Why Islamic Fundamentalist Movements Shouldn't Be Allied With or Sympathized With...

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Following the Iranian Revolution regarding the Iranian Socialist Party's Repression by the Islamic Government.

Despite OIPFM’s policies of trying not to position itself in direct conflict with the government, it was clear that the ruling fundamentalists could not tolerate the Organization's “unity-critique” policy, the Fedaian’s activities, and their existence. During the period of 1981-83, OIPFM was principally supportive of the Islamic government's policies in various aspects, including the conflict with Iraq, anti-American positions, and certain aspects of their economic reforms; however it was not legally permitted to pursue its activities. In those years, several death sentences were given to Fadaian and hundreds of their activists were imprisoned. The overwhelming prosecution and oppression of OIPFM began from the spring of 1983; at the time the regime completed its intelligence structures and policing networks. But the Islamic Regime did not succeed in destroying a large portion of the Organization's leadership and the leadership was able to exile itself abroad in time. But several thousands of Fedaian were arrested, hundreds, including eight members of the leadership, were executed, and thousands were forced to flee the country.

And this is why Islamic Fundamentalists or Fundamentalists of any nature should not be sided with if they are inherently Fundamentalist and Bourgeois and have no interest in progressiveness or Socialism.

[S.Artesian]

Not to mention suppression of Tudeh, the oil workers, etc.

[Ocean Seal]

And this is why Islamic Fundamentalists or Fundamentalists of any nature should not be sided with if they are inherently Fundamentalist and Bourgeois and have no interest in progressiveness or Socialism.
I find what you say to be true. However, the only exception that I see is the case of Palestine. I'm kind of on the fence about this issue. The extreme oppression of Palestine needs to be combated and needs to end, and perhaps the only way to do this would be to ally with bourgeois organizations like Hamas.

[Ismail]

Not to mention suppression of Tudeh, the oil workers, etc.Tudeh was a reactionary, pro-Soviet revisionist party. As Hoxha wrote in January 1980: "Hiding behind Marxist-Leninist slogans, this party is sabotaging the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the Iranian people and trying to bring Iran into the sphere of influence and under the thraldom of the Soviet Union. That is why the Moslem people of Iran, who have risen in revolution, are not acquainted with Marxism-Leninism either as a theory or a revolutionary practice." (Reflections on the Middle East, p. 373.) Writing in 1983 Hoxha also notes that, "The Iranian government has complained continually about the interference of the Soviet social imperialists in the internal affairs of Iran, about the troubles which they bring it through the Kurds and the 'Tudeh' Party (the revisionist party of Iran) and quite rightly describes them as devils, just like the American imperialists." (pp. 446-447.)

Obviously the Iranian Government was and is anti-communist (and the pro-Albanian groups were persecuted just like Tudeh), but Tudeh should not be praised.

[Kiev Communard]

Obviously the Iranian Government was and is anti-communist (and the pro-Albanian groups were persecuted just like Tudeh), but Tudeh should not be praised.

Out of curiosity, where were the pro-Albanian (Hoxhaist) groups in Iran during this period? It seems that the only major segment of the Iranian Left in the course of this period consisted either of Maoists or of Hekmatist "worker-communists" (without taking into account left-Islamists, such as People's Mujahideen).

[S.Artesian]

Tudeh was a reactionary, pro-Soviet revisionist party. As Hoxha wrote in January 1980: "Hiding behind Marxist-Leninist slogans, this party is sabotaging the anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the Iranian people and trying to bring Iran into the sphere of influence and under the thraldom of the Soviet Union. That is why the Moslem people of Iran, who have risen in revolution, are not acquainted with Marxism-Leninism either as a theory or a revolutionary practice." (Reflections on the Middle East, p. 373.) Writing in 1983 Hoxha also notes that, "The Iranian government has complained continually about the interference of the Soviet social imperialists in the internal affairs of Iran, about the troubles which they bring it through the Kurds and the 'Tudeh' Party (the revisionist party of Iran) and quite rightly describes them as devils, just like the American imperialists." (pp. 446-447.)

Obviously the Iranian Government was and is anti-communist (and the pro-Albanian groups were persecuted just like Tudeh), but Tudeh should not be praised.


This is where ideology and idiocy converge: "The Iranian government...quite rightly describes [the Tudeh party] as devils, just like the American imperialists."

Hey guess, what, the Iranians didn't shoot the Soviet bureaucrats, they shot the workers, the oil workers in and out of Tudeh.

I didn't praise Tudeh, but I wouldn't advocate shooting the workers organized in
Tudeh as "devils, just like the American imperialists."

Un-fucking-believable. The worst aspects of the "third period," "social fascism," etc. in a mind-numbing prose that makes Mao read like Oscar Wilde.

Hoxha-ism, for those who find Maoism too cosmopolitan for their tastes.

[Kiev Communard]

This is where ideology and idiocy converge: "The Iranian government...quite rightly describes [the Tudeh party] as devils, just like the American imperialists."

Hey guess, what, the Iranians didn't shoot the Soviet bureaucrats, they shot the workers, the oil workers in and out of Tudeh.

I didn't praise Tudeh, but I wouldn't advocate shooting the workers organized in
Tudeh as "devils, just like the American imperialists."

Un-fucking-believable. The worst aspects of the "third period," "social fascism," etc. in a mind-numbing prose that makes Mao read like Oscar Wilde.

Hoxha-ism, for those who find Maoism too cosmopolitan for their tastes.

It should also be noted that it is ironic how in this piece Hoxha, for all his simplistic anti-religious policies, implicitly supports the actions of one of the most theocratic governments on Earth aimed at suppressing his rivals in the misnamed "international communist movement". So much for the "proletarian atheism"!

[Ismail]

It should also be noted that it is ironic how in this piece Hoxha, for all his simplistic anti-religious policies, implicitly supports the actions of one of the most theocratic governments on Earth aimed at suppressing his rivals in the misnamed "international communist movement". So much for the "proletarian atheism"!Actually, Hoxha wasn't some anti-religious zealot or precursor to internet-era "militant atheist" people. In his book Reflections on the Middle East, among other works, he notes that for instance both the Iranian Revolution and the Afghan struggle against the Soviets involved a high amount of religious sentiment. Hoxha stressed that the Marxist-Leninist forces in these countries should work to expose "religious socialism," but should in no way denounce an entire movement simply because it is religious.

Here's the book in PDF format: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_reflections_on_the_middle_east.pdf


Out of curiosity, where were the pro-Albanian (Hoxhaist) groups in Iran during this period?Being persecuted by the Iranian Government and being forced into exile. Some took a right-wing view and supported Iraq over Iran much like the People's Mujahidin did. Hoxha denounced Iraq and noted that the USA, USSR, the Chinese and the Israelis all wanted to extend the Iran-Iraq War by supplying Iraq and Iran, and encouraging them to continue their fighting. Hoxha noted that the "secular" and "progressive" Iraq was in fact led by the reactionary Ba'ath Party which was backed by the USA and the USSR.

The pro-Hoxha party in Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Labour_of_Iran

[Rafiq]

Not to mention suppression of Tudeh, the oil workers, etc.


Not only that, the Tudeh party were class traitors.

They literally helped the Iranian regime hunt down and jail, execute communists.

And afterwords, the Regime got rid of the Tudeh.

[Rafiq]

Some took a right-wing view and supported Iraq over Iran much like the People's Mujahidin did. Hoxha denounced Iraq and noted that the USA, USSR, the Chinese and the Israelis all wanted to extend the Iran-Iraq War by supplying Iraq and Iran, and encouraging them to continue their fighting.

A right-wing view? I hope you don't mean that as if supporting Iran was Left-wing.

And did Hoxha denounce Iran, just as much as he did Iraq? If not, than why?






Hoxha noted that the "secular" and "progressive" Iraq was in fact led by the reactionary Ba'ath Party which was backed by the USA and the USSR.




The Same way Iran was?

[Ismail]

A right-wing view? I hope you don't mean that as if supporting Iran was Left-wing.Hoxha noted that Iraq invaded Iran with American and Soviet support in order to forestall an anti-imperialist uprising in Iraq.


And did Hoxha denounce Iran, just as much as he did Iraq? If not, than why?On January 24, 1979 he stated in his diary that, "As to the Marxist Leninists, that is, those who are inspired by the Workers and Peasants' Communist Party known as 'Tufan', or other groups around this Marxist-Leninist party, the news agencies say that they, too, have come out in demonstrations in the streets, and their slogans are correct. They support the people's uprising and demand that it should go further, that the people should strive for profound bourgeois-democratic reforms, for the total liquidation of the fascist monarchic regime of the Shah and that the future regime should have sound democratic features." (Reflections on the Middle East, p. 220.)

On February 13 he also noted that, "This anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution of the Iranian people is markedly influenced by the spirit of the Shia mullahs, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini... their influence, however it may be dressed up in a democratic cloak, is nothing but a consequence of a retrogade idealist philosophy just as mediaeval as that of the monarchic regime. But the times require that they establish in Iran, under this cloak and this philosophy, a so-called Islamic Republic, which sooner or later might strengthen the foundations of a reactionary state power and establish links, new ones, of course, and in forms somewhat more favourable to Iran, with American imperialism and the other imperialists.

... In this revolution the progressive anti-imperialist elements and the Marxist-Leninists could not have been a major force. They were still lacking the necessary formation. But during this revolution they learned how to fight. Now their task is to consolidate themselves and to insist, by means of the broad masses of the people, that this revolution of a bourgeois-democratic character should advance and gradually free itself from the Shia idealist ideology. Hence, they should be the first to expropriate the property of feudals and capitalists, making it the property of the whole people, to carry out the agrarian reform, an agrarian reform not just in words but in the interests of the poor and middle peasants of Iran. Likewise, they must deepen the revolution, impelling the advance of the great revolutionary force of the Iranian proletariat, of the workers of the oil industry and other sectors of industry, because American imperialism has invested large amounts of capital in Iran, has built modern refineries and also various other factories in which a working class large in number is employed.

Hence, without immediately becoming involved in struggle on all fronts with the Shia movement, which seems to have a stronger influence in Iran, the Iranian Marxist-Leninists, the revolutionaries and progressive elements must aim their efforts to oppose the idealist philosophy of this movement, because already we see that these religious zealots have gone into action." (Ibid. pp. 226-228.)

On March 15, 1979 Hoxha again noted in his diary that, "Khomeini has declared that he will fight the United States of America, the Soviet Union, or any other power that tries to place Iran under bondage. Of course, in his struggle he cannot break with the foreign capitalist bourgeoisie. His reliance on one or the other depends on the pressures he will be subjected to. The Iranian people must not permit this reliance to be enslaving. Likewise, the progressive people of Iran must fight to eradicate the dangerous elements, to eliminate the deep roots of various secret agencies which exist there, a thing which will take a long time, and they must prevent the direct American, Soviet and other secret agencies, disguised as specialists or various allegedly democratic or communist parties, from establishing the influence of the superpowers in that wealthy, but at the same time, poverty-stricken country.

The Iranian revolution will have a great influence which will go beyond the borders of that country. In fact, this influence is already being felt in the Emirates of the Persian Gulf as well as in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. But Iran must be vigilant, must take into account the great dangers which might come either from the American imperialists or from the Soviet social-imperialists. The Soviet Union has a long common border with Iran and the population of Iranian Azerbaijan has close links with Soviet Azerbaijan. Thus, Soviet agents will go in and out of Iran to organize sabotage, to incite insurrections, to make demands for autonomy, concessions, etc., etc.

In this situation only a sound, revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist political force, which has the support of the working class and the people, can gradually win ground and resist all those dangers which are threatening Iran and the whole world." (Ibid. pp. 268-269.)

In December 1983, Hoxha wrote in his diary on the Iran-Iraq War that, "The Iraqi rulers began the war against Iran from fear of the influence in their country of the Iranian people's revolution against the Shah and his patrons, the American imperialists, and also with the incitement of the Soviet social-imperialists, the American imperialists and Arab reaction in order to overthrow the new Iranian regime." (Ibid. p. 531.)

And so on.


The Same way Iran was?The Americans and Soviets aided Iraq. In fact it was Gorbachev who significantly upped Soviet military aid to the Iraqis, allowing them to make gains against the Iranians and making the prospect of a ceasefire that pleased no one the end result.

[Kiev Communard]

Hoxha noted that Iraq invaded Iran with American and Soviet support in order to forestall an anti-imperialist uprising in Iraq.

On January 24, 1979 he stated in his diary that, "As to the Marxist Leninists, that is, those who are inspired by the Workers and Peasants' Communist Party known as 'Tufan', or other groups around this Marxist-Leninist party, the news agencies say that they, too, have come out in demonstrations in the streets, and their slogans are correct. They support the people's uprising and demand that it should go further, that the people should strive for profound bourgeois-democratic reforms, for the total liquidation of the fascist monarchic regime of the Shah and that the future regime should have sound democratic features." (Reflections on the Middle East, p. 220.)

On February 13 he also noted that, "This anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolution of the Iranian people is markedly influenced by the spirit of the Shia mullahs, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini... their influence, however it may be dressed up in a democratic cloak, is nothing but a consequence of a retrogade idealist philosophy just as mediaeval as that of the monarchic regime. But the times require that they establish in Iran, under this cloak and this philosophy, a so-called Islamic Republic, which sooner or later might strengthen the foundations of a reactionary state power and establish links, new ones, of course, and in forms somewhat more favourable to Iran, with American imperialism and the other imperialists.

... In this revolution the progressive anti-imperialist elements and the Marxist-Leninists could not have been a major force. They were still lacking the necessary formation. But during this revolution they learned how to fight. Now their task is to consolidate themselves and to insist, by means of the broad masses of the people, that this revolution of a bourgeois-democratic character should advance and gradually free itself from the Shia idealist ideology. Hence, they should be the first to expropriate the property of feudals and capitalists, making it the property of the whole people, to carry out the agrarian reform, an agrarian reform not just in words but in the interests of the poor and middle peasants of Iran. Likewise, they must deepen the revolution, impelling the advance of the great revolutionary force of the Iranian proletariat, of the workers of the oil industry and other sectors of industry, because American imperialism has invested large amounts of capital in Iran, has built modern refineries and also various other factories in which a working class large in number is employed.

Here is the problem. Hoxha basically reduced the working class struggles in Iran to the cause of "bourgeois-democratic" revolution, which, in the sense of development of modern capitalism, has already triumphed in Iran in the period from 1905 (Constitutional Revolution) to the time of Pahlavi's rule. What other "bourgeois-democratic" revolution could there have been, if the bourgeoisie was perfectly content with anti-democratic regime of the Shah, and later Khomeini? I think the illusion about "bourgeois-democratic" revolutions was one of the most damning problems of Leninist left in the 20th century, which basically turned it into an appendage of various "progressive" bourgeois regimes in the Third World or the apologists of "historic compromise" with "anti-monopolistic democracy" in West Europe. It was a socialist proletarian revolution with a participation of the toiling peasantry that was needed in Iran in 1979, and the failure of various Marxist-Leninist parties and groupings there, whatever their stripe may be, to realize this fact was the main cause of their undoing.

[S.Artesian]

The record shows that the US provided military aid to both sides in the Iraq-Iran conflict.

[Ismail]

The record shows that the US provided military aid to both sides in the Iraq-Iran conflict.Perhaps that record wasn't very clear to the leader of Albania in the 1979-1985 period.

Hoxha does, however, note that the Iran-Iraq War was being prolonged by both the US and the USSR. It's fairly obvious, though, that Iraq was seen as the "better" side by both the US and USSR. Only Israel was more worried about Iraq, hence why it sent arms to Iran.

[S.Artesian]

Perhaps that record wasn't very clear to the leader of Albania in the 1979-1985 period.

Hoxha does, however, note that the Iran-Iraq War was being prolonged by both the US and the USSR. It's fairly obvious, though, that Iraq was seen as the "better" side by both the US and USSR. Only Israel was more worried about Iraq, hence why it sent arms to Iran.

Then perhaps the leader of Albania should have refrained from such horseshit commentary.

[Jose Gracchus]

The record shows that the US provided military aid to both sides in the Iraq-Iran conflict.

Where's Cockshott, he needs to tells which bourgeoisie was the "victim" and why the civilized Western bourgeois would be so irrational to play every side that might have some advantage.

[Ismail]

Then perhaps the leader of Albania should have refrained from such horseshit commentary.Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and Fidel Castro have made analyses that weren't so awesome after 32 years of hindsight, so I don't see why Hoxha's commentary is "horseshit" because he doesn't back "progressive" Iraq, ergo he must be a supporter of theocracy and crazy Moslem madness. In this case most of Hoxha's thoughts on Iran were confined to his diary, he didn't write much about Iran publicly.

I don't see where Hoxha made gaping errors. Outside of theoretical disputes ("bourgeois-democratic revolution"), his analysis of the Iran-Iraq War seems accurate. Iran was clearly seen as a country whose revolution had regional ramifications, whereas Iraq adhered to an already outdated "Pan-Arabism" which had no revolutionary content, nor progressive sentiment in foreign policy outside of cheering for Palestinians. Hoxha maintained a firmly Marxist-Leninist line throughout. The Iranian Revolution saw the Ayatollah come to power due to a lack of Marxist-Leninist leadership, whereas the Ba'athists came to power via a CIA-backed military coup.

[S.Artesian]

No one said his analysis was horseshit because he didn't back progressive Iraq. It's horseshit because he does back "progressive" Iran.

[Ismail]

No one said his analysis was horseshit because he didn't back progressive Iraq. It's horseshit because he does back "progressive" Iran.You're free to note where he "backs" Iran. He called for an end to the Iran-Iraq War, not the total victory of Iran. He called for Marxist-Leninists to grow in strength, not to uncritically back the Ayatollah.

The entire book is online in PDF format. You can view all of it, I've linked to it.

[Astral_Disaster]

Protip: They've read Lenin, and want to use his tactics to pwn you in the name of Allah. You is pretty much everyone.

[Ismail]

Protip: They've read Lenin, and want to use his tactics to pwn you in the name of Allah. You is pretty much everyone.This is coming from a guy who called Das Kapital a great science fiction novel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/greatest-science-fiction-t156294/index.html?p=2145779#post2145779).