[lbo-talk] Dependency Theory vs. Liberalism (was Japan as Heuristic)

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 08:04:21 PDT 2007


On 10/8/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of other interesting passages you could have quoted
> in that fine essay as well, which provide historical evidence against
> getting carried away with treating "liberals" as the enemy, the risks
> of populist patriotism, the dangers of holding one's critical tongue
> in the interest of "anti-imperialism," and the false appeal of
> religious critiques of "materialism" - all prominent recent themes in
> Yoshie Thought. Moghadam:
<snip>
> > In a kind of populist
> > patriotism that eventually proved their downfall, the secular Left
> > did not maximize differences in order not to appear divisive or to
> > splinter the opposition to the Shah. B
<snip>
> > In fact most of the Iranian Left at this time expended more energy
> > attacking the liberals in government than the clerical wing. Of
> > course it was easy to denounce Bazargan, who made such openly anti-
> > Left statements as the following one from September 1979: 'You
> > Westerners don't understand our Left. Our so-called leftists are
> > the most dangerous enemies of the revolution. They did nothing in
> > the struggle against the Shah. Now they incite workers to strike,
> > gullible citizens to demonstrate, and provincial groups to rebel.
> > They are SAVAKagents.'28 Naturally the mutual antipathy between the
> > Left and the liberals worked to the advantage of the clerics.

I rather think that the facts that Moghadam presents herself in passing undercut an argument that Marxists made an "error" in not allying themselves with liberals. Alliance is a two-way street, and liberals didn't love Marxists any more than Islamic populists did.

In any case, even if liberals and Marxists had been able overcome their mutual antipathy, there is still no evidence that together they could have overcome the Shah and establish an enduring government that served the working class, including women, _while defeating Islamic populists_. The balance of forces on the grounds pointed toward Khomeinists' hegemony to begin with, and, the (Muslim) Mojahedin's ill-considered uprising against the government when Iran was being invaded by Iraq (the invasion began on 22 September 1980), the uprising that most Iranians understandably did not support, and the Mojahedin's subsequent support for Saddam Hussein, more or less delivered the coup de grâce to not only itself but also the Marxist Left in Iran.

On 19 June 1981, the Mojahedin and Bani-Sadr called

upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next

day to express their opposition to the IRP 'monopolists'

who they claimed had carried out a secret _coup d'état_.

Their real intention -- never made explicit -- was to

duplicate the Islamic Revolution: first to incite a cycle of

ever-growing demonstrations; then to set off sympathy

strikes throughout the country, especially in the ministries

and factories; and finally to demoralize the armed might

of the state, in this case the pasdars, until the whole

regime crumbled. They also probably expected some

active support from their sympathizers in the armed

forces. Perhaps even the dispatch of military contingents

onto Tehran. Only the very first stage of this strategy was

accomplished.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The June 1981 insurrection , , , failed. It failed in part

because the Islamic Republic, unlike the Pahlavi monarchy,

had many strengths; and in part because the Mojahedin,

despite their appeal, had their own weaknesses. . . .

Moreover, the Islamic Republic, with its charismatic leader

and populistic ideology, still enjoyed considerable support

among the general population, especially among the

traditional middle class, the bazaar lower class, and the

shanty-town poor. Unlike its predecessor, it had social

foundations.

The Islamic Republic could always undercut the opposition

by reminding the general public that the country was in the

midst of a life-and-death struggle with the Iraqi aggressors,

and that the imperialists, together with the 'reactionary

monarchists', were still plotting to undo the revolution. . . .

Whereas the Islamic Republic enjoyed these assets, the

Mojahedin suffered from a major liability. Their social

support, even though highly intense, committed and

enthusiastic, was confined predominantly to the ranks of

the young intelligentsia, especially the intelligentsia

born into the traditional middle class. The Mojahedin had

little support among the traditional middle class itself. They

had equally little support among the older generation of the

modern intelligentsia. They had a somewhat greater, but

still limited, following among the urban working class -- the

industrial workers and bazaar wage earners. And they had

almost no support among the rural masses, especially

among the landed and landless peasantry. Confined to the

intelligentsia, their 1981 insurrection was doomed to fail.

The only way they could have overcome this obstacle was

a military coup. But their support in the army was also very

limited. The failure of the Mojahedin was therefore

sociologically predetermined. (Ervand Abrahamian, The

Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, 1989,

pp. 218, 259-260)

Khomeini was more popular than both Bazargan and Rajavi, the leader of the largest organization, which wasn't Marxist either, on the Left, and those who opposed Khomeinists did not have enough support in the most relevant sectors of society to overcome them. That was basically the single largest problem that neither Marxists nor liberals nor the Mojahedin could do much about. -- Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list