If the revolution was an urban affair, the counter-revolution was a rural one. These desperate peasants, uneducated, illiterate, lacking class consciousness, saw in Khomeini their savior who would deliver divine justice on earth. At the height of the “revolutionary” religious fervor, Khomeini’s supporters claimed to see his image in the moon. When Khomeini staged his coup in 1981, ousting Banisadr, and banning all parties except for the IRP, the left was mowed down by this coalition of reaction.

But the bourgeoisie, through its mullah interlocutors, didn’t stop there. The invasion of Iran by Iraq served as both a rallying point and a distraction. In order to hold on to power, the regime refused Saddam Hussein’s initial peace offer, dragging the war out for almost the rest of the 1980s. One of the most insidious crimes committed against the Iranian people was the massive use by the regime of child soldiers, drawn from poor and working class families, and tossed out onto the front lines. Kids as young as twelve, wearing the “keys to paradise”, were sent into combat or used as minesweepers. It is estimated that up to 100,000 child soldiers participated in the war, and their deaths accounted for about 3% of the overall casualties.[16] What can this be called other than a form of class genocide? The ruling class will sink to any barbaric low to secure its rule, including sacrificing the most vulnerable members of society.

The degradation of women is one of the most notorious aspects of the counter-revolution. Iranian women had played a key role in the revolution, and the left had strongly supported women’s liberation. The ruling class, to re-establish its control over the means of reproduction, stripped women of their social rights, and threw them back into the home. Recently, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei denounced gender equality as a western and Zionist plot to undermine Islam, but let slip the true motivations behind the repression of women; to ensure their continued role as housewives and mothers.[17] In the eyes of the capitalists, women are nothing more than machines for producing new workers. The restrictions on travel, employment, and education levied upon Iranian women come from the same place that any restrictions and repression against women come from; to ensure their continued reproductive exploitation. The imperialist “human rights activists” miss this point; then again, imperialism only supports women when they can be of use to its objectives.

Islamism was also used as the pretext to continue the repression of ethnic minorities; in particular the Kurds and the Arabs. Iranian Kurdistan has long been one of the centers of revolutionary socialism in Iran, and was one of the main sites of armed resistance to the Islamic Republic in the years after the revolution. To this day, a leftist insurgency continues there. In the case of the Arabs of Khuzestan, their repression is more economic; Khuzestan Province is one of Iran’s biggest oil-producing regions. Yet it remains impoverished, underdeveloped, and tribal. Paranoid about separatism, the regime keeps the Arab workers oppressed under the triple yolk of nationalist chauvinism, theocracy, and capitalism.

Despite the regime’s anti-capitalist and “revolutionary” rhetoric, Iran remains a capitalist state. The Islamic Republican Party was polarized throughout the 1980s between the “left-wing” faction of Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and the pro-capitalist free market faction of then-President Khamenei. With the end of the war, the bourgeoisie was finally able to cement its control by 1) the mass execution of Iranian leftists in 1988, and 2) the dissolution of the IRP, and the expulsion of the Mousavi faction from the government. With the election of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as President in 1989, neoliberal and free market “reforms” were introduced.[18] These policies continued under his successor, Mohammad Khatami. That the west sees Rafsanjani and Khatami as “reformers” it is because of their economic policies that favored the market and some level of foreign investment. What separates the Islamic Republic from previous regimes, though, is that it represents the national bourgeoisie; Iranian capitalism is a capitalism that benefits Iranian capitalists, not imperialist capitalists. The opposition of the United States to the Islamic Republic, and the years it spent decrying and sanctioning Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program is a front for the real desire of the forces of capitalist imperialism; the regaining of supremacy over Iran’s resources and economy that it lost in 1979.

The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked a turning point in the Islamic Republic, because it brought to power that section of the national bourgeoisie that had come of age in the early years of the Islamic Republic, and owed its success to the regime, but was also resentful of the regime. Ahmadinejad was in frequent confrontation with the clerical leadership, and sought to increase the powers of the elected government, especially the presidency, at the expense of the clergy. His vice president, Esfandir Rahim Mashaei even publicly stated that the era of Islamism in Iran was over.[19] This section of the national bourgeoisie that supported Ahmadinejad also promoted Iranian nationalism over Islamism, countering the propaganda spread by the clergy that Iran’s cultural heritage is one of Satanic decadence. But why then did the establishment support Ahmadinejad to the point that it rigged the 2009 elections against Mousavi? After two decades in the political wilderness, Mousavi re-emerged, and turned against the Islamic Republic he had helped to create. His 2009 platform was a call for sweeping political and economic reform; the restoration of full political democracy, the dissolution of the “morality police”, the removal of discriminatory laws against women, social democratic economic policies including strengthening the welfare state, and a thorough revision of the constitution. Of course we should not see his newfound love of democracy and social equality as indicative of any kind of true ideological conversion, but rather as an expression of opportunism. But it was more than reformist enough to scare the conservative bourgeoisie. The mass protests that followed, which culminated in calls for an end to the Islamic Republic were the closest Iran has come to a revolutionary scenario since 1979. That the Ahmadinejad camp allied with its clerical rivals should not be seen as a sign that they are somehow Islamists, but rather as an expression of the class dynamics at play in contemporary Iran. The alliance was a temporary one to stave off the formation of a more left-leaning government.

The election of Hassan Rouhani in 2013 marked the return of power to the Islamic capitalist camp. With the conclusion of the nuclear deal, and the opening of foreign investment in Iran, attacks on the Iranian working class and leftist opposition have intensified. Minimum wage increases are no longer being chained to inflation as mandated by Iranian law[20], and leftist labor organizers are facing increased repression, including two of Iran’s most prominent labor activists Jafar Azimzadeh and Shapour Ehsani-Rad. Teacher’s union leader Esmail Abadi was also sentenced to six-years in prison, and several of the union’s members have fled into exile.[21] Under Rouhani, executions of political prisoners continue to increase as well. Aside from American neocons, who still froth at the mouth demanding regime change, the rest of the western capitalist class has gone silent over Iran now that they’re free to do business again. This only serves to show that the “concern” expressed over human rights by imperialist states are nothing more than crocodile tears.

Finally, then, what is the future of Iran and the Iranian left? For the former, there are two scenarios. The first is that having secured its rule, the Iranian bourgeoisie finally consents to a democratic transition, similar to what happened in Spain after the death of Franco. The second is another revolution. What is inevitable is that the Islamic Republic’s days are numbered. It has fulfilled its purpose; soon the Iranian bourgeoisie can rule openly, without the need to hide beneath turbans. The Iranian left sadly remains fractured. Until the mid-2000s, the Worker-communist Party of Iran dominated the underground left, but after the death of its founder Mansoor Hekmat in 2002, it fractured, and the resulting organizations spend almost as much time attacking one another as they do the regime. What is desperately needed is a united front of all of the leftist organizations and labor unions. Such a united front would need a flexible program, able to respond to the immediate conditions of Iranian society. In all cases, it would need to be able to mobilize the masses, and be prepared to seize power when the opportunity presents itself. Unlike the liberals and reformists, the left needs to unite the struggle for socialism with the struggle against theocracy and the struggle for democracy. The demands for political freedom, women’s liberation, minority rights, and economic justice are inseparable. Additionally, the Iranian left needs solidarity from the global communist movement. Fearful of aligning with imperialism, many leftists shy away from criticism of the Islamic Republic, or engage in bizarre apologetics. One bizarre article by Andre Vltchek even declares Iran an “Islamic socialist” state![22] Iran is a country with a rich revolutionary tradition; we must have confidence that our Iranian comrades will be victorious in the end.

[1] Rosenfeld, Everett (28 June 2011). "Muharram Protests in Iran, 1978". Time. Time Inc. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
[2] Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.84
[3] Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.116-7.
[4] Makki Hossein, The History of Twenty Years, Vol.2, Preparations For Change of Monarchy (Mohammad-Ali Elmi Press, 1945), pp. 87–90, 358–451.
[5] Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.132.
[6] Glenn E. Curtis, Eric Hooglund (2008). "Iran: A Country Study". Government Printing Office. p. 27.
[7] Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions, (1999) p.84
[8] Abrahamian (1982), p. 268–70.
[9] Behrooz writing in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark j. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.121
[10] America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Tony Smith. Princeton Princeton University Press: p. 255
[11] Blum, William. "Chapter 9: Iran - 1953: Making It Safe for the King of Kings." Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. London: Zed, 2014. N. pag. Print.
[12] Abrahamian 2008, pp. 139–140
[13] Greene, Doug Enaa. "Devotion and Resistance: Bizhan Jazani and the Iranian Fedaii | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal." Links. Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal's Vision, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 July 2017.
[14] Saber, Mostafa. "The Working Class in Iran: Some Background - Class Struggles from 1979-1989 - Mostafa Saber." N.p., 1990. Web. 13 July 2017.
[16] Schmitz, Cathryne L.; Traver, Elizabeth KimJin; Larson, Desi, eds. (2004). Child Labor: A Global View. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 120. ISBN 0313322775.
[17] Dearden, Lizzie. "Iran's Supreme Leader Claims Gender Equality Is 'Zionist Plot' Aiming to Corrupt Role of Women in Society." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 21 Mar. 2017. Web. 13 July 2017.
[18] Anoushiravan Enteshami & Mahjoob Zweiri (2007). Iran and the rise of Neoconservatives, the politics of Tehran's silent Revolution. I.B.Tauris. pp. 4–5.
[20] Ramezani, Alireza. "Raise in Minimum Wage Not Enough for Iranian Workers." Al-Monitor. N.p., 18 Mar. 2014. Web. 14 July 2017.
[21] "Six-Year Prison Sentence Against Teachers Union Leader Upheld After Pressure by Revolutionary Guards." Center for Human Rights in Iran. N.p., 18 Oct. 2016. Web. 14 July 2017.
[22] Vltchek, Andre. "Iran Is Standing!" Counterpunch, 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 14 July 2017.

Friday, July 7, 2017

Misogyny is Revisionism Part 3: In Defense of Feminism

Feminism has become the staple bête noire for many on the left today. It has become fashionable for many self-proclaimed communists to denounce feminism as either bourgeois, a form of identity politics, or both. Many of these assertions rest on deliberate misreadings of the giants of Marxist feminism, as well as more superficial semantic arguments. And no more strain of feminism is more thoroughly thrashed and maligned by the so-called “woke” left than radical feminism, which is denounced on the above assertions to an even more vicious and ridiculous degree. The reality is that feminism is not only compatible with Marxism, but is indispensable to Marxism. Without the liberation of women, there can be no successful socialist revolution. Lenin famously stated that “There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real ‘freedom’ as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.”[1] But for the crude class reductionists who worship at the altar of workerism this point falls on intentionally deaf ears. While the first two parts in this series were more theory-focused, this final chapter is more polemical than theoretical, aiming to re-affirm the indispensability of feminism to the revolutionary socialist project.

The claim that feminism is bourgeois was first popularized by the International Communist League, more popularly known as the Spartacist League, famous for their “revolutionary” defense of rapist filmmaker Roman Polanski, and the sex club NAMBLA.[2] The equally noxious Socialist Equality Party, also famous for its defense of rapists, as well as snitch-jacketing against “Stalinist spies”, similarly denounce feminism as bourgeois. Both organizations claim they support not feminism, but “women’s liberation”. While these two sects are not very influential in of themselves on the left as a whole, their anti-feminist, pro-“women’s liberation” line has been picked up by many so-called leftists, mostly men. To justify these positions, Alexandra Kollontai’s The Social Basis of the Woman Question is cited, but what these arguments miss is that Kollontai was not denouncing feminism as a whole, but bourgeois feminism. Kollontai, along with her contemporaries Rosa Luxemburg and Clara Zetkin, pushed for the radicalization and evolution of feminism; just as communism represented the culmination of Enlightenment radicalism, they sought to create a feminism that would represent the ideological pinnacle of the struggle for women’s liberation, as well as a guide to action for working class women. What these revolutionary women made recognized was that while there are issues that unite all women, cross-class collaborationism will ultimately hurt the feminist cause, not advance it, because the bourgeois feminists will ultimately side with their economic class. This is very different from a totalistic denunciation of feminism as an ideology. All this talk of “women’s liberation not feminism” is just semantic obfuscation; what it really does is disguise the discomfort many leftist men feel surrounding a revolutionary movement exclusively for women. These revolutionary women did not theorize, organize, and agitate to make men feel more comfortable, but liberate international proletariat, especially the working women of the world.

The other charge that feminism is a form of identity politics is another example of this kind of disingenuous semantic and ideological obfuscation. As discussed in the first part of this series, woman is not an identity, but a material state of being. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels explained how the advent of private property and its concentration in male hands, led to the domination of women by men for the purpose of exploiting their reproductive labor so that property could be passed down from the father to the son. Patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another, the one impossible without the other. And capitalism, despite allowing women to make some gains, still needs to maintain control of women’s reproductive labor to ensure the continuation of the proletarian class. Patriarchy also serves the function of giving working class men an “outlet” for their aggression; rather than directing their rage at the system that exploits them, they are encouraged to direct their rage at women. But again, this is not because woman is an “identity”. A large part of this rage men direct at women is sexual exploitation; prostitution, pornography, sexual slavery. (See Part 2 for a more detailed exploration of the sexual exploitation of women by patriarchy and capitalism.) Female biology, the state of being female, and of having a female body is inseparable from this oppression and exploitation. Thomas Sankara said of this double oppression of women:

“Women’s fate is bound up with that of an exploited male. However, this solidarity must not blind us in looking at the specific situation faced by womenfolk in our society. It is true that the woman worker and simple man are exploited economically, but the worker wife is also condemned further to silence by her worker husband. This is the same method used by men to dominate other men! The idea was crafted that certain men, by virtue of their family origin and birth, or by ‘divine rights’, were superior to others.”[3]

Being born female is a life sentence to, at “best”, second class citizenship, and, at worst, a life full of the worst kind of slavery and exploitation. Women make up not a class, but a caste; it is possible to move out of the class one belongs to, but caste is something one is born into and can never escape. Feminism aims at the emancipation of the female caste; it is not some kind of abstract identitarian movement. We must ask, would those who denounce feminism as identity politics also say the same thing about black liberation, or national liberation movements? Certainly some will, but one has to suspect these would be a minority. If anything, the cult of the ideal “worker” worshipped by the class reductionist left is an example of actual identity politics, the way it fetishizes and elevates a kind of archetypal industrial worker as being the symbol of the working class. This kind of crude class reductionism poses a far greater danger to the left than feminism ever can, even if feminism were an example of “identity politics”. Again, these denunciations serve more to conceal the discomfort of leftist men than anything else. Working class men, and leftist men are still men, and unless they actively combat patriarchal-capitalist socialization, they are going to be doing more to support the status quo than the revolution. If solidarity with working class women cannot persuade them to support the feminist movement, then perhaps they ought to support it as it is ultimately in their interest to do so. Like the racist white worker who thinks himself superior to his black comrade, capitalism will not hesitate to sacrifice the chauvinist male worker on the pyre of profit and accumulation.

Leftist anti-feminism has really reached its peak in recent years with the rabid attacks on radical feminism and radical feminists. All the crass arguments hurled against feminism are also hurled against radical feminism, but the vitriol is taken to a whole higher level of viciousness. There are also other accusations reserved just for attacking radical feminism besides the usual ones; that radical feminism is elitist, white supremacist, “transphobic”, moralist, “whorephobic”, and even fascist! Again, these arguments show a shocking level of ignorance when it comes to history and theory. Like the Marxist feminists of the earlier twentieth century, radical feminism emerged not as an anti-leftist movement, but as a movement to push the left to its highest level of theoretical and revolutionary potential. Carol Hanisch, the radical feminist who, among other things, coined the phrase “the personal is political”, and organized the 1968 Miss America protests, said in a speech that the radical feminist movement she helped to found and develop was inspired by Mao and the Cultural Revolution. In the same speech, she said:

“To me the Cultural Revolution seems a continuation of the Revolution: a means to make it go deeper so that it didn’t get caught in the bureaucracy and complacency that sets in once power is won militarily and a new group of people—including opportunists in the revolutionary movement itself—have a stake in creating the new status quo. It’s a continuation of the process by which the masses of working people, including women and minorities, take total political, economic and social power. It’s the next step to achieving real communism; that is, a society completely devoid of class, including that of sex and race. We considered sexism and racism more than just a tradition of behavior or a bad or ignorant habit. Being materialists (in the Marxist sense), we asked, ‘Who benefits?’”[4]

Other radical feminists like Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin sought to apply dialectical materialism exclusively to understanding the oppression and exploitation faced by women. Rather than giving into “biological determinism”, or “sexual fascism”, as their critics claimed, and still claim, they built upon the work of Engels, Kollontai, and others and deepened it; their analyses did for patriarchy what Marx did for capitalism. We owe much of the newfound understanding of pre-patriarchal human society, and “lost” women’s history to their diligent analysis and research. The radical feminist frustration with much of the left was not, and should not be considered an expression of anti-leftist sentiment, but understood for what it really was, a deep-seated frustration with the chauvinism and entitlement exhibited by many male leftists, as well as the domination of leftist groups by these men, and the way women in these groups were very often silenced and abused (something that still happens today, as shown by the rape “scandals” in the UK Socialist Workers Party, and in the Australian section of the Committee for a Workers’ International). And just like Marx is constantly subjected to ridiculous attacks by people who have never read him, so are the radical feminists (the erroneous claim that Dworkin said “all sex is rape” is one of the most popular of these distortions). Except radical feminists are not just being attacked by the right, the way Marx is, but also by the left. What it really shows is that the more direct an attack on existing power structures is, the more wildly insane and savage the counter-attack.

At the end of the day, anti-feminist “leftists” simply betray an utter lack of understanding of both revolutionary socialist theory and practice. Every revolutionary socialist has recognized that for the revolution to succeed, women need to be mass mobilized; even after the socialist republic has been established, this mobilization must continue and deepen for socialism to take root and flourish. Women are more than decoration for the socialist revolution, they must be active participants in every aspect of building the socialist society. Mao and Castro were especially astute at recognizing this; both China (at least until the Dengist era) and Cuba have been active proponents of women’s liberation in all spheres of society. Marx himself said, “Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex…”[5] This statement can and should also be applied to socialist organizations; the most effective socialist groups are the ones in which women are not just active at every level, but equal and valued contributors to the organization’s development and practice. Those “socialists” who disregard, undervalue, or outright reject feminism do so at their own peril.

[1] Lenin, VI. "Soviet Power and the Status of Women." Marxist Internet Archive. Marxist Internet Archive, 2002. Web. 06 July 2017.
[2] "Feminism vs. Marxism: Origins of the Conflict." International Communist League (Fourth International). Women and Revolution, 10 June 2011. Web. 06 July 2017. The "Spart's" key anti-feminist manifesto.
[3] Sankara, Thomas. "7 Thomas Sankara Quotes about Women." MsAfropolitan. N.p., 25 Nov. 2011. Web. 06 July 2017.
[4] Hanisch, Carol. "Impact of the Chinese Cultural Revolution on the Women's Liberation Movement." Carol Hanisch, 1996. Web. 06 July 2017.
[5] Marx: Letters to Dr Kugelmann, Marxist Lib. 17 (NY, International Pub., 1934), letter of December 12, 1868, p.83.