Originally posted by
[email protected] 30 2004, 08:58 PM
IThere seems, however, to be a wide-spread assumption that should the mullahs be overthrown, they will "inevitably" be replaced with a pro-American dictatorship and possibly even a new Shah.
I don't understand this.
It seems to me that Iran is quite ripe for an ordinary, garden-variety bourgeois revolution. I don't see why they are not perfectly capable of setting up a secular bourgeois republic willing and able to resist U.S. imperialism in defense of their own native bourgeoisie.
Why is it assumed that the only options are (1) theocratic despotism or (2) a quisling regime run from Washington?
You're quite right. Possibly the misconception you describe comes from the fact that Khatami & company (the "liberals") have a stated position that's a little more conciliatory towards Washington than the position of Khameini and company (the "conservatives" or theocrats). And many other liberals in Muslim countries invite imperialist support. But Khatami does not invite imperialist support, or propose some total capitulation to Washington, and in any case the class dynamics are more important than these nuances of their stated positions.
I'm not taking seriously a third option..."socialist" revolution led by some small Leninist party. I don't think they have anything close to sufficient support among Iranian workers.
It's not an immediate prospect, no, and probably the "Islamic Republic" will fall in some other way before it becomes an immediate prospect. Due to the low level of communist consciousness and organization at present. (There's probably more consciousness out there than finds organized expression, given Iran's history, but it'd take time for that to become the major factor in events again.)
But in the event of a mass uprising against the regime, workers and peasants would have to supply most of the ranks. Regardless of leadership, they'd put a certain stamp on events, it'd increase their self-confidence, probably the level of organization on at least the basic economic levels (unions or more likely shoras which carry out the same function in Iran), etc. Any new government coming out of a mass uprising would probably have to accomodate to the workers sentiments at least some - just as Khomeini initially did. Another reason to think it wouldn't totally capitulate to imperialism.
Meanwhile, it strikes me that a secular bourgeois revolution in Iran would be a very progressive development....
Sure, in that it would almost certainly increase Iranian workers' space to organize and discuss openly. AKA bourgeois democracy, which is not to be totally dismissed even though it's ultimately a fraud.
It might also be preferable on women's rights and some other areas.
I'm thinking it would support secular revolutionaries throughout the Arab world -- verbally and perhaps even materially.
Doubtful. Sounds like an assumption. I'm not sure what "secular revolutionaries" you're talking about - I know of secular reformers aka liberals, I know of secular nationalist regimes like the Syrian Ba'athists and Egyptian post-Nasserists, I know of various far-leftists which a secular bourgeois republic probably wouldn't support, I don't know of any bourgeois secular revolutionaries in the Arab world.
The overthrow itself would be a tremendous blow to the prestige of "political Islam", though. Look, in Iran, where they had the first "Islamic" government, the people hated it. ('Course, they'd try to reply those were Shi'a heretics or otherwise not "really Islamic", as many say already, but the damage would be done anyway.) And opponents of other "Islamic" governments would certainly be inspired and given confidence to overthrow them.
And secularism is something that the Arab world needs desperately.
In the end, you just can't mount a successful resistance to modern imperialism with a 14th century ideology.
Sure. Though actually "Islamic fundamentalism" or whatever is of modern origin, not the same thing as mullahs have been preaching for centuries. It's a backlash against modern developments. But couldn't agree more it's an insufficient weapon for success against imperialism, and is crap for many other reasons.
From another Redstar post:
I don't think they are "scared" of a popular revolution against the mullahs at all...indeed, I'm pretty sure they're probably financing it.
The Khatami forces - which are the main representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie in Iran - are certainly not angling for popular revolution. They are attempting to reform the regime, and put the brakes on militant actions against it. Khatami himself won't even support electoral boycott no matter how many candidates are excluded, etc.
A popular uprising that'll put them in power is very possible but they're not trying to promote it. Your "pretty sure" sounds more like an assumption rather than a conclusion drawn from facts or reports of current events in Iran.
Of course, many of the students who are probably basically radical-liberals are probably not scared of popular revolution, and would like to spark one. But that's not usually characteristic of actual capitalists.
If communists abroad are going to aid someone in Iran, IMO it should be worker-oriented forces. If I was living in Iran, though, I wouldn't exclude possibly joining in actions with liberals or others, of course, and would probably join any major uprising even if it looks likely to end up with the liberals on top.