What we are witnessing in Iran is a
full-blown popular revolution. However, in order to set its stamp on
the movement, the working class must participate in the front line. The
movement will stand or fall to the degree that the working class is
able to lead it.
July 14 1789, a force of nearly 1000 Parisians stormed the Bastille, a
medieval prison now used to hold political prisoners. When he heard
about the attack, King Louis XVI asked “Is it a revolt?” “No sire,”
said a nearby noble, “It is a revolution.”
Slowly but surely the reality is dawning on western commentators
that what we are witnessing in Iran is not merely a riot or a protest
movement. It is a full-blown popular revolution. Slowly but surely the
same frightening thought is penetrating the heads of even the most
obtuse reactionaries in the regime of Teheran.
Those most frightened of all of the idea of revolution are the men
who are theoretically leading it. Yesterday Mousavi called on people
not to demonstrate “in order to save their lives”. The result was
another day of street protests. Today he is calling on the
demonstrators to go to the mosques today “to mourn the people killed on
Monday”. This is a transparent attempt to get people off the streets
and take the steam out of the mass movement. But for now the movement
shows no signs of running out of steam.
At present, the nominal leader of the movement is Mir Hussein
Mousavi, but this is only a historical accident and it will not last.
The anger and discontent of the masses, which has accumulated over
decades, required a focal point and found it in the protests centered
around the leading opposition candidate, who has been pushed by the
masses to go further than he intended in his opposition to the
government. The current crisis was inspired by common anger over a
national election but has developed far beyond that and can end up by
posing the question of power.
The revolutionary movement is gathering strength. Every day the
authorities warn people to keep off the streets and every day people
come out onto the streets. Every day Mousavi calls off the
demonstration and every day the demonstration takes place. These mass
demonstrations, held in silence, are acting as a powerful magnet that
attracts growing support.
The movement started with the most militant and courageous elements,
with the heroic Iranian students as a hard core. But to the degree that
citizens see that the demonstrations are continuing, and that the
authorities they so feared are powerless to stop them, large numbers of
ordinary men and women find the courage to join in. Once on the
streets, they get a sense of their own power. By degrees they lose
their fear. They grow in stature. Their heads are no longer bowed to
the ground. Through these silent demonstrations the masses are finding
their voice and the silent protests become a deafening roar.
is the reason why Mousavi, having failed twice to demobilize the mass
movement, has resorted to the tactic of declaring today a “day of
mourning”. But the history of revolutions shows that even days of
mourning can be dangerous affairs. Large numbers of people, even when
gathered in mosques, can become very angry when they are invited to
meditate on the fate of their comrades who have fallen in the battle
against a ruthless tyranny. They may listen to Mousavi and go to the
mosques. But what will happen when they come out?
The Iranian government tolerated student-led uprisings in 1999 and
2003 for only a few days before unleashing fearful repression, sending
Basij vigilantes onto campuses, where they flung a few students from
the windows; smashed heads with bricks, chains or truncheons; and
jailed many. Immediately after the elections on Friday, they tried
similar intimidation tactics but there is little result. This time it
is different.
Iranian state news reports of seven people killed in various cities
were intended to deter another major antigovernment rally on Tuesday.
The result was not the intended and the demonstration on Tuesday was
followed further protests on Wednesday. The government will have a lot
of trouble bringing about a swift end to the demonstrations as it did
on previous occasions. This time the situation is very different. We
recall the words of that French aristocrat to the King: “Sire, it is
not a revolt. It is a revolution!”
Skeptics on the Left
Strangely enough, there are some people on the Left, even some who
like to call themselves Marxists, who do not understand this. After so
many years in which nothing seemed to be happening in Iran, many of
these Lefts, who had been very radical in their youth but in middle age
have succumbed to a comfortable skepticism, have given up all hope in
the revolutionary transformation of society. They did not expect the
present upheaval because they had no confidence whatsoever in the
revolutionary potential of the masses. And now, even when the movement
is taking place before their very eyes, they still refuse to believe it.
people are always present. They were present in Russia in 1917. Trotsky
compared the Russian Mensheviks to a tired old schoolteacher who for
many years taught his students what the spring is. But then one
morning, this old professor opened the window to let some fresh air
into his stuffy classroom. Suddenly, he saw a blue sky, with the sun
shining and the birds singing, whereupon he immediately slammed the
window shut, declaring the spring to be some monstrous aberration of
nature.
Our “left wing” skeptics are just like that moth-eaten old
professor. They like to talk a lot about a revolution and remind us of
when they were young in Paris in 1968 or Teheran in 1979, but in
reality they have not a single atom of revolutionary spirit or a gram
of Marxist understanding in them. Such people are an obstacle in the
way of the revolution, infecting the youth with poisonous skepticism.
Fortunately, they have no influence with the new generation in Iran,
which has no need of such clever “professors” to teach them how to
fight.
Despite the pathetic complaints of the skeptics who do not recognize
a revolution when they see one, the real movement is going from
strength to strength. Yesterday, Iranian state television even carried
brief footage of the mass protests. That detail is significant,
providing further proof of splits in the regime. Even more
significantly, yesterday: six footballers playing for Iran’s national
team, including the captain, appeared in a World Cup qualifier in
Seoul, South Korea, wearing armbands in the green associated with the
protests. Iran is another football-mad country and pictures of the
Iranian team members wearing the wristbands were seen by millions on
Iranian television.
These are inspiring events that should fill the hearts of every
class conscious worker and revolutionary youth with joy. As for the
skeptics, let them continue to weep in their herbal tea and live in the
past when they still had some faint semblance of a revolutionary idea
in them. “Let the dead bury their dead.” We have more important things
to do!
Limits of demonstrations
The present campaign of demonstrations has played a most valuable
role in bringing the masses to their feet and providing them with a
focal point for action. But it also has limitations and the danger is
that those who are propelling the protests do not understand this.
Despite the colossal energy and courage shown by the demonstrators,
they will not be able to maintain the present level of activity
indefinitely. Unless the struggle is taken to a higher level, people
will tire of endless processions and the movement will begin to lose
steam. The danger of selective repression will then increase, as the
state picks off the most active elements.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the movement. It is simply stated: Mousavi wants to reach a compromise with the regime while the demonstrators want to topple the system.
In fact, Mousavi and other leaders have tried to keep the chants
focused on the election result in order to divert the movement into
“safe” channels.
is a question mark on how long Iran’s rulers will tolerate the
demonstrations, and also how long the protesters will stay in the
streets if there is no prospect of a decisive outcome. Some analysts
are talking of a “Tiananmen scenario.” They fear a repeat of the
Chinese government’s rolling out tanks to ruthlessly crush
pro-democracy demonstrations in 1989.
“I expect the situation to polarize further, and given the character
of this regime, I think it is a matter of time before they roll in the
tanks,” said one analyst. This view, at first sight, seems to be
confirmed by certain facts. Ahmadinejad’s thugs are continuing their
attacks on students, who are seen as the main instigators of the
protests. This is meant to create an atmosphere of terror. Overnight,
members of Iran’s Basij volunteer militia reportedly raided university
dormitories in several Iranian cities. The Basijis stormed compounds,
ransacking dormitories and beating up some students. Several arrests
were made, our correspondent says, and the dean of the university in
the city of Shiraz has resigned.
But these actions have not succeeded in dampening the mood of
protest. Rather, they pour petrol on the flames. Despite all the
attempts of the authorities and Mousavi to head off Thursday’s protest,
we can safely predict that there will be further protests today. The
view that the uprising is about to be suppressed leaves out of account
the scope of this movement and its effects on the state. If the latest
reports are to be believed (and we see no reason to disbelieve them)
the regime’s hold on the repressive apparatus is beginning to weaken.
Juan Cole, a professor of Middle East history at the University of
Michigan, who has been tracking the upheaval on his Informed Comment blog, writes:
“This is an order of magnitude different from those earlier
demonstrations. In the earlier student demonstrations, people were
saying that the hard-liners were doing things that were wrong. What
these demonstrators are saying is that the regime has become so corrupt
and so dictatorial that it has become rotten to the core.”
In the earlier protests, the middle class extended something like
drive-by support, honking their horns or flashing their high-beam
headlights as they drove past the chanting students. Iran’s supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke like a rueful patriarch, saying
he regretted the few student deaths and that people who criticized him
should not be chastised. After the initial spasms of violence the
president at the time, Mohammad Khatami, fearing wider bloodshed,
declined to call his followers out in support.
The general sentiment was that everyone should go home and try to
solve problems through the ballot box, noted Ervand Abrahamian, an
expert on Iranian opposition movements at Baruch College. But the
chance of that kind of compromise has been soured by the sentiment that
Friday’s election was stolen.
“Those arguments don’t work now because the ballot box has proved to be a cul-de-sac,” said Mr. Abrahamian.
How to go forward
A real Marxist, as opposed to a pretentious windbag, is always on
the side of the revolutionary masses. Our duty is to march shoulder to
shoulder with them, to build links with them, and, taking as our
starting-point their present level of consciousness, to try to
fertilize the movement with clear revolutionary socialist slogans. In
the case of Iran, this means that we pose the boldest and most
consistent revolutionary democratic slogans, combining them with
transitional demands that raise the question of a complete
revolutionary transformation of society.
aim is the establishment of an Iranian Workers’ and Peasants Republic.
But at this point of time, the revolutionary movement has a very
heterogeneous character. The working class is beginning to move, but
has not yet managed to find a voice of its own. In order to set its
stamp on the movement, the working class must participate in the front
line. In order to put itself at the head of the Nation, the proletariat
must prove to the whole revolutionary movement that it is fighting
energetically for democratic slogans with revolutionary methods.
How is it possible to take the movement to a higher level, to pass
beyond demonstrations and move towards a decisive solution? The working
class has a power that can paralyze society and the state. Without its
permission, not a light bulb shines, not a wheel turns, not a telephone
rings. We refer to the general strike. The idea of a general strike has
been raised but it has not been carried out. This is the key question!
The Iranian workers have many problems of their own: low wages, bad
conditions, inflation, denial of union rights. These class demands can
and should be linked to the general democratic demands to launch a
broad campaign for a revolutionary general strike. Given the extreme
restrictions on trade union activity, such a campaign can only be
carried out by shoras – action committees elected in the workplaces.
Similar action committees can be established by the students, the
peasants, the women and all other sections of society that wish to
voice their specific complaints and demands. The committees should be
linked up on a local, city-wide, provincial and national basis.
Some will say: but this is difficult! Yes, life is full of
difficulties and we do not underestimate the problems. But it is
necessary to give some kind of perspective to the movement, some kind
of coherent policy and tactics that can point the way forward. And who
can say that there is no objective basis for this proposal? The sheer
size of these demonstrations shows that people are longing for change
and looking for a way out.
Moreover, the protests are not limited to students, but have drawn
in people from all generations and increasingly from the working class.
It may be said that the revolutionary movement is still confused and
nebulous, that it lacks a proper leadership. Yes, that is true. But
these things are inevitable at the beginning of any revolution. We can
say that the masses do not know exactly what they want. But they know
exactly what they do not want. They are no loner willing to tolerate
the status quo and are fighting against it. That is quite enough to
begin with!
As for leadership, this does not drop from the clouds. The Iranian
Marxists have correct ideas but are a tiny minority. In order to win
the majority two things are needed: the experience of the masses, who
always learn very quickly in the course of a revolution, and our
ability to put forward opportune and correct slogans that connect with
the real movement.
A demand that expresses the needs of the moment is that of a
Revolutionary Constituent Assembly. It is not a question of recounting
rigged votes. It is not even a question of new elections – for who can
guarantee us that new elections will be any fairer than the previous
ones? It is now a question of a complete change. Nothing else will
suffice. Away with the old regime, its corrupt politicians, and its
reactionary constitution! We demand a complete reshaping of the
political landscape on the basis of a new and completely democratic
Constitution.
I have always opposed the misuse of this slogan, which some people
foolishly regard as a panacea for all the ills of society. It was
inappropriate for a country like Argentina, where a bourgeois democracy
of sorts has existed for some time. It was inappropriate for Bolivia at
a time when the proletariat could have gone far further and taken
power. But it is completely appropriate for Iran, where the masses are
struggling to overthrow an anti-democratic regime.
As in tsarist Russia, the struggle against autocracy is the first
task of the socialist revolution. But as in Russia it is not the last
task. In fact, the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in both
cases are linked inseparably to the tasks of the socialist revolution.
As in Russia, so in Iran, the bourgeoisie is rotten and reactionary.
The bourgeois Liberals have shown that they are not capable of fighting
seriously against the forces of reaction. If they take any step
forward, it is only because they are compelled to do so by the movement
of the masses. And as soon as the movement ebbs, they will rush to
reach a rotten compromise with the ayatollahs. No trust whatsoever can
be placed in these gentlemen!
The Iranian proletariat is much bigger and stronger than the Russian
working class in 1917. It has powerful allies in the peasantry, the
urban poor, the oppressed women, the revolutionary students and
intellectuals. These are the real, living forces of the Iranian
Revolution! In the first stages of the Revolution, when the democratic
tasks are on the order of the day, the proletariat must strive to put
itself at the head of the Nation by the most energetic defence of
democratic slogans, particularly the Constituent Assembly.
However, the proletariat must not subordinate its class interests to
the demands of the petty bourgeois democrats but must press forward
with its own class demands. The cowardly and reactionary Iranian
bourgeoisie will stand exposed as an obstacle to the democratic
aspirations of the people. Only the working class can win the battle
for democracy, as a by-product of the revolutionary struggle for
socialism and an Iranian Workers and Peasants Republic. The movement
will stand or fall to the degree that the working class is able to lead
it.
First posted on www.marxist.com on 18th June, 2009.
Ckick here to read Alan Woods’ previous article on the events in Iran
Socialist Appeal
PUBLIC MEETING
IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF
THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION?
Speaker
ALAN WOODS
Next Thursday 25th June 7pm.
Room 2c, ULU, Malet St.
(Meeting hosted by ULU Marxists Society)
