13.04.2011
Unlikely bedfellows
In a change of policy that Alex Callinicos calls "entirely consistent", the Socialist Workers Party now supports the same group of Britain-based Iranian exiles that enjoy the backing of the social-imperialist Alliance for Workers' Liberty. Tina Becker reports
When the Socialist Workers Party does one of its many political U-turns, it usually does so without any attempt to theorise the change and certainly any public admission of the fact it has even taken place. One of the more startling examples of the organisation's crass opportunism (or 'programmatic flexibility', as the comrades might call it) can be seen in its position on Iran and the green movement.
Readers of the Weekly Worker will remember how, just a couple of years back, the SWP rejected all criticism of Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of the 'unity' of the anti-war movement. The affiliation of Hands Off the People of Iran to the then SWP-run Stop the War Coalition was rejected on the grounds that Hopi opposes not only any imperialist intervention in Iran, but also the theocracy, arguing instead for active solidarity with the tens of thousands of women, worker and student activists who have been fighting against their regime.
It would have been bad enough if the comrades had simply argued that the left in Britain must limit itself to overthrowing its own regime; that the left cannot get involved in the 'internal' affairs of other countries.
However, the SWP went further. At the October 2007 STWC AGM, Iran-born SWP member Somaye Zadeh was wheeled out to oppose Hopi's request for affiliation. She went on to tackle "five lies" that were being peddled against Iran, including "No5: Iran is an undemocratic and repressive country". She admitted that homosexuality was banned, "but, at the same time as homosexuality is not allowed, Iran does allow sex changes and in fact the average number of sex changes in Iran is seven times that in the whole of Europe." To wild cheering from SWP members in the audience, she explained that "the literacy rate amongst women is 98%. And 64% of university students are women. This is unparalleled in the Middle East and beyond." Also, there had been "a flourishing of magazines, newspapers, theatres, books, arts and websites". The situation in Iran "clearly isn't so black and white" as Hopi suggested.[1]
A change
But then June 2009 happened. Immediately following the presidential election fraud, millions of Iranians took to the streets of Tehran and other cities, demanding more democracy. First, the group around former SWP leader John Rees changed its mind, now admitting that there was indeed "serious repression" in Iran.[2] The rest of the SWP soon followed.
However, it did not come out in support of those who had been fighting this repression for years, those who had been struggling for the overthrow of the whole regime - ie, the most radical sections of the protests. Instead, the SWP threw in its lot with the 'green' movement as a whole - without making any distinction between its very different components. In effect, it supported the 'reformist' misleaders, Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, making just the occasional mild criticism of Moussavi and giving favourable coverage to the election campaign of Karroubi.
The Socialist Worker forum on 'Egypt and the lessons for Iran' on April 7 showed that the comrades still support this line, though they seem to be tweaking it somewhat. Now, apparently, the time has come for the comrades to recognise that there are "different shades of green".
SWP member Ali Alizadeh (who was identified merely as "a supporter of the green movement") made an interesting attempt to explain the movement's limitations and its failure to make revolution, for which he saw three main reasons. Firstly, the "myth of leadership" of Moussavi and Karroubi, which led to thousands of people waiting - in vain - for them to push the protests further than the "legalistic demands" they concentrated on. Secondly, the movement disarmed itself by its "fetishisation of non-violence". And, thirdly, it had bought into the regime's efforts to "rewrite the 1979 revolution". Comrade Alizadeh reminded the audience of around 100 of the "many strikes, the flowering left, the workers' councils which ran many areas for almost 18 months".
Then he turned his attention to how the left should intervene in the green movement. He admitted that "maybe we did not challenge Moussavi and Karroubi enough before the 2009 elections". Now, however, "different shades of green have emerged", which means "we should concentrate on building our own, independent working class organisations". Or, putting it another way, "We can now move from a popular front to a united front. That means we stay within the movement, but we fight to win it over to our ideas." So socialists in Iran who had previously supported the "popular front" approach and had not attempted to win the movement "over to our ideas" had been correct at the time? As for the present, we "do not dismiss Moussavi. Moussavi's past is not my concern. We want to keep the unity of the movement."
After his contribution was challenged by a number of people in the audience (interestingly, not a single SWP member intervened from the floor), Alex Callinicos jumped to comrade Alizadeh's defence from the top table. While his main contribution had been uncontroversial, he now explained that "the issue with Moussavi is not if he's a bastard or not. The issue is that he helped to create the conditions necessary to build a movement from below". He then wheeled out good old Lenin and his correct observation that "revolutions are never pure". Many of the leaders of the revolution in Egypt were "pro-capitalist supporters of the west - does that mean we don't support the revolution?"
Of course it doesn't. But Lenin was rather more principled than comrade Callinicos claims. He explicitly argued that revolutionaries, while engaging in diverse mass movements, must never bury their criticisms of the non-socialist forces they happen to fight alongside. The SWP insists the united front involves putting aside differences and "searching for the point of agreement" rather than the point of dispute.[3] Lenin argued that it served to highlight differences through common action, exposing the superiority of the communists. And Trotsky famously wrote that we should be prepared to make alliances with the devil - as long as we don't call him an angel.
There have been plenty of such 'angels' in the recent history of the SWP, most notably George Galloway, who for the SWP oscillates between cuddly cherub and Satan's spawn. Comrade Callinicos simply ignored a member of the audience who reminded him that not long ago the SWP invited the Iranian state's Press TV to film the STWC conference.
Probably hoping that comrades have the memory of a goldfish, comrade Callinicos claimed that the SWP has "been entirely consistent in its support of the green movement". This is, of course, somewhat true - it is just that before June 2009 it stabbed in the back those who had been fighting for working class independence.
What about imperialism?
So far, so typical of the SWP. However, it is rather more difficult to understand why the organisation now courts the International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran (IASWI). At the April 7 meeting, comrade Callinicos stressed that it was "very important for the left in Britain to support the alliance" and IASWI comrades were given plenty of time to speak.
The British section of this group - made up of undoubtedly well-meaning exiled Iranians - almost exclusively concentrates on its "aim to bring the terrible plight of the Iranian workers, the efforts of the trade unionists and progressive opposition to this regime to the attention of international labour movements and public opinion", as stated on the leaflet given out at the meeting.
Both the British and the Canadian sections are under the political influence of the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) and the International Confederation of Free Trades Unions (IFTU) - organisations that are deeply compromised politically. They have been more or less silent on the role of imperialism in the Middle East and have acted as junior partners in implementing the reactionary agenda of the US and its allies. No wonder: the constituent parts of these organisations are often directly or indirectly dependent on their own government and collaborate with them on all sorts of issues.
To be fair, many in IASWI internationally, particularly the Swedish section, have been consistent anti-imperialists and Hopi has benefited from the contributions and support of comrades such as veteran oilworker Ali Pichgah and comrade Majid Tamjidi. However, on the English section of IASWI's website[4] I could not find a single mention of the need to oppose war or the sanctions that are crippling Iran and the democracy movement. And none of the three IASWI speakers at the April 7 meeting talked about the issue either (though when I approached one of them after the meeting, he said, "Of course we are against imperialism". You should put it in your propaganda then, comrades!).
No wonder that the pro-imperialist Alliance for Workers' Liberty has been an outspoken supporter of IASWI for years. But it is rather surprising to find the SWP now backing the group too. This is, after all, an organisation that usually prides itself on its implacable and vocal opposition to imperialism (often by mistakenly supporting anybody and anything that labels itself 'anti-imperialist'). In reality, of course, the switch is totally in keeping with its opportunist politics. The comrades have in all likelihood been unable to form any links with serious organisations in Iran - so they are now trying to jump on what looks like an easy bandwagon.
The SWP would be well served to drop its opportunism and support a principled solidarity campaign like Hands Off the People of Iran. Hopi's message of clear opposition to both imperialism and the theocracy is the only one that makes sense. In fact, a young SWP member at the meeting took one of our leaflets and was so taken with it that he went to the SWP's main stall and suggested it should have our material on it. The more seasoned SWP member took one look at me, tore the leaflet out of his comrade's hand and crushed it into a ball.
tina.becker@weeklyworker.org.uk
Notes
1. See Weekly Worker November 1 2007.
2. 'Left Platform lines up with Moussavi' Weekly Worker February 11 2010
3. See 'Fight the CC apparatus' Weekly Worker January 8 2009.