08.07.2009

Assessing Iran, debating the nature of the Labour Party

Jim Moody reports on discussions among CPGB members

Two topics dominated the CPGB members' aggregate meeting on July 4: Iran and the Labour Party. While the first topic for discussion was largely uncontentious, discussion on the Labour Party continued to explore disagreements that were aired at the previous aggregate.

Yassamine Mather introduced the section on Iran, reporting primarily on the rigged election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and how things will never be the same again. She opened by asking why Iranï¿½s rulers decided to fix such a high percentage vote for Ahmadinejad - the perception of having obtained a clear majority within a thriving democracy was important for the regime to claim legitimacy, not least for the purpose of negotiations with the USA and the EU.

There was no simple military-clerical division at the top in Iran: a dramatic, irresolvable cleavage runs right through the higher echelons of both the military and leading clerics. Protests over vote-fixing were so large because prior to the election space had been permitted - and in the last few weeks before the vote real debate took place. But on the day after the election masses of ordinary people saw the process turned on its head and so joined the spontaneous demonstrations. At first the middle classes stayed at home - the opposite of what the worldï¿½s bourgeois media reported: they wanted to pretend that the mass movement was almost purely a middle class phenomenon.

Two to three million demonstrated in Tehran, with part of the organisation falling to old-time left activists - 70% of Iranï¿½s current population was born after the 1979 revolution. Establishment oppositionists such as the Mir-Hossein Moussavi camp were nonplussed by the turn of events and failed to become involved in the popular protests until very late in the day.

Unintimidated, students and women were at the forefront of the protests. They were joined by many previously uninvolved in politics. None want to go back to the way things were - they are demanding the end of the regime itself.

The fact that the Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi factions of the ï¿½respectableï¿½ opposition - the so-called reformists - have been in disarray in recent weeks has allowed repression to grow. Their very failure, though, has radicalised the wider opposition movement. Reformists continue looking for deliverance from within the ranks of the elite itself. They would like to keep disputes within the ï¿½familyï¿½, and, as former president Mohammad Khatami has stated, want to keep things as they are in readiness for some kind of velvet revolution. In other words, the reformistsï¿½ destiny is tied closely to that of the Islamic Republic. This is why they invest their hopes in those above them and not in the crowds and demonstrations. However, trying to gain a majority in the Council of Experts to oust the supreme leader is a dead end.

Meanwhile, the regime relies on the Bassij militia and its motorcycle stormtroopers, but there can be no doubt that people are ready to resist. In the shanty towns, periodically bulldozed by the local authorities, the Bassij have already met their match: in one incident they were repulsed so strongly when trying to move against inhabitants that they had to flee minus their motorbikes.

One big loser in the recent protests has been ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the highest-ranking political and religious authority. By issuing statements in favour of Ahmadinejadï¿½s faction of the elite he exposed the falsity of claims that the supreme leader stood above the contending parties and opened the way for calls for separation of religion and state.

Ahmadinejadï¿½s practice of handing out cash to the poor like a feudal lord is regarded as a patronising insult by workers who have not been paid what they are owed. Over 4,000 have been on strike in the mining industry over non-payment of wages, which remains a very common phenomenon. These struggles have also become politicised recently, with workers now using the slogan, ï¿½Death to the dictatorï¿½ and others revived from the 1979 revolution. Factory committees, such as at the Iran Khodro car plant, have produced anti-regime leaflets and within the last few weeks activists of the Free Trade Union of Iranian Workers have set up a Workersï¿½ Committee in Defence of Mass Protests.

Repression is severe. So many have been arrested, the regime has established camps to house what existing prisons cannot hold. No-one takes ï¿½confessionsï¿½ by captured demonstrators and activists any more seriously than they do regime claims that the protests were a result of British imperialist incitement.

The demonstrations built a sense that ï¿½we are all in it togetherï¿½. Sadly, some on the left still imagine it is necessary to work within Islamic structures to achieve any advance. The role of the left must be to provide a serious alternative strategy, although we must be wary of putting forward dogmatic prescriptions.

In the discussion that followed, Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson suggested that the differences on the Iranian left need to be properly aired in this newspaper. John Bridge said our main responsibility was to re-equip the left in Britain about how to deliver solidarity, lining up neither with imperialism nor with the regime. The CPGB must put more resources into Hopi and try to draw fresh forces into it, including groups like the Socialist Party in England and Wales.

James Turley reported that the SWP leaders are (barely) critical backers of Moussavi, not allies of the most radical elements in Iran. Alex Callinicos now says the exact opposite of what he said previously, when he was apologising for Ahmadinejad. Fraternal visitor Moshï¿½ Machover thought that, while the SWP would not support Ahmadinejad, it also would not attack its erstwhile Islamist allies. Mike Macnair took issue with this, pointing out that the SWP had not only broken with Galloway, but with some of its previous Islamist allies from the Respect period too.

Replying to the discussion, comrade Mather noted that some, such as the Worker-communist Party of Iran, were already calling for more sanctions. She also reported the testimony of a number of former prisoners identifying Ahmadinejad as a former torturer in Evin prison.

Labour Party

Introducing the item on the Labour Party, Mike Macnair said it was no novelty to describe it as a bourgeois workersï¿½ party. There is certainly space to its left, and a united Marxist challenge, even in current conditions, could potentially yield 5%-10% support in elections. But the Labour Party has not abandoned the traditional space it has always occupied, which is why the various attempts to construct a left alternative on the basis of Labourism are futile.

In the recent Euro elections, we were not abstractly calling for a vote for Labour. In this case a vote for the Labour Party was a class vote, for the idea of a working class party. Of course, we accept that voting Labour can also have another, negative, aspect - that of a vote for constitutionalism, nationalism, etc. However, in the absence of anything remotely resembling a move towards a Communist Party, we considered the call to vote Labour was the best way of putting over our message.

The party projects of the left groups can, of course, be given critical support, but we have to judge them in the concrete: on the basis of whether they can be viewed as a step towards the party we are striving to create. ï¿½No to the EU, Yes to Democracyï¿½ was a red-brown formation. Its extreme anti-EU nationalism gave the lie to SPEWï¿½s claim that No2EU contained the seeds of a new party of the working class: in fact on this issue it was to the right of the Labour Party. That was why, in the absence of leading No2EU candidates meeting our conditions for support, it was essential to draw a hard line against No2EU.

In the coming general election, the right-populist thrust represented by the UK Independence Party may well benefit the Tories. In Scotland, the Scottish National Party may displace the Labour Party in terms of MPs. As to the far-left groups, there are two possibilities. First, if there is no agreement, as many as six right-moving ï¿½broadï¿½ alternatives may vie for support - in which case it is likely we will again call for a Labour vote. Second, if there is a degree of left coordination, even on the basis of Labourism, we may call for full, partial, conditional or critical support.

The phenomenon of a bourgeois workersï¿½ party is not unique to Britain, nor is it peculiar to imperialist countries, said comrade Macnair. They exist in some form wherever there is a sizeable working class, representing concessions by capital. They occur, for example, across Africa, so Leninï¿½s explanation that imperialist superprofits buy off the workers is not the whole story - concessions to the working class are not limited to imperialist countries. The Labour Party is still most definitely a bourgeois workersï¿½ party - it remains institutionally dependent on the trade unions.

The legalisation of trade unions, universal suffrage, the NHS, mass education - these are real concessions to the working class. But they are due to the decline of capitalism, not to the existence of imperialism. In the UK, the bourgeoisie would prefer to deal with the trade unions through a liberal party. This is why the Labour Party is being undermined.

In discussion, John Bridge said that, after 1914, the ï¿½exceptionalï¿½ British Labour Party became the rule in the rest of Europe. However, super-profits cannot explain social democracyï¿½s existence outside the imperialist countries: Kremlin influence on ï¿½officialï¿½ communist parties was an important factor which turned them toward class collaboration.

Nick Rogers said we need to theorise more fully about the basis on which we characterise Labour as a bourgeois workersï¿½ party, taking account of the social democratic tradition in Europe as well. He thought the most class-conscious part of the working class recognised the need for a Labour Party. Returning to the question of the EU elections, comrade Rogers failed to see how making the question of militias a condition for offering support to No2EU candidates exposed SPEW.

Jim Moody, for his part, thought that exposing the No2EU red-brown lash-up was important, especially over the question of militias and workersï¿½ self-defence. In fact, it was crucial, as the responses to our question showed that SPEW wasï¿½ just as willing to give up basic tenets of Marxism as the Socialist Workers Party had been in Respect. He also noted that the description ï¿½bourgeois workersï¿½ partyï¿½ was deliberately oxymoronic, since it was obviously not a workersï¿½ party as such. We were not aiming to strengthen the left of the Labour Party and need not care unduly which pole was stronger, whether bourgeois or workersï¿½.

Comrade Machover saw the Labour Party as having been set up partly as an electoral machine, but Tony Blair had made it purely about elections. Now, its executive is powerless: Labour is under the complete control of the rightwing leadership and pays no heed to the unions. Calling for a blanket vote for Labour only helps move it to the right. We should punish Labour by voting for the left and never abstain. Comrade Bridge responded that what has changed is the power of the NEC to embarrass the leadership. It was always the case that, when the NEC and conference had passed critical votes, the Labour government of the day would ignore them and carry on as before. However, he agreed with comrade Machover about the need to distinguish between left and right. It will be possible to do that in next yearï¿½s general election, unlike the recent EU elections. But what was crucial was organising an effective left. The CPGB should support moves towards a united left bloc in the 2010 general election.

Comrade Macnair concluded that it was not a question of ï¿½reclaimingï¿½ Labour. Thanks to bureaucratic clampdown, the former activist base of Labour has atrophied; but Blairï¿½s dream of young professionals fulfilling that role has also failed. The trade union bureaucrats still hold Labourï¿½s purse strings - they could have stopped Blair if they had wanted to; their noises of opposition were mere pretence in response to pressure from their members.

However, if the project undertaken by Blair to transform Labour into a bourgeois party were to continue, it would not convert it into a Liberal or US Democrat party: it would more likely destroy the party altogether.