22.01.2026

At home and abroad

Our first members’ aggregate of the year discussed both developments in Your Party and the mass movement in Iran. We are living in challenging times and the left is programmatically ill-equipped. Mike Monitor reports

Comrade Carla Roberts introduced the first session of the January 18 aggregate on Your Party and its left. She noted that elections to the central executive committee are now in progress and “everybody has thrown his or her hat in the ring”.

Should mainly Corbyn supporters get elected to the CEC, the result will be that YP will be merely something like Momentum - decision-making by referendums and an alienated membership. Corbyn has publicly announced that he will be campaigning to overturn the November founding conference decisions for collective leadership and for allowing dual membership (with CEC permission). Symptomatically, some people who had been invited to be on the Corbyn slate (but had not agreed) had been asked to sign up to banning Socialist Workers Party members. And witch-hunting will not stop there. Chris Williamson (former Labour MP, more recently of George Galloway’s Workers Party) attempted to stand for the CEC on Steve Freeman’s ‘Republic Your Party’ platform, but has been blocked on the basis of dual membership. Dave Nellist of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, also a former Labour MP, also wants to stand; SPEW has sought clarification of their members’ eligibility to stand, reported comrade Roberts, but has so far received no reply.

Corbyn’s The Many slate appears to be having difficulty in obtaining support other than from sycophants, with several well-known activists refusing to sign up. The conduct of the founding conference dismayed many who are opposed to the SWP and its methods.

Zara Sultana has characterised Corbyn’s desire to fight to overturn conference decisions for collective leadership and dual membership as an “affront to democracy”. We do not agree. People should have the right to fight for whatever decisions they think are right to be taken by a conference (not by using a referendum). The founding conference decisions were a series of choices between practically unamendable alternatives, selected by the bureaucratic apparatus. The decision for collective leadership is good; the version of dual membership which was adopted is a ‘soft’ means of banning the left. What is needed is to start again with a proper open discussion in local branches and a genuinely democratic conference of elected delegates.

The Grassroots Left slate has been a valuable initiative, continued comrade Roberts, but not that great. Salma Yaqoob and Andrew Feinstein withdrew at a late stage (Yaqoob for family reasons). Its platform on paper is quite good and better than Counterfire’s anodyne waffle proposals; the commitment to non-participation in government without a socialist programme is good, especially since the next general election may result in pressure for a ‘Stop Reform’ coalition; so too are demands for abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords. On the other hand, the call for MPs to take only a workers’ wage is absent; Zarah Sultana’s reason for not including it in the platform is evasive.

How well the slate can do is open to question. The requirement for 75 endorsements may effectively prevent GL candidates getting on the ballot, especially given the large number of slates and of ‘independents’ standing. It is also not clear what form of single transferable vote will be used - some forms limit the choices.

The negotiations for the creation of the GL slate have lacked transparency and openness. While such negotiations can be privately conducted, they do need subsequently to be reported. The attempts to enact ‘professionalism’ and create a ‘big reveal’ form part of the same problematic news-management political culture as the Corbyn side. In this case, the result is demobilising - supporters are left waiting for a formal announcement, while the first website for the slate was amateurish (the relaunched one is much better: grassrootsleft.org). The result has been some unproductive discussions within the platform, mainly about control rather than politics. Zarah Sultana lacks a clear base, except a de facto alliance with Democratic Socialists of Your Party, which is a shaky organisation that has been unable so far to stop a number of its own members from standing against the slate. The GL has agreed to admit a number of small organisations to come on board, including the Yorkshire-based Social Justice Party, Workers Power and the Sheffield Left. This may be a road to a longer-lasting left platform in YP.

Discussion

Jack Conrad indicated broad agreement with comrade Roberts’ introduction. He did, however, have the impression that the wind had gone out of the sails of Your Party. The referendum to change the CEC numbers got 90% support, but on a low turnout (as with Momentum’s plebiscites). A YP petition against US action in Venezuela, which one might expect to be popular, has not reached 20,000 signatures.

An ordinary person being treated as a child by the regional assemblies would be likely to give up on the whole thing, continued comrade Conrad. On the Grassroots Left slate, negotiating top-down is fine, so long as you report openly what is going on - which we are doing (and which has been our policy throughout our existence: light on the scene is essential to democracy). For example, the CPGB PCC has discussed inviting the Democratic Socialists of Your Party to co-sponsor this year’s Communist University.

Ken Salt argued that, given the wind had gone out of YP’s sails, the question posed was: at what point do we give up on this project? Would it not be better to put effort into talking to Green Party activists? The latest voting intention poll showed YP at 0.6%, he said, so there is some risk that clinging to the project would mean that the discredit attached to YP could rub off on us.

In my contribution I agreed that the wind seemed to have gone out of YP’s sails. It is important not to raise hopes unduly: eg, ‘If only we defeat the Corbyn wing in the CEC elections’ … This is a highly managed process; and if the Corbyn wing lost practical control, they would walk. The CPGB’s project is to unite the far left on a principled basis, irrespective of the involvement of the ‘official’ left (MPs, trade union officials, and so on). But the bulk of the far left are only willing to unite if they can have some part of the ‘official’ left on board. This is the same reason why we engage in YP, rather than - as Anti-Capitalist Resistance argue - orienting towards the Greens.

Next up was John Miller, who reported developments in YP Scotland. The HQ bureaucracy is promoting Scots nationalism, with (for example) Jim Monaghan complaining of “English factions”. But the proto-leadership of YP in Scotland is just as much engaged in control-freakery. The Scots supporters of DSYP are out-and-out nationalists, he said.

Stan Kelsey made the point that our involvement in YP, as with previous attempts to create broad-left parties, is tactical. The only principle is that we should intervene; the benefit is in getting to closer quarters with the rest of the left. Farzad Kamangar reinforced that point. On the other hand, she thought that we should not hold out too much hope of a return of the left in the Labour Party. We should be cautious about relying on polls to conclude that the wind had gone out of YP’s sails: they are very much short-term information.

Comrade Roberts, coming back in, agreed on the issue of getting more in touch with the rest of the left. We should also recognise that both the DSYP and Socialist Unity Platform have adopted formulations which are “Weekly Worker-adjacent”. We should not underestimate our own influence, and it is worth continuing and deepening our involvement. If the Corbyn wing lost and walked, that would not be the end of the project; a lot of ‘shine’ has come off Corbyn in this process. She agreed with the idea of inviting DSYP to co-sponsor Communist University. On the Greens, she thought that Polanski had merely seized an opportunity, and the party could easily shift to the right and decline in size once again.

Jack Conrad then intervened again to state that the idea of turning to the Green Party is mistaken; it is clearly a petty-bourgeois party. Politics is currently very much froth rather than coffee: the left shifts from one project to another and learns no lessons, or only negative ones: atomising clicktivism, sortition, and so on. In relation to the future of the Grassroots Left platform, we should wait for the outcome of the CEC elections. He agreed that quite a lot of the DSYP platform is close to our politics, but how far its comrades really grasp the actual ideas, as opposed to somebody having copy-pasted bits of them, is another question. The Marxist Unity Caucus in RS21 has similarly borrowed some of our ideas, but is not even willing to talk to us. The left in a YP without Corbyn would blow up, he continued: neither SPEW nor the SWP are ever willing to collaborate with other leftwingers without being in control.

Comrade Roberts responded to the debate, agreeing that no doubt there are some people in the Greens who think they are Marxist, but it is not a working class party, or a socialist party, or one that seeks to overcome capitalism. The Marxist Unity Caucus in RS21 seems in danger of imploding, and RS21 itself is barely hanging on, unable to decide whether to work in YP or not. The Grassroots Left slate is actually holding together because of Zarah Sultana; but she too could be tempted by the Greens. It is impossible to wage an effective campaign without self-activity in the ranks, concluded comrade Roberts.

In sum, the meeting agreed that we should support efforts to strengthen the Grassroots Left slate.

Iran protests

Guest speaker, comrade Yassamine Mather introduced the second session, on the current political crisis in Iran. She said that it is necessary to begin with developments in the world over the last three weeks and the initiatives of the Trump administration. The abduction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela might have involved a deal with sections of the regime, but might not. Donald Trump now claims that the US is “overseeing” Venezuela. The purpose of the operation is plainly not to acquire Venezuelan oil because the US is short of oil, but to acquire control, and Trump has met with oil company executives to this end.

Comrade Mather noted that the administration has not only withdrawn the US from climate treaties and from numerous international agencies, but has demanded that Denmark surrender Greenland to US annexation - backed up by the imposition of tariffs for disagreement. Then there is the threat of litigation against JP Morgan, the BBC and Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell; and, most recently, the ‘Gaza Plan’ for a Trump-controlled board to manage the ruins.

Against this background, Trump has made a series of contradictory statements about whether he will or will not embark on a new bombing campaign against Iran in connection with the recent protests and their violent repression. Comrade Mather noted that Mike Macnair has previously argued that the global situation is analogous to the later 19th century decline of the British empire. This can be overstated, but some of Trump’s latest adventures might tend to precipitate US geopolitical decline - although this is not to be immediately expected.

But among the reasons we have to place Iran in this context are the widespread illusions held, by those opposed to the Iranian regime, in international organisations, international law, ‘human rights’ and the ‘international community’ (‘Why isn’t the international community supporting us?’). People who think this way should look at Gaza: the USA has supported genocide (under Joe Biden as much as Trump) and the rest of the ‘international community’ is paralysed. Yet what the international left can do is very limited, said comrade Kamangar.

A lot of current commentary on the crisis in Iran is drawing on ‘realist’ international relations professor John Mearsheimer’s ‘four stages of regime change’: first, cripple the economy through sanctions and manipulate exchange rates; this promotes corruption, which in turn leads to protests; encourage the protests and make them more violent, using agents provocateurs; the regime will respond with repression; the last stage is military action to overthrow the regime, which has by now lost all legitimacy. This scenario does match what has been going on. Trump claims the Islamic Republic is about to execute 800 people (which would cross his ‘red line’). And he says, ‘Keep on protesting: help is on its way’ …

The situation is also characterised by the total dominance of fake news promoted by the Iranian government, by Mossad, by the latter’s allies in Iran, and so on, continued comrade Mather. For example, a video of what appeared to be a very large protest in Iran, with people burning cars, turned out to be lifted from footage of 2020 riots in Los Angeles.

Why has the USA not yet taken military action? It may still be coming: the US is moving forces; it has withdrawn people from Qatar. But this may be psychological warfare to keep the regime on tenterhooks. On the other hand, it may be that the US assessment of the risks of action has prevented action. This is not about the military strength of the Islamic Republic, but rather that the US administration could not identify clear objectives for military action, and that its lesser allies in the Middle East (ie, lesser than Israel - Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) were opposed to such action. Thus, for example, in northern Iran demo footage showed plenty of anti-Pahlavi slogans; some no doubt genuine mass sentiment, some perhaps Turkish political intervention.

Further, given the level of terror, a US attack might lead to increased support in Iran for the government, as it did in response to the Israel-US Twelve Day War against Iran. That may not happen, but the government has been able to mobilise significant demonstrations. Trump is very much aware of the failure of Jimmy Carter’s 1980 attempt at a military rescue of US diplomats. Moreover, the protests have led to no obvious cracks in the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus, in particular the Revolutionary Guards. The US clearly has been negotiating with office-holders in Iran, although - again - it is hard to tell how many of these stories are disinformation. There is no reason to suppose that Khamenei will accept a ‘cold transition’.

We now know that it is clear that thousands were killed. Supreme leader Ali Khamenei has admitted it, but blames agents provocateurs. Unusually, figures in Mossad and the Israeli establishment are openly claiming that their own agents were at work in the protest movement. Why they should adopt this unusual position is unclear. Suppose the killings are by Mossad agents provocateurs: in this case, by blaming them Khamenei is announcing his own regime’s incapacity to defend the country’s subjects against foreign intervention.

It is probable, continued comrade Mather, that a good many deaths are merely the result of the chaos unleashed. It is worth noting - given the widespread left illusion that the chaos will somehow produce workers’ councils, as if from outer space - that the movement could well suffer defeat.

The government’s closure of the internet has worsened the economic situation, especially for the poor, because of widespread dependence on precarious forms of work organised through IT. It has also facilitated the dominance of fake news, since it prevents forces on the ground contradicting it.

There is now acute hardship in Iran due to inflation - prices are comparable to those in the UK, but wages are far below welfare benefits in Britain - and there is evidence of actual food shortages, as occurred in World War II. In this context, the mass protests are quite genuine. The economic difficulties have sanctions at their root; but these are exacerbated by the extent of corruption. This crisis may be the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic, said comrade Mather. But it may not. The regime has shown considerable ability to reinvent itself in a series of past crises.

That some protestors are clearly willing to support the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy is a sign of desperation, but clearly Israeli and British claims massively exaggerate this support. Trump and the US administration, on the other hand, judge that Pahlavi is not that popular.

In terms of the implications of the crisis for the Middle East more generally, the image of Iran in the Arab street is partly fake. Iran did initially support Hezbollah in Lebanon, helping it build a social base through charities. But Hezbollah long since became self-funding, based on the Lebanese capitalist diaspora. As for Hamas, it is basically funded by Qatar. ‘Iranian funding of Hamas’ is a fiction created by the USA.

Nonetheless, the defeats of the Islamic Republic will be a blow in Israel’s psychological warfare against the Palestinians. We have to recognise this - but also avoid the double standards of those who have promoted an illusion of an ‘anti-imperialist camp’ which includes the Islamic Republic, concluded comrade Mather.

Debate

Jack Conrad made the point that from our point of view, as much as from the USA’s, what is missing is any alternative to the regime. There is no sign of a split in the regime. The US no doubt could kill Khamenei, but is being advised not to. In 1979 there were alternatives: the left, which was significant; and Khomeini in Paris, linked to a base of support through the mosques. The BBC has been reporting that “the Iranian people came out in response to a call from the Crown Prince” - but when pressed, its commentators say there is not much support for him. Socialist Worker says “express your rage”, and that the answer is on the streets. But what then, after you’ve been shot? Especially if you don’t have a strategy to break up the armed forces?

Comrade Salt reminded us that in the previous Sunday’s Online Communist Forum Moshé Machover referred, in connection with Venezuela, to “regime capture” as an alternative to “regime change”. But wouldn’t such a project in Iran require an extraordinary level of mental gymnastics from Islamic Republic leaders, he asked, and are there any indications in this direction?

Comrade Mather, coming back, said that the Islamic Republic is ‘democratic’ only for its own supporters; there are elections and the Majlis, with real debates. But the supreme leader does indirect messaging about who he supports, and the Council of Guardians (which expresses the supreme leader’s ideas) blocked Ali Larijani from standing for president in 2024, for example.

The US no doubt could kill Khamenei, but the result would most probably be a political vacuum. Reza Pahlavi is not a serious person, as incoherent in Farsi as in English. Unable to hold onto his own supporters, and not offering to create a broad coalition, instead he merely promises ‘revenge’. The demonstrations started while he was on holiday and he later attempted to jump on the bandwagon. The 1979 slogan of the left, “Bread, freedom, equality”, has been heard again; but it would be foolish to claim that the left had major influence on the recent protests.

Comrade Salt asked what strategic response was possible to sanctions, as in the case of Venezuela? Could China find a way of outwitting them? Jack Conrad and I both responded on the sanctions question. In essence, they are a form of siege warfare. Their availability means two things: that we have to aim to take power on a continental scale, sufficient to hold out under sanctions for a time (as was true of the USSR); second, that we have to have a universalist project, which can potentially reach into and split the US armed forces, as the anti-Vietnam war movement began to do. I added, contrary to comrade Salt, that allying with the USA would not involve mental gymnastics for Islamic Republic leaders; they did so in the Iran-Contra affair in 1981-86 and in the US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The obstacle is that the USA has difficulty in agreeing to anything short of the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, because it needs revenge for 1979-80.

Comrade Mather, summing up, agreed that the only approach to sanctions is to aim for power on a continental scale, and for a political project which can split the US state. The idea that China represents an alternative can be seen to be illusory from China’s failure to come to the aid of Venezuela. Though the Chinese are toying with the idea of international transactions using the renminbi currency, they are still dependent on the hardware infrastructure of Swift, which is US-controlled. In fact their interest is primarily in national self-reliance - reflected in the effort to build Chinese AI.

For the USA, ‘Make America Great Again’ is at least in part about recovering from US defeats in the 1970s. That means visible victory over Iran. Israel, on the other hand, supports Pahlavi because of its pre-1979 relations with his father - and to put the Pahlavis back in post would be a major psychological-warfare victory over the Palestinians.