In order to achieve clarity on this important issue we need to apply a materialist analysis, not an idealist one. In assessing the significance of Islamic and other reactionary groups resisting imperialism, we should primarily focus upon their objective impact on the political situation and only secondarily upon their subjective intentions. This is the approach that Stalin took when assessing anti-imperialist struggles in 1924. For example, the revisionist People’s Democratic Party which came to power through a coup d’etat in Afghanistan in 1978 wanted to transform that country in a socialist direction. They used force to try to impose changes on the people of this predominantly feudal society with the consequence that the Islamicists were able to seize leadership of the popular resistance to the PDP regime. The PDP leaders called for military assistance from the Soviet Union which promptly invaded the country. The rest is history. Reactionary forces were greatly strengthened in Afghanistan and progressive ones - including the Maoists - were destroyed. What is significant here is the objectively reactionary outcome of the PDP’s actions, not their progressive intentions. The same methodological approach is appropriate for assessing contemporary Islamic movements such as Hamas and Hezbullah.
A materialist analysis of the various Middle Eastern countries under discussion needs to distinguish between the principal and secondary contradictions determining the main lines of conflict present. For the Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians and Afghanis the principal contradiction determining their situations is that between imperialism and the oppressed nations. Among all these peoples there are sharp and antagonistic contradictions between men and women, between different ethnic and national groups and between different religious groups. Even so, concrete analysis of these concrete conditions suggests that the character of these secondary contradictions is strongly determined in their particularities by the principal contradiction and not vice versa. It is not the growth of Islamic fundamentalism that has brought about the bid by US imperialism and its allies to achieve complete world domination. Rather, the development of Islamic movements is a response to Western imperialism. Thus the primary task to be addressed is the defeat of imperialist domination of these countries. In order for this task to be successfully carried through it is also necessary for there to be correct handling of the secondary contradictions mentioned above. For example, the horrendous conflict between Shias and Sunnis weakens the resistance against imperialist occupation.
Borham Azemi seems to be under the impression that the exchange between the ISO and the RCP, USA was only about Iran. In fact, the ISO article did not mention Iran and in her response Sunsara Taylor did not confine herself to discussing Iran but ranged more widely. It would be quite artificial and undialectical to try to discuss the political situation of Iran without taking into account developments in neighbouring countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the particular conflicts in the Middle Eastern region - for example between the Palestinians and the Zionists - and beyond can be understood without taking up an international perspective.
Sunsara Taylor and Borham Azemi list at some length the crimes against the people committed by the Islamic regime in Iran. They are truly horrific as are the sectarian killings taking place in Iraq. Communists should not try to gloss over this appalling reaction as does the neo-Trotskyite ISO. At the same time we need to make an objective assessment of the impact of the struggle of the armed and mostly Islamic resistance to the imperialist invsions of Afghanistan and Iraq:
(a) The sustained resistance by large sections of the Afghani and Iraqi people has exposed the lie of Bush and Blair that these people would welcome imperialist occupation.
(b) The tying down of large numbers of US and UK forces in these countries severely limits the ability of Western imperialism to embark upon fresh military aggression against other countries.
(c) The US and UK military personnel are becoming demoralised at waging a campaign against a popular insurgency that they know they cannot win. Recruitment to the British armed forces is at an all-time low.
(d) The confidence of the people of American and Britain in their imperialist governments has been considerably undermined.
(e) The anti-imperialist struggles of the Iraqi and Afghani people has inspired other oppressed people around the world by showing that Western imperialism is not all-powerful.
Imagine the situation now if there had been no significant resistance to these imperialist invasions. The American and British governments would be triumphant and probably would have embarked upon other imperialist aggression, perhaps an attack on Iran. The British and American people would probably be prepared to support further aggression by their governments. Also Cheney and his associates would be busy helping themselves to the oil and other assets of these countries. Thus the thwarting of the aims of imperialism by the reactionary resistance groups has had a positive outcome for the world’s people. Communists should not dismiss these achievements as do Taylor and Azemi but uphold them while at the same time pointing out the reactionary side of these movements. In particular we should emphasise that because of their sectional religious chracter and their oppression of national minorities, women and homosexuals they are incapable of uniting the great majority of people in their countries and thus cannot achieve a decisive victory against imperialist powers. It is also true, as Taylor and Azemi point out, that the reactionary class interests represented by the Islamic groups would in certain circumstances be prepared to reach an accommodation with Western imperialism. Only communist-led national resistance movements could carry these anti-imperialist struggles through to victory.
Up to now there has been no Maoist-led armed resistance to imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq. If, as Henri Cames says, a Marxist/left nationalist group has begun armed struggle against the imperialist forces in Iraq then this is a positive development. This is what the Maoists in these countries should be doing. No political organisation claiming to be revolutionary and communist will have credibility among the people unless it takes up arms against the occupiers. We must be careful not to fall into the same trap as the so-called Worker Communist Party of Iraq - an offshoot of the Worker Communist Party of Iran - which claims to be opposed to the occupation but condemns the existing armed resistance to it. In reality these people have no armed presence in Iraq and want the imperialist forces to defeat the present armed resistance. If communists engage in and develop the armed struggle then they will begin to win a popular following. Also they would be in a position to defend themselves against reactionaries who want to kill them. Furthermore by fully integrating national and religious minorities and women into people’s militias they would be undermining Islamic oppression of these sections of the population. Only when communist-led armed forces have been built would it be possible to enter into uneasy, temporary tactical alliances with reactionary resistance groups which, as Ben Hu points out, would be the correct thing to do.
Borham Azemi seems to think that the essence of the Islamic regime in Iran is the oppression of women. “At the heart of this fascist theocracy lies the slavery of women.” The IRI certainly is very oppressive towards women but is this the main contradiction upon which it rests? Surely, as Taylor points out, it is an attempt by old, semi-feudal ruling strata to maintain their dominant position and to keep down the workers and peasants. Certainly these reactionaries use Islamic fundamentalism to oppress women and homosexuals because their liberation would be a threat to the old order. They are probably correct in seeing the advances that some Iranian women - mainly middle strata - made in the past as at least partly due to Western influence and they present this as part of general imperialist cultural domination. Communists certainly should champion the rights of women and other oppressed groups but the contradiction between men and women is not the principal one in Iran or the other Muslim countries. Similarly the contradiction between Islam and secularism is not the principal one as the Worker Communist Parties of Iran and Iraq seem to think. The great majority of people in these countries are Muslims and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Thier and Hess of the ISO are correct to make distinctions between different Muslim political organisations as they are not all the same. Most Muslims, as in Iran, are not fundamentalists and it is possible for communists to politically work with them, as we do with many Christians in the anti-war movements in the Western countries. They are not all “Christian fascists”. Communists should make it clear that we defend religious freedom provided that it is not used as a tool of reactionary oppression. The main enemy of the people of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is imperialism; not Islam, sexism or homophobia.
Azemi raises the question of conflict between Western imperialism and the IRI. Maoists certainly should point out the hypocrisy of the US and UK governments trying to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons when the imperialists and their local allies, e.g. Israel and Pakistan, have thousands of such armaments, many of them no doubt targetted on Iran. Also US threats against Iran should be opposed because just as with Afghanistan and Iraq any Western imperialist attack on Iran would be aimed not at liberating the people but seizing their oil and other assets. While the evidence suggests that the majority of Iranians are opposed to the present regime and want change it is also likely that in the event of a US-led attack the people would unite behind the IRI in a national resistance against imperialism. At this juncture for Maoists to call for the overthrow of the IRI would simply isolate them. We should call for popular defence of the country against imperialist invasion while making clear our opposition to the Islamic regime.
It is easy for me, Harry Powell, who lives in an imperialist country to call for armed communist resistance to imperialism and local reaction in other countries such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. (After all, the Maoists in the imperialist countries have nothing to shout about.) None the less, the harsh reality is that communists will get nowhere unless they take up the armed struggle against imperialism and local reaction. So comrades, get your act together. In the meantime we should be less ready to totally condemn the brave fighters who have stopped in its tracks the most powerful military force in world history.
WORKERS AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!