The Balance Sheet of October

This is an excerpt from a book highlighting the pluses and minuses of the Russian Revolution. It shows even a deformed socialism as Stalinism, will make great gains, that can't be met by capitalism.

By Ted Grant
July 2008



The Advances of the Planned Economy

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.
Alfred Tennyson.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the greatest events in history. If we leave aside the heroic episode of the Paris Commune, for the first time millions of downtrodden workers and peasants took political power into their own hands, sweeping aside the despotic rule of the capitalists and landlords, and set out to create a socialist world order. Destroying the old Tsarist regime that held sway for a thousand years, they had conquered one-sixth of the world's land surface. The ancien régime was replaced by the rule of a new democratic state system: the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. It heralded the beginning of the world revolution, inspiring the hopes and dreams of millions who had lived through the nightmare of the first world war. Notwithstanding the terrible backwardness of Russia, the new Socialist Soviet Republic represented a decisive threat to the world capitalist order. It struck terror in bourgeois circles, who rightly regarded it as a threat to their power and privileges, but comforted themselves with the notion that the Bolshevik regime was likely to only last a matter of weeks. The nationalised property relations that emerged from the revolution, the foundations of an entirely new social system, entered into direct conflict with the capitalist form of society. Despite the emergence of Stalinism, this fundamental antagonism existed right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even today events in Russia continue to haunt world politics, like some Banquo's ghost that continually overshadows the festivities of the capitalist class.

Read the rest here

RENEGADE EYE

What Is Bonapartism?

The Arab Revolution brings out the question of the nature of the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Marxists have long talked about bourgeois Bonapartism, Leon Trotsky and Ted Grant added to Marxism, the the concept of proletarian Bonapartism. This definition is helpful to understand some of the so called socialist regimes. The Chinese Revolution was based on where the Russian Revolution ended 1949 Russia. Mao vigorously defended private property, and based the revolution not on workers, but peasants. Mao only nationalized industry, because capitalists fled to Taiwan. Just about every colonial revolution followed the Chinese model.

A transitional form of government between the regimes of parliamentary democracy and fascism, based on dictatorship and military force during a period when class rule is not secure. A strong government which appears to stand 'above parties' and 'above classes' due to relative equilibrium between the working class and the bourgeoisie. It is based on the military, police, and state bureaucracy rather than on parliamentary parties or a mass movement. So called after Napoleon Bonaparte, the classic example of Bourgeois Bonapartism. Stalin's totalitarian regime and others like it are classified as Proletarian Bonapartism.

RENEGADE EYE

Ted Grant and The Chinese Revolution

I was asked to have a discussion on this blog, about the differences between Maoism and Trotskyism, or the difference between the Maoist concept of mass line as opposed to the Trotskyist transitional program. The Maoist method is synthecizing opinion into an action program. The transitional program is raising demands that bridge reform demands with revolution demands. An example is the slogan Peace, Land and Bread during the 1917 Russian Revolution. Peace meaning end Russia's involvement in WWI, Land meaning land to the peasants, and Bread meaning better worker's lives. transitional demands challenge capitalism. That doesn't mean reform demands are ignored.

This is an excerpt from the writings of Trotskyist Ted Grant. What is remarkable, is that it was written before the victory of the Chinese Revolution.

Two Sides of the Coin

While supporting the destruction of feudalism in China, it must be emphasised that only a horrible caricature of the Marxist conception of the revolution will result because of the leadership of the Stalinists. Not a real democracy, but a totalitarian regime as brutal as that of Chiang Kai Shek will develop. Like the regimes in Eastern Europe, Mao will look to Russia as his model. Undoubtedly, tremendous economic progress will be achieved. But the masses, both workers and peasants, will find themselves enslaved by the bureaucracy.

The Stalinists are incorporating into their regime ex-feudal militarists, capitalist elements, and the bureaucratic officialdom in the towns who will occupy positions of privilege and power.

On the basis of such a backward economy, a large scale differentiation among the peasants (as after the Russian revolution during the period of the N.E.P.) aided by the failure to nationalise the land: the capitalist elements in trade, and even in light industry, might provide a base for capitalist counter-revolution. It must be borne in mind that in China the proletariat is weaker in relation to the peasantry than was the case in Russia during the N.E.P. owing to the more backward development of China. Even in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries similarly, where the capitalist elements were relatively weaker, nevertheless the danger of a capitalist overturn existed for a time. The fact that the workers and peasants will not have any democratic control and that the totalitarian tyranny will have superimposed upon it the Asiatic barbarism and cruelties of the old regime, gives rise to this possibility. However, it seems likely that the capitalist elements will be defeated because of the historical tendency of the decay of capitalism on a world scale. The impotence of world imperialism is shown by the fact that whereas they intervened directly against the Chinese revolution in 1925-7, today they look on helplessly at the collapse of the Chiang regime.

However, it is quite likely that Stalin will have a new Tito on his hands. The shrewder capitalist commentators are already speculating on this although they derive cold comfort from it. Mao will have a powerful base in China with its 450-500 million population and its potential resources, and the undoubted mass support his regime will possess in the early stages. The conflicts which will thus open out should be further means of assisting the world working class to understand the real nature of Stalinism.

Read The Whole Article


RENEGADE EYE

The Iranian Revolution

This analysis of the Iranian Revolution was written by Trotskyist Ted Grant, leader of the UK based Militant Tendency, during the Iranian Revolution. It stands up against anything else written at the time left or right.

By Ted Grant
Friday, 09 February 1979

Part One

Last week in one of the biggest demonstrations in human history over three million Iranians came on to the streets of Teheran to welcome the return of the religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The previous week had seen barricades and workers fighting with the army. In scenes reminiscent of the February Revolution of 1917, soldiers who were meant to be backing the old regime, winked at the crowds and called out "We are with the people."

Iran is a country in the throes of revolution. The forces which are locked in combat are on the one side those of the autocratic monarchy, supported by the capitalist and landlord classes, backed up by the military and police. Facing them is the working class and the middle class who look to the Muslim clergy, particularly the Ayatollah (Holy Man) Khomeini in exile in Paris.

The analysis which follows endeavours to show the real situation which exists in Iran and the main paths which the revolution can follow. The revolution really began a year ago with the demonstrations against the Shah and his hated secret police
SAVAK.



A totalitarian system can only maintain itself by means of terror and a system of informers while the masses are inert. But once the masses move into action against the regime it is the beginning of the end. The monstrous secret police are shown to be impotent in the face of the movement of the masses.

The pressure from below produces a split at the top amongst the ruling class. Fearing that they will be overthrown they try and introduce reforms from the top in order to prevent revolution from below. Hence the death bed "repentance" of the Shah and his belated announcement of reforms, particularly the setting up of a "Parliament" which was still nevertheless subordinate to the monarchy.

However these "reforms" opened the way for the overthrow of the Shah's rule. They prepared the way for the direct intervention on the stage of history of the working class with the different layers of the middle class.

The Pahlavi monarch was forced into his inglorious flight from Iran. This took place in spite of the resistance of imperialism, particularly American imperialism. Owen and Callaghan shamefully besmirched the labour movement by coming out in support of the Shah. Their frantic attempts to prop up the tottering Iranian monarchy have failed.

Oil of course has been the key to the policies of British and American imperialism which have enormous investments in Iran. Iran is the second biggest exporter of oil in the world, only exceeded by Saudi Arabia. This oil is vital to Western capitalist states and is one of the factors deciding the policies of British and American imperialism in relation to Iran.

It is the world's fourth largest producer of oil. In 1976, Iran produced 295 million tonnes (10% of world production), the Soviet Union produced 515 million tonnes (17.6%), the USA produced over 404 million tonnes (13.8%) and Saudi Arabia produced nearly 422 million tonnes.

Transition

The Shah's rule after 1953 resulted in Iran becoming a country in transition. It has become a semi-colonial country, half-industrialised and half colonial. While remaining under the domination of American-Anglo imperialism she has attempted to strike out on an imperialist path herself. For example, in the Persian Gulf, following the retreat of British imperialism in this area of the world, Iran seized a couple of islands and attempted to play the role of policeman in the Gulf States.

The Shah maintained his regime by perfecting an instrument of terror and repression in the form of SAVAK, the Secret Police. It could best be compared to the Gestapo in its devilish tortures, assassinations, executions and in the horrors which it imposed on the Iranian people.

At the same time, in an endeavour to make Iran one of the great powers of the world, the Shah undertook the industrialisation of Iran at breakneck speed. This was especially so after 1973 when the price of oil quadrupled. This gave enormous billions to the Shah for the purposes of investment.

The Shah was attempting to play the role of absolute monarch in the old sense of the Iranian regime. At the same time he was trying to modernise the economy of the country. In order to gain a basis he introduced "land reforms". These "land reforms" enriched the nobility, the absentee landowners who dominated Iran. They received enormous riches in compensation which they could then invest in industry. The idea was to transform the nobility into a capitalist class, a ruling class on the model of the West.



The real motive behind the land reform was to push the peasants off the land to provide labour for the factories. As The Economist commented: "In place of Iran's village families he [the Shah] allowed his previous Prime Minister Mr Hovieda, to put divisive farm camps, undermining the whole spirit of land reform."

The massive industrialisation begun under the Shah completely bemused those who claim to, or aspire to, leading the Iranian workers. This is particularly true of the Communist party (called the Tudeh party). During the whole of the Shah's reign it has acted as if it was dead. It has put forward no independent policies whatsoever. This is to be explained by the foreign policy of the Russian bureaucracy. The Tudeh Party in Iran is largely a party dominated by the Russian bureaucracy.

The Russian bureaucracy wanted no conflict with American imperialism in Iran because of Iran's enormous importance as an oil producer. Long ago the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union gave up any thought of revolutionary developments which would threaten directly the vital interests of imperialism, especially of the major power of American imperialism because of the inevitable worsening of relations between Russia and America which would occur under these circumstances.

"Yellow press"

The "yellow press" in Britain was wrong to state that these events are due to the intervention and subversion of the Russian bureaucracy, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party.

On the contrary, the Russian bureaucracy tried to prop up the Shah. They engaged in lucrative trade with the Shah, arranged for enormous quantities of natural gas to be exported from Iran to the Soviet Union and generally endeavoured to maintain friendly relations with the Shah. They looked askance at revolutionary developments in a neighbouring country, particularly one with a large working class which showed its revolutionary character during the course of these events.

The changed relationship of forces on a world scale, has resulted in immense power being accumulated by the Soviet bureaucracy, whilst American imperialism has been weakened. Although not prepared to take any action itself, the Soviet bureaucracy warned against any intervention on the part of American imperialism directly in the affairs of Iran. This, they pointed out, would provoke an immediate counter-response by the Soviet Union, who would then send troops into Iran.

This warning on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy was heeded by the diplomats of the USA. The maniacs of the Pentagon had suggested that aircraft carriers and ships carrying Marines should be sent into the Persian Gulf for the purpose of intervening against the Iranian revolution. This was negated by the State Department, who understood the repercussions this would have on a world scale in the colonial world, and of course the repercussions in Iran and on the Soviet Union.

This shows the waning power of imperialism. American imperialism did not hesitate to intervene in Vietnam, or in Lebanon, or in Dominica. Now because of domestic and international factors, the American imperialists have been impotent to intervene directly in the affairs of Iran.

In this situation the main preoccupation of the CP has been to climb behind religious reaction and the Ayatollah in demanding the setting up of some sort of "Democratic Muslim Republic".

But it is not only the Iranian Communist Party which has shown a feeble reaction in Iran during the course of recent events. The ultra-left sects have also played, as usual, a negative role. Some of them have given sympathy and support to the "revolutionary" students in Iran.

Students

But revolutionary students in Iran were not directed either towards the working class, or to formulate a programme for working class action, but on the contrary were told by the sects to turn to the impotent methods of individual terror. As always with the sects they regarded the working class as impotent, ignorant, illiterate and utterly powerless to change the relationship of forces which existed in Iran. Their conceptions were reinforced by the fact that the working class was completely unorganised before the present development of events.

The argument of the sects and those who turned towards individual terror was that the Shah was industrialising, and all the cards were therefore in his hands. The Shah had raised the standard of living of the working class. The Shah had made enormous concessions to the working class and also to the peasantry. This in its turn would lead to the stability of his regime. They declared that the Shah could maintain himself for decades as a consequence of the "White Revolution" and the development of industry. Incidentally, this idea was swallowed by the imperialists as well. For example, the CIA issued a report as late as September 1978 saying that the Shah had a stable regime and would continue to hold power for at least the next ten to fifteen years!

The real tragedy of Iran is the fact that there was no section of Marxists, either in the ranks of the working class or the students to prepare for these great events, as Lenin and the Bolsheviks had prepared in Russia.

The short-sighted sects could only see gloom and doom in the enormous development of industry. Militant on the other hand, declared that the development of industry also increased enormously the power of the working class, a power which has been demonstrated in the recent period in Britain, in Spain, in the United States, in Japan, and in West Germany.

The mast strikes are an eloquent testimony to the awakening and the power of the workers.

The indescribable tortures the lack of rights and freedom, the humiliations suffered by the masses and specifically the working class of Iran have provoked an implacable movement of the masses. On the surface, the Shah had been riding high, and this was the only thing that could be seen, unfortunately, by the radicals in Iran.

After all it is only about six to eight months ago, when the Shah was giving advice to Britain, on how to deal with strikes, and the "permanent instability" of the "democratic institutions in Britain"!

The old mole of the revolution, however, was burrowing underneath the apparent totalitarian calm which existed in Iran. The CIA and imperialism were caught napping, as were the organisations of the working class.

Nevertheless, in the last few years, there have been many symptoms of the crisis of the regime. Because of the prohibition of all organisations in opposition to the "party" of the Shah, the opposition tended to gather in the mosques. This is particularly so for the peasant, the middle class, and even for the merchant class opposition to the regime of the Shah.

Because of the failures of the Communist Party and radicals, even to attempt to organise opposition within the ranks of the working class, discontent surfaced at the mosques. Radical sermons were preached, which though cloudy and nebulous, were interpreted by the masses in their own fashion.

The Shah dispossessed the Church of its lands. This did not benefit the peasants but only the nobility. That meant that the Ayatollahs, or holy men, the chief representatives of the Muslim clergy in Iran were forced into opposition to the regime.

The masses interpreted the sermons of the mullahs as really standing for a struggle against the totalitarian and authoritarian regime of the Shah. The mullahs put forward the demand for the reintroduction of the constitution of 1906.

It must be remembered that nearly two-thirds of the population in Iran are still illiterate. This is a consequence of the inheritance from the rottenness of the old regime of the landlords and the nobility.

Demonstrations

Between October 1977 and February 1978 there were mass illegal demonstrations demanding democratic rights. Then towards the last months of 1978 there were big movements of the students, the merchants, and now also of the working class. Using the religious feast days as an excuse, demonstrations of thousands began to take place. The repression by the forces of the Shah, by the army and the police, merely incensed the population and resulted in bigger and bigger movements in Teheran, and in all the cities of Iran.

As the struggle deepened, it was the movement of the working class, as in Russia, which became the main battering ram for the awakening people. In the first Russian revolution of 1905, the revolution was begun by a demonstration led by the priest, Father Gapon, calling for concessions, and calling for the Tsar, "Little Father" to set things right. This provoked the firing by the army on the people; hundreds were killed and thousands wounded and the Russian revolution of 1905 had begun. So in the same way, we had the beginning of the revolution in Iran.

However there are important differences between Russia in 1905 and the present movement in Iran. The Iranian revolution has begun with a far higher consciousness on the part of the masses. The mass of the people did not petition "their Father" the Shah, but on the contrary demanded the end of the monarchy. Their slogans were "Down with the Shah" and "Death to the Shah".

The working class in Iran is a far bigger proportion of the population than was the Russian working class before the revolution of 1917. There are two million Iranian workers in manufacturing alone, and another three-quarters of a million in transport, and other industries. In addition to that there are wide circles close to the working class in the clerical trades, in the civil service, in catering, and in small businesses of that character.

Most of manufacturing industry in Iran is small, but nevertheless there are certain giant monopolies which dominate the scene. Some employ hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of workers. In Russia, the working class was only four million out of a population of 150 million. In Iran the working class is at least three to four million strong, out of a population of thirty-five million.

In other words, the relationship of forces in the working class as far as its numerical strength is concerned is even more favourable in Iran than it was in Russia in 1905 or in 1917.

Workers

But, on the other hand, in Russia there were the Bolshevik cadres and party, and a certain socialist consciousness, at least in the advanced layers of the working class.

The role of the working class in production means inevitably that it develops a collective consciousness, both in the process of work, and in the process of the struggle against their oppressors. This is the reason why it is only the working class which can change society.

Above all, the movement of the oil workers, the so-called privileged section of the working class in Iran has actually decisively undermined the regime. Over the last two months there has been intermittently a general strike in the oil fields. Despite army repression, arrests of leaders and shootings, the oil workers have stood firm and have refused to work for the purpose of producing oil for the hated regime until the Shah left. Again and again the masses, including the middle class have demonstrated.

SAVAK

The civil service and bank workers have played, as in Portugal, a key part in bringing the absolute monarchy to its knees. Their strike resulted in the finances of the country being paralysed. The strike particularly of the Central Bank in Iran was very effective. This followed the burning down of 400 banks by the enraged masses.

The bank clerks, when they went on strike, revealed that in the last three months £1,000 million has been spirited abroad by 178 members of the ruling elite, including the Shah's relations. Now, in preparation for exile after having sent his family abroad, the Shah has transferred £1,000 million to banks in America. This in addition to the £1,000 million or so which is held in banks in Bonn, Switzerland and in other parts of the world. The Iranian Treasury has been plundered by the autocracy.

The revolution has involved most sections of the nation apart from the handful of capitalists, the landlords, the supporters of the monarch and the bulk of the army officers. The merchants and the small shopkeepers have been ruined by the development of modern capitalism in Iran. This has fuelled their hatred of the absolute ruler who they see as the source of their woes. Thousands have been killed as a result of the repression of the forces of the state, the police, the SAVAK, and army. Every city in Iran has seen demonstrations, has seen these demonstrations being fired on, and has seen the attempt to organise reaction against the working class and against the people.

In many of the smaller towns, there have been fascist attacks, by the army and the police with picked thugs, like the Black Hundreds in Russia before the revolution. They have been used for the purpose of beatings and rapes, in order to terrorise the villagers and the working class in the small cities in Iran. Undoubtedly, if they could have got away with it similar methods would have been used in the big cities.

The Shah, in order to leave a kindly reputation and memory gave the miserable sum (for him) of £25 million to a foundation for charity. But of course, used to the splendours of the regime in Iran, the Shah in going into what would be tantamount to exile, did not of course want to be a pauper, he took away some small change - £1,000 million.

Millions



The tendency has been in all modern revolutions for the mass to come, in millions, onto the streets. Thus the demonstrations in Portugal of more than a million after the fall of the Caetano regime. In Iran, millions have demonstrated. According to the biased reports of the capitalist press at least one to two million have demonstrated in the streets of Teheran for the purpose of bringing down the Shah. Hundreds of thousands have demonstrated in all the cities with a measurable population in Iran. Tens of thousands in the smaller towns of Iran. This is a movement of the poor, of the dispossessed, of the exploited, involving the workers, the middle class, the white collar workers, the merchants, and even swept into the movement for their own purposes and their own ends, a section of the capitalists. They wish to climb up on the backs of the workers and the middle class.

Part Two

Last week saw the fall of the Bakhtiar government. In the country's two largest cities, Tehran and Isfahan, power passed on to the streets. The armed forces had to be withdrawn to barracks as they threatened to disintegrate under the impact of the revolution. The following article, written before the downfall of Bakhtiar, predicted its demise and analyses what course the developing Iranian Revolution could take.

The flight of the Shah marks the end of the first phase of the revolution. It's a reactionary dream on the part of the Shah that he can make a quick comeback despite Bakhtiar's manoeuvres.

The monarchy in Iran has been finally thrown out as a result of the excesses, the corruption, the cruelty, the torture, of the last quarter century. It will never again be rammed down the throats of the people of Iran while they possess even the minimum of rights.

The decisive feature of the Iranian revolution as in all revolutions was the role which the army has played. It is clear that the Shah has virtually abdicated power, because it would have been impossible to maintain control of the army for any further length of time. The army cracked in many parts. Here we see again the complete falsity of the position of reformism which declares that revolution is impossible under modern conditions because of the role that is played by the army.

The modern army is more susceptible to the movements on the part of the people, on the part of the working class than any army in history. It is no longer a question of the PBI, the poor bloody infantry, footsloggers, without any real training, without any real understanding. On the contrary, the army has to be highly specialised and highly mechanical. They do tasks like other workers and think as workers.

In this way, it makes the army very prone to respond to the workers' movements. The army is composed of the sons, brothers and relatives of the workers, peasants and middle class. We see in every revolution in history, particularly in the Russian Revolution of 1917, and in the German Revolution of 1918 how the masses of the armed forces came over to the side of the people, when they saw the possibility of a complete break with the old regime.

In Iran there were incidents such as when a soldier shot two of his officers when the command to open fire on the demonstrators was issued, and then committed suicide.

On the other hand, there was the movement of the masses, but no clear call to the army to come over to the side of the people. As a consequence, the soldiers still felt themselves under the heavy hand of military discipline and the threat of court martial for mutiny.

There were many incidents when soldiers joined the demonstrators or allowed demonstrators to climb on the tops of tanks. Other incidents show the opposite features. Officers shot five army cadets for trying to leave the barracks to join the demonstrators.

In many cases in the main towns of Iran there were similar instances of refusal to fire on the part of the troops, of fraternisation on the part of the troops and of action on the part of the army, against their officers. Many of the junior officers also, have sympathy with the movement of the masses.

The reason why the army did not come over to the side of the working class, to the side of the people as in Russia in 1917 and in Germany 1918, is that there was no organisation capable of giving a lead.

Had a socialist alternative been offered to the workers and the soldiers, undoubtedly the whole situation in Iran would have been changed. Millions of leaflets could have been issued to the soldiers. Even with an organisation of a few hundred or a thousand members, millions of leaflets could have been issued to the workers and the soldiers. They could have explained the issues that are facing Iran at the present time, and under these circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the army would have come over to the side of the people.

The revolution, like the Spanish Revolution of 1931-37 will have many ups and downs. The masses may be beaten back after a period of struggle. Reaction might be enabled to establish itself.

But it will not be possible in the immediate future for the army to establish a military dictatorship, as the imperialist West would have liked. Any attempt at military dictatorship would be answered with an even more furious movement on the part of the masses and would result in a split in the army.

The ripeness of the situation in Iran for the socialist revolution is indicated by the fact that the liberals, Iran's so-called National Front, actually have had to adopt a "socialist" or semi-socialist programme. It would be as if the Cadets (the liberals in Russia before 1911) were united in a single party with the Social Revolutionaries (the party of radical agrarian reform), and claimed to be a socialist party.

But like the liberals in Russia, the leaders of the National Front, such as Sanjabi, coming from the upper layers of the middle class (or even from within the capitalist class), manifest an enormous fear of the masses. Bakhtiar, who has nominally been expelled from the National Front, has nevertheless formed a government with the aid and assistance of the Shah, and the army.

Sanjabi, as well as Bakhtiar would like to retain the monarchy. They see the monarchy tamed to a limited extent, so that a constitutional monarchy could act as a bulwark against the revolution, against the working class. They have preserved the classical role of the liberals in revolution. Their main endeavours are to try and dampen down the revolution and get a change of regime without altering the basic structures of present-day society.

We see what Trotsky referred to as the law of combined development manifesting itself in Iran. All the elements for the socialist revolution are there. The liberals can never satisfy the aims and needs of the working people or even of the peasants. In the last analysis they are representatives of the capitalist class and of finance capital.

In an interview, Sanjabi, the leader of the National Front, declared:

"We in the National Front want to maintain the army, we want a strong army and we don't want to do anything to discourage the army…We have never called for desertions or tried to create indiscipline. But inevitably it is happening and if it continues it could be dangerous."

Imperialism and of course the Shah himself have been against the attempt to set up a military dictatorship because under present conditions it would be completely incapable of maintaining itself in the face of the resistance of the masses.

The Bakhtiar government by its very nature can only be a stop-gap and transitional regime. Even the imperialists see that the Bakhtiar regime will not be able to maintain itself for very long, and therefore are making overtures to the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khomeini has declared that he does not wish to establish a reactionary military dictatorship or to establish a semi-feudal dictatorship. It is this element in their programme where the Mullahs have claimed to stand for freedom and democracy, which has been a powerful source of attraction to the mass of the middle class, and of course to sections of the workers as well.

But the utopian programme of Khomeini can in no way solve the problems that face the Iranian people at the present time.

Khomeini has made it clear that he will accept nothing less than the abolition of the monarchy. The Regency Council which has been set up by the Bakhtiar government will not be able to maintain control, or to keep the seat warm for the Shah. Even the abdication of the Shah would no longer be sufficient. Now it is a question of the abolition of the monarchy.

In the situation which exists in Iran, an organisation of even a thousand Marxists, a thousand revolutionaries could make a decisive difference. It is possible that such an organisation could come from the forces which will be gathering around the National Front.

The National Front itself, once it starts getting a mass basis, will inevitably split. The so-called Communist Party (the Tudeh) is dragging behind the Ayatollahs, especially the Ayatollah Khomeini. They have no perspective, no programme, no policy, other than to support the bourgeois revolution at this particular stage.

Without an alternative organisation it is possible, even probable that there will be a swift growth of the Tudeh Party. Such a growth under modern conditions would result in a split within the Communist Party. It will develop contradictions between the members and the leaders. Splits will develop as the worker members come in conflict with the middle class leadership. They wish to support the theocratic messianism of the Ayatollah without criticism or a different policy or perspective.

But the nakedness of the liberals and the mullahs will speedily be reflected during the course of the revolution itself.

Revolution by its very nature is not one act. The Iranian revolution will extend over a number of years. The masses will learn in the school of hard experience. The army will become radicalised, as the soldiers get used to the fact that it was the movement of the masses which forced the abdication of the Shah. The army will be affected by the mood of the masses, and it will not be possible for the old generals of the Shah to restore discipline, in spite of all the efforts of Khomeini, or the liberals.

It is probable that Khomeini will come to power. All the pleas of Bakhtiar that the state cannot allow the Church to play a direct and commanding role in politics will be in vain.

But once having come to power the futility of the reactionary and medieval ideas of abolishing interest while not altering the economic oasis of society will be shown to result in chaos. Maintaining intact commercial and industrial capital while abolishing interest or usury is entirely utopian. Even in medieval times, when the doctrine of both the Christian and Muslim church was against usury, nevertheless it continued to exist in many forms. It would have disastrous consequences while capitalism remained, on the economy of Iran, and inevitably would have to be abandoned.

Support for Khomeini will melt away after he forms a government. The failure of his programme of a Muslim theocratic republic to solve the problems of the Iranian people will become apparent.

The masses of the people have their aspirations not only for democratic rights but for higher standards of living. The trade unions in Iran will have an explosive growth. Already they are mushrooming as workers feel the elementary need for organisation. They will attain a mighty scope in the period that lies ahead. Just as in Portugal, where 82% of the working class is now organised in trade unions, so similar results will be achieved in Iran in the coming months and years. Possibly the majority and even the bulk of the working class in Iran will become organised.

Capitalist democracy under modern conditions with the crisis of capitalism on a world scale cannot establish itself for any length of time in Iran. The workers have already learned and will learn even more in the course of the developing struggle. If the masses are defeated and a capitalist Bonapartist military dictatorship is established it would not be stable, as we have seen with the Latin American capitalist military-police dictatorships, and the dictatorship in Pakistan.

Even in the worst resort, reaction would prepare the way for revenge on the part of the masses, at a not too distant date. It would be 1905 in Russia over again.

But such a denouement is not at all necessary. If the forces of Marxism succeed in gaining support in Iran, then it could result in a brilliant victory on the lines of the revolution in Russia of 1917.

A healthy development of the revolution would be an absolute disaster for the Moscow bureaucracy. There is a large Asiatic population that is nominally Muslim, or sections of which are Muslim, in the Asiatic part of Russia in the Caucasus. In addition to that, if a healthy workers state was established in Iran on the borders of the Soviet Union, it would have an instant effect on the workers in all the main centres of the Soviet Union - Moscow, Leningrad, Karkov, Odessa, Novosibirsk, etc.

But that could only come with the development of a Marxist tendency which had assimilated the lessons of the last 50 years, particularly the lessons of the rise of Stalinism in Russia. The Moscow bureaucracy did not desire and did not want the developments that have taken place in Iran.

But if there was a possibility of the development of proletarian Bonapartism in Iran, a totalitarian deformed one-party state as in China or Russia they would accept such a gift gratefully despite complications with the USA.

This is also one of the factors in the situation as Iran is only a semi-industrial country, and still remains a semi-colonial country. Given the lack of a mass revolutionary tradition of a Marxist character in Iran, such a development among the lower officers and among a section of the elite, leaning on the support of the workers and peasants is possible.

Moscow did not desire the Iranian revolution, but would not refuse to accept the fruit of a revolution which would strengthen their power enormously in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. They would have to explain to their imperialist rivals of the EEC, Japan and United States that this would be a lesser evil than the development of a proletarian democracy in Iran.

Any Marxist Socialist Party would begin with the demand for the freedom to organise, freedom of speech, freedom of elections, freedom of press and all the democratic rights which have been won by the workers of the West over generations of struggle.

They would demand the 8-hour day, 5-day week, and a sliding scale of wages linked to prices. These would be linked with the demand for a revolutionary constituent assembly, at the same time putting a programme of revolutionary demands for the expropriation of the corrupt gang which has controlled Iran for so long.

The expropriation of the wealth of the Shah, the expropriation of the absentee landlords who invested the money that they were given by the state after generations of neglect and exploitation of the agricultural population; the nationalisation of industry without compensation, or compensation on the basis of need only, and a workers' government; for workers' control of industry and workers' management of industry and the state.

In order to gain these things, it would be necessary to form committees of action in the working class, suggesting that these be extended also to the armed forces and small shopkeepers, small business people, linking them up in a way in which the Soviets were linked in Germany and Russia in the revolutions of 1917 and 1918. Unfortunately there is no organisation in Iran at the present time putting forward the policies of Marxism.

The Labour Movement in Britain should have as one of its foremost democratic demands: no interference with the politics of Iran, let the Iranian people decide. The advanced workers on the other hand, should assist in the development of a Marxist Socialist Party in Iran, which could lead to success.

RENEGADE EYE

War in South Ossetia – a Socialist Federation of the Caucasus is the Only Way Out

This is the 300th post on this blog (hurrah)!

By Tom Rollings and Francesco Merli
Friday, 15 August 2008

After months and years of sniper shooting and military build-up on both sides, war broke out in South Ossetia on the night of Thursday, August 8 when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered an invasion of the autonomous republic and the criminal shelling of its capital Tskhinvali. According to official Russian sources, up to 1,600 civilians and several Russian soldiers deployed for peace-keeping tasks were killed in the fighting before Russian forces retook the autonomous Republic. Thousands of refugees abandoned everything they had and flooded into North Ossetia in Russia calling for Russia to come to their rescue.



This was the justification that the Kremlin was seeking in order to settle down accounts in the region and reaffirm its role as a regional power. The moment couldn't be a more favourable one, with US imperialism entangled in Irak and Afghanistan and without means available to open a new front in the Caucasus.

Given the speed with which the Russian army responded (within a few hours after the Georgian attack) it is clear that the Russian strategists were expecting the attack and the armed forces deployed at the borders with South Ossetia were already in on a war footing, ready to strike back.


Despite the heavy fighting the Georgian forces proved to be unable to take control of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and were taken aback. The Russian counter-offensive crushed the Georgian army and retook control of South Ossetia in less than 48 hours. On Monday, Russian tanks and troops entered Georgian territory towards the city of Gori (dangerously close to the capital, Tbilisi), to show that they could easily take over the strategic centres of the country, while bombing key military infrastructures and cutting off Georgian access to Abkhazia, a second autonomous republic that Georgia claims, and the ports in the Black Sea.

The counter-offensive involved high altitude bombing that destroyed the centre of Gori, killing dozens of civilians and a Dutch cameraman. Similar scenes to those witnessed in South Ossetia, with thousands of Georgian civilians fleeing their homes in terror from the Russian counter-attack have been reported by the media internationally.

Imperialist Meddling Caused the War

Despite what the Russian and Georgian government are claiming, the war had nothing progressive on both sides. The present nightmare of war and nationalism in the Caucasus is the result of imperialist meddling. But it is also the result of the national chauvinism of the former Soviet bureaucracy, which was rotten with Great Russian chauvinism, and which sparked off the rise of regional and national chauvinism against Moscow. These centrifugal tendencies were a factor in the break-up of the USSR, and, as was the case in the former Yugoslavia, led to bloody civil wars in many of the former Republics. These conflicts to this day remain a series of festering wounds, which have not been resolved and can explode into violence at any time.

Criminally, American and Russian imperialism have interwoven these conflicts in their own struggle for spheres of influence and strategic interests, with American imperialism building up Georgia as a bulwark against Russia in the south Caucasus. Russia in its turn is using South Ossetia and Abkhazia as pawns in its battle to redraw the spheres of influence, which are connected to the strategic importance of Georgia as a pipeline route for Caspian oil to the west, and possibly gas as well in the future.

Alan Woods explained this process clearly in the article Georgia's "peaceful revolution" heralds new conflicts, published on In Defence of Marxism back in November 2003, at the time of the rise to power of Saakashvili:

"With Georgian President Shevardnadze's resignation, a radical, pro-U.S. opposition has come to power in Tbilisi. This is part of a general thrust to increase Washington's influence in the Caucasus, but it will have set alarm bells ringing in the Kremlin. The Russians will not remain with arms folded while a key country on her southern border passes directly into the camp of US imperialism.

"These events will undoubtedly pave the way for greater conflict and disintegration in Georgia. The Russians will tighten the screws on Georgia. So-called independent regions and pro-Moscow political leaders are only too willing to pick a fight with the new leadership in the capital. Since neither side enjoys majority support, chaos and violence will likely prevail, causing further upheavals, wars, bloodshed and misery throughout this beautiful but unhappy region and sabotaging U.S. plans to pump Caspian oil westward.

"Nino Burdzhanadze was giving her first televised national address following the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze: ‘We have managed to overcome the gravest crisis in Georgia's recent history without shedding a single drop of blood,' Ms Burdzhanadze said. But she spoke too soon. The intrigues of the imperialists will cause a lot of blood to flow before the crisis is settled one way or another. The new leaders are already casting a nervous look over their shoulders at Russia. Declaring the disobedience campaign over, she said the country must work to strengthen its ties with its neighbours and "the great state of Russia". But fine words will not impress the Kremlin. Russia will be looking very closely at the policies and conduct of the new government in Tblisi, and preparing to tighten the screws. The result will be new wars, chaos and horrors without end."

And added further on:

"Washington and Moscow treat the small, weak, divided Caucasian states as mere pawns in a game in which the whole region acts as a gigantic chessboard. America makes a move, Russia responds, and the result is a war, an assassination, an explosion, a military coup or a ‘bloodless revolution'. We are now awaiting the next move in the game. We do not know when or where Moscow will respond, but one thing we do know: the losers will be the ordinary people, the poor, the defenceless."

In the epoch of imperialism, small nations such as Georgia or Ossetia are too small to play an independent role. National independence under capitalism for such nations does not mean freedom but more militarism and oppression in the interests of one power against another.

Why Did Georgia Attack?

On the part of the Georgian ruling elite, the attack on South Ossetia was a calculated bet that backfired them. Saakashvili barely survived last December to a massive movement of protest against corruption. He got out of it denouncing the movement as a Russian conspiracy and proclaiming a State of Emergency while at the same time calling for a snapshot presidential election in January, which he won. In April, Russian President Putin made a deal providing Abkhazia and South Ossetia with special relations with the Russian Federation. This move forced Saakashvili's hand. The Georgian President could not stand by and do nothing as Russian interference in the Caucasus grew unhindered under his very nose.

What Saakashvili was betting upon was the idea that Georgia could force the position in South Ossetia, although without occupying it permanently which would be impossible, in the attempt to rally the Georgian population around his nationalist agenda. They expected that despite all protests, the Russians would take the humiliation, like they did in relation to Kosovo, or the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states, but they would not dare to engage in a direct military intervention against a close ally of US imperialism like Georgia. After all, they might have thought, that's what Russia had been doing over the last years every time its interests collided with those of the United States!

But there is something more than that. It is very difficult to imagine that Saakashvili launched the attack against US wishes. The Georgian government is dependent on US aid and support, and US strategists must have endorsed Saakashvili's bet: a serious mistake on their part. But they did so for their own imperialist purposes: to test once again the reaction of Russia. Now that they have disastrously lost their bet, they have two options, either to admit the mistake of not having considered that relations of forces between USA and Russia in the region have changed, or to pretend that the Georgian government fooled them, hiding its intentions. But even if we believed that the Georgians acted on their initiative, how could Saakashvili hide the military preparations for the attack? Should we believe that the Russian security services were better informed than the hundreds of US advisors and diplomats that crowded Tbilisi? In both cases US imperialism comes out of this conflict with its credibility compromised.

Russian Imperialism Strengthened

On the other side, Russia is not the same country it was 10 years ago. It has recovered from its previous weakness both from an economic and military point of view and in recent years had been looking for a way to break up the encirclement strategy orchestrated by US imperialism since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Over the last 15 years US imperialism managed to take advantage of the crisis of Russia to establish strong ties and alliances with former USSR allies or breakaway republics from the Soviet Union of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and the Baltic. NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1998 and again in 2004, with the second expansion that absorbed the rest of the former satellites of the USSR in Central Europe and the three Baltic states, were rightly considered as strategic threats from the Russian military elite and convinced the Kremlin that they had to seize every opportunity to reverse this position.

The changed attitude and growing bargaining economic power of the Russian government was highlighted in the last years by the unilateral decisions to cut gas supply to Ukraine and the Czech republic, but Russia never resorted to the use of military power before August 8. What happened? A Geopolitical Intelligence Report by Stratfor commented:

"The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well - indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow's calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months...and they struck."

Georgia happened to be the weak link in the chain of US imperialism network of alliances in the region and the best way for Russia to show the world (and above all, to the neighbouring countries) that US imperialism was not able to deliver anymore what promised, that is to protect the weak former Soviet satellites from their powerful neighbour. As Stratfor director George Friedman again puts it:

"The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk."

Bitter Surprise for US Imperialism

The war in Georgia has forced the sudden recognition of a reality: Russia has emerged as a regional imperialist power strong enough to claim back the former Russian sphere of influence from the United States. The arrogant comment "They're not a major power, they're Saudi Arabia with trees," more significant because it comes from a long-term serving US diplomat (the Ex-US ambassador to the UN) interviewed on the BBC on August 13 reveals to what extent US imperialists have been taken by surprise by this development.

US president George Bush is not the cleverest man in the world, but in relation to Georgia was forced by more intelligent advisors to adopt a careful line. Although using a belligerent rhetoric to insinuate that Russia would be expelled from the 21st century modern world of the advanced countries if they did not change their attitude, he could not announce any action or concrete measure, apart from promising humanitarian aid delivered by the US military to Georgia.

On Tuesday, August 12, French President Sarkozy, current head of the EU, visited Moscow and then Tbilisi to broker a deal. But what we already said for the United States is even truer for the EU: there is not much the European Union can do with Russia in control on the ground. A deal might be reached only on the grounds that Russia has achieved her targets in the war.

Chauvinist Poison

In Russia, the ruling elite has enrolled the mass media in fuelling a wave of war hysteria. The suffering of the South Ossetian population was used to manipulate the understandable outburst of popular indignation and justify the counter-attack, but the war propaganda connected with a deep rooted resentment against US imperialism amongst the Russian working class. The trade union and Communist Party leaders have capitulated to the Kremlin on the war, just as they do not seriously challenge its line in peace. Instead of carrying the line of the working class into mainstream politics, they carry bourgeois ideology into the labour and communist movement. This is particularly clear on the question of war. Because of the lack of alternative, this will temporarily increase the support for Putin.

But militarism is a curse for the Russian people. The counter-attack on Georgia is a sign that the imperialist ambitions of the Kremlin and the greed of the oligarchs can lead to new adventures. Large Russian populations live in the Crimea, the Baltic states and Kazakhstan. Where will the defence of Russian citizens outside of Russia's borders end? The economic outlook for Russia is uncertain. The government as well as the capitalists are preparing another wave of cuts on living standards and attacks on rights, particularly workers and trade unionists' rights. The chauvinist poison is the weapon that the Russian ruling class always uses to make Russian workers and ordinary people accept that the military comes first while people themselves are treated as second-rate citizens.

In Georgia, where there are already thousands of refugees from the first war in South Ossetia from 1992-4, there is bitter anger at the defeat in South Ossetia. On Tuesday a crowd of 150,000 gathered in Tblisi to express their support for Saakashvili in a mood of national solidarity boosted by a hatred of Russian aggression. Yet the future of Saakashvili, regardless of high support for him at the moment, is uncertain. His policies of depending on the West to beat back Russia have ended in failure. Many demonstrators showed their rage cursing US imperialism for not coming to their rescue.

The Propaganda War - the Precedent of Kosovo and the Question of NATO

The Russian government claimed that its military operations in South Ossetia were motivated by humanitarian considerations. In this the Kremlin used the logic that NATO used in justifying its attack on the former Yugoslavia. But, NATO strategists reply, Russia opposed the NATO war on the Balkans - if NATO arguments were wrong in relation to Kosovo, why are Russian arguments any better in relation to South Ossetia? Here the Russian reply is much stronger than the lies that NATO churned out back in 1999. Over 90% of South Ossetia's population are Russian citizens, and Russia's own peace-keeping force was being directly attacked. None of these points applied to NATO. The Russian government therefore concludes that it acted perfectly legitimately in defending South Ossetia from Georgian aggression.

Two conclusions follow from this. Firstly, the defeat of Georgia is a setback for NATO and US imperialism, which weakens NATO in the Caucasus. Secondly, the workers and people of Georgia, including internal refugees who fled South Ossetia and Abkhazia in previous fighting, cannot rely on imperialism in their struggle for their rights. They have all been used as small change in the power politics of contending imperialist powers. The only alternative is the class struggle, beginning with the class struggle against the Russian and Georgian oligarchs.

On the Defence of South Ossetia

The killing of ordinary civilians in South Ossetia is criminal and completely reactionary. But it does not justify the further killing of ordinary civilians in Georgia. On the contrary this will serve to provoke further ethnic tit-for-tat killings in the future.

The systematic preparation for the war on both Georgian and Russian sides demonstrates that both sides are following their own, reactionary interests. On July 17th over 8,000 Russian troops and 700 units of heavy armour took part in a training exercise called "Kavkaz 2008." The exercises involved rehearsing fighting terrorists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and included preparations for evacuating refugees. The day before 600 Georgian troops conducted a joint military training exercise with 1,000 US troops in an operation called "Rapid reaction 2008."

The truth is that for the Kremlin the question of South Ossetia and the rights of the Ossetians is only of secondary importance.

The fact that the theatre of war extended far beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia also underlines that the aim of the Russian rulers was not the defence of Ossetian people as they claimed, but they wanted to inflict a blow to Georgia and undermine its stability as an independent entity, in order to enforce a regime change in Tbilisi. The maps below show the areas of fighting and Russian bombardments.

The question of peaceful relations in the Caucasus will not be resolved by the presence of any number of armies in the region. Putin declared that South Ossetia will not be reintegrated into Georgia. It is also clear that South Ossetia is too small to function as a viable separate state, and that any declaration of national independence would likely be a step towards its integration into the Russian Federation.

Imperialism and capitalism are part of the problem, not the solution. The national question simply cannot be solved within capitalism. This is true not for ideological reasons, but for very material ones. Lenin described the national question as a matter of bread. The only way to solve it is through the development of the productive forces. This can be achieved only liberating oppressed nationalities from imperialist interference and can be fully developed only by means of the expropriation of the property of imperialist companies and of the local oligarchs and harmonic planning of the productive forces under the democratic control and management of the workers.

How can the question of return for all refugees be solved on a capitalist basis? If we consider it in the frame of capitalism it would only mean increased competition to access fewer resources, jobs, houses, medical assistance, education, and other services. It would provoke even sharper tensions on national or religious lines. Independence for South Ossetia or its integration in the Russian federation would end up inevitably in the ethnic cleansing of the Georgian minority of the South Ossetian population, which in turn will strengthen the resentment of the Georgian population and prepare new instability and wars.

The Complexity of the National Question in the Caucasus

The Caucasus has been for thousands of years a crossroad of different peoples, languages and religions. The perspective of a physical separation of the different peoples as a "solution" to the national question is reactionary madness.

Let's for example see the case of North Ossetia today, as well as other national Republics in the Caucasus. With the collapse of the USSR North Ossetians, who were Russian citizens, fought against their Ingush neighbours, who were also Russian citizens. This war was the tragic result of Stalin's catastrophic policies on the national question. Hundreds of thousands of Ingush (as well as Chechen) people were exiled on his orders in the 1940s (see Stalin Liquidates Two Republics by Ted Grant).

Much of the land of the Ingush people has not been returned to them. Thousands of Ingush still live in primitive conditions in what are basically refugee camps. The potential for violence at any moment explains why terrorists chose Beslan, a town in North Ossetia, for a horrific terrorist attack on a school on September 1st, 2004. They wanted Ossetians to assume the terrorists were Ingush, and to provoke a new civil war, which could have happened in 2004 and could still happen in the future. Yet the Ossetians who moved onto their land and worked on it for two or three generations, and who also have nowhere else to go, also have rights that need to be considered. This is a complicated and sensitive question.

Back to Lenin!

In his book, Russia - From Revolution to Counterrevolution, written in 1996, Ted Grant summed up the approach of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to the national question, which is worth quoting at length:

"Tsarist Russia was a prison house of nationalities. One of the key reasons for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution was its approach to the national question. Lenin realised that the only way a new socialist federation could be built was on the basis of complete equality of the national minorities that made up Russia. There could be no compulsion of one nation by another. A socialist republic could only be established on a voluntary basis, as a voluntary union of nationalities. As a consequence, the right of nations to self determination was enshrined on the banner of the party and the young Soviet republic, up to and including secession.

"Lenin stood for the unity of the peoples of the former Tsarist empire, but it had to be a voluntary unity. That is why he insisted from the very beginning on the right to self-determination. This idea which is frequently misinterpreted to mean a demand for separation is entirely incorrect. The Bolsheviks did not advocate separation, but defended the broadest possible extension of national self-determination, up to and including separation. No one has the right to oblige a people to live within the confines of a state when the majority do not wish to do so. But the right to self-determination no more implies the demand to separate than the right to divorce means the demand that all couples must separate, or that the right to abortion means that all pregnancies must be terminated."

But is also important to point out that:

"The right of self-determination was an important part of Lenin's programme, insofar as it demonstrated clearly to the oppressed workers and peasants (especially the latter) of Poland, Georgia, Latvia and the Ukraine that the Russian workers had no interest in oppressing them and would firmly defend their right to determine their own destiny. But this was only half of Lenin's programme on the national question. The other half was equally as important - the need to uphold the union of the proletariat above all national, linguistic or religious differences. As far as the Bolshevik Party was concerned, Lenin always opposed any tendency to divide the party (and the workers' movement in general) along national lines."

Lenin was opposed to any manifestation of Great Russian chauvinism. "I declare war to the death of Great Russian chauvinism", he wrote to Kamenev, and regarded this question as so important to determine his irrevocable break with Stalin when he was already terminally ill on the question of the shameful behaviour of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky against the opposition of the Georgian Communists' to their plans for the Federation. As Ted Grant explained:

"After the Revolution, Lenin hoped that there could be a voluntary and fraternal union of the peoples of the former Tsarist empire in the form of a Soviet Federation. To this end, he demanded that the nationalities be treated with extreme sensitivity. Every manifestation of Great Russian chauvinism was to be rooted out. As a matter of fact, for some time after October, the word ‘Russia' disappeared altogether from official documents. The official name of the homeland of October was simply ‘the Workers' State'."

Lenin's approach is the key to look for a way out from this nightmare. In the Caucasus and in the rest of the former Soviet Union.

For a New October

The class struggle in all these countries, beginning with Russia, is now poisoned by the national question. Russian workers will not gain anything from the war in Georgia except an emboldened Putin and the mushrooming of neo-Nazi organisations, which will engage in violence against workers and youth from the Caucasus, and against Russian workers and their organisations in the future. Only the Marxists can provide a programme and a perspective for resolving the scars of the national question, which is dependent on the struggle of the working class and the establishment of a socialist federation of states in the former Soviet Union and internationally.

The socialist alternative may seem far-off and difficult. But the foundations for it were already laid in the past in practice by the October Revolution. This is an inspiration for the struggle against capitalism, imperialism and nationalism today. Otherwise, the capitalist present is horror without end.

Today the enemy of the Russian working class are their new capitalist masters. This is already visible in the powerful class hatred against the capitalists. The mood amongst workers is not different in other former Soviet republics, including Georgia, where there is a sharp class polarisation in society and oligarchs of the likes of Kakha Benkuidze, who made billions in the metal industry in the Urals during the privatisations and subsequently became a minister in Saakashvili's government, and famously promised "to privatise everything except his conscience."

Yet in Georgia there has recently been a reaction against Georgian oligarchs, with mass protests in Tblisi towards the end of last year, which were violently crushed by the Georgian state. At the moment in Georgia there will be confusion and shock at the war, and bitterness against Russia. But the class struggle will break through the hysteria. The nationalist demagogy of Saakashvili is a sign of his weakness. Without it he does not have a stable base of support. All bourgeois politicians and policies in Georgia are empty. The workers have no option but to fight back.

In fact, the rash of wars that scar the planet are not only a sign of reaction. These wars are also a sign of the crisis of the system on a global scale. Globalisation means not only imperialism as an economic and military fact, but also the globalised crisis of capitalism and the potential for the workers to fight back against the ills of capitalism in every country. If Lenin was speaking to workers today, he would begin by hammering home the world crisis of capitalism, and making concrete the perspective of the world revolution, which has already begun in Latin America, and is finding an echo in North America, Europe and the Middle East.

But just as Lenin would underline that there are two Americas, the America of the capitalist and the America of the worker, he also explained at every opportunity that there are two Russias. Inequality has never reached such burning depths as at the present time. The Rublyovka district near Moscow has most billionaires per square kilometre in the world, just as the Russian Duma has more billionaires than any other parliament in the world. These fabulously rich live in effect in another country, with special police protection, like a court procession, when they travel on the roads, stopping the traffic. They have no contact with ordinary Russians, whose incomes are being eroded by inflation, or are being cut outright by the greed of the bosses. This was the case with the miners of Severouralsk.

After two decades of attacks the Russian workers are beginning to fight back. This may be temporarily cut across by the frenzy of Russia's military success. But the Kremlin's foreign policy holds nothing progressive for Russian workers, who have no choice but to fight against their capitalist masters both at home and abroad.

There is no way out for Russian and Georgian workers than to join forces together against imperialist meddling and their own exploiters. The only tradition that can unite all workers regardless for their nationality, language, colour and religion is that of Bolshevism and the tradition of October.

Long live proletarian solidarity!

For a new October!

For a socialist federation of the Caucasus and internationally!

RENEGADE EYE

Pakistan: The oppressed awaken from their slumber – sabotage won’t stop them

By Lal Khan
Monday, 22 October 2007


October 18, 2007 saw the largest ever mobilization of the masses on the streets of Karachi in almost a quarter century. According to the police, over 1 million participated, while the PPP leadership put up the figure at three million.

This huge convergence of the masses came after more than two very difficult decades dominated by reaction and a lull in the class struggle. The fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intense disillusionment with the "democratic" experience and a right-wing shift of the traditional political and trade union leadership and other factors caused an apathy and skepticism among the masses in Pakistan.

This pushed back the political consciousness and blunted the will of the toiling masses to move into action. Apparently, this massive influx of people from all over Pakistan that thronged to the Karachi airport was to welcome Benazir Bhutto, the chairperson of the PPP on her return after an eight-year self-imposed exile.

However, there was much more to this mammoth welcome than what has been portrayed by the bourgeois media. The people could have had a much clearer glimpse of their leader on the television thousands of miles away than they did traveling such long distances in hazardous conditions, spending sleepless nights and putting in so much effort, energy and their meager savings to make this journey.

Thousands of buses and other vehicles traveled from as far as Kashmir and the remote areas of Pustoonkhwa. But their basic motive was to be "there", to be part of a movement where they could express their grievances and deprivations, where they could exhibit their will and determination to struggle for a transformation of a system and society that govern their lives.

Their platform, their mode and the means of the expression of their will was the Pakistan People's Party - yet again. And Benazir too, after almost two decades, again had to resort to the slogan of "Roti, Kapra and Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) in her latest statements from abroad to ensure a mammoth crowd would welcome her and give her the political strength to bargain with the state and US Imperialism for greater control of the affairs of the state when catapulted once again into power.

But once she boarded the special vehicle to lead the procession she was flabbergasted. The first words she uttered after looking at the oceans of human heads in all directions, were, "It is un believable".

Way back in 1998, Alan Woods, while speaking to a large meeting of workers in Karachi said, "When she returns to Pakistan millions will turn out to welcome Benazir, despite her policies and statements".

But above all this massive turn-out of the masses towards the PPP once again vindicates the universal law worked out most concretely by Ted Grant on the question of mass movements, their orientation and adherence to their political and historical traditions.

For decades Benazir has been moving to the right in her economic policies, hobnobbing with US Imperialism, and has been trying to convince the Pakistani state and ruling classes of her adherence to the policy of preserving capitalism. Even before this return, she was in negotiations with the Musharraf regime and tried to strike a deal which was superficially rapidly eroding her political credibility. This was proclaimed especially by the chattering classes and the radical petty bourgeoisie who dominate the print and electronic media, as well as the intelligentsia in Pakistan. Locked in their narrow two stage theory they can only mechanically analyse politics and economics. The masses had a different perception.

Benazir had been twice in power in 1986 and 1993 and abandoned the masses in order to prove her loyalty to the existing order. Obviously, like every other ruler in this system, she indulged in the corruption and graft that is inevitable in this setup. Contrary to the perception of the media, the intelligentsia, Benazir and her sycophants, her popularity and support are not based on her "statesmanship", "political astuteness" or "negotiating/ maneuvering skills" but on the legacy of the PPP that was born out of the 1968-69 revolution in Pakistan.

During the revolution, there was a virtual take-over of society and economy by the workers, poor peasants and the youth. From November 6, 1968 to March 29, 1969 there was a situation of dual power in Pakistan. Had there been a Bolshevik party at the head of the movement it could have taken power on at least 5 different occasions.

The workers had occupied the factories, the youth and students had taken control of universities, they refused to pay fares in buses and trains and the poor peasants in large areas of the countryside had besieged the landed estates. Most of the pro-Moscow and Pro-Peking left called for a "democratic stage" and even denounced the movement against the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan - as he was a close friend of the Chinese bureaucracy.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir's father, recognized the basic socialist character of the movement and called for a socialist transformation of society. This clicked with the struggle and conscious of the masses and the PPP became the largest party in Pakistan's history almost overnight.

However, even with a relatively clear socialist programme and slogans, the 1968-69 movement was unable to achieve a revolutionary victory. This was due to the lack of a subjective factor - a Bolshevik Party. Bhutto carried out some radical reforms in agriculture, health, education and other sectors. He also nationalized large sections of the banking sector and industry - but the capitalist system was not overthrown. Hence, Bhutto was hanged by the vicious Zia dictatorship for going even that far.

This was the inevitable outcome of making half of a revolution. His legacy continues and is the main reason for the PPP's support in Pakistan, despite of Benazir's policies of compromise.

This clearly resonated on October 18 and the main slogans on the welcoming demonstration were "Bhutto you are still alive". If not consciously then subconsciously the main reason behind the PPP's support is the perception of it being a vehicle of change. That is why when the masses step into the arena of political struggle they initially converge around the banner of the PPP. This is also the reason that important sections of the state are terrified of this mass support for the PPP and cannot trust or give a free hand to Benazir in spite of her assurances and measures to preserve the capitalist system.

They only allow her to enter the echelons of power when the threat of a mass movement is imminent and after using her to diffuse such movements they ditch her. Now when the state is in severe crisis and its internal conflicts are out in the open it would be more difficult to devise a political regime based upon a contradictory class basis. This was proved by the two severe bomb blasts in front of Benazir's caravan which killed 139 people and maimed another 500.

Islamic fundamentalism is mainly a state sponsored phenomenon and feeds upon the horrendous brutality inflicted by US imperialism in its "war against terror." Its temporary rise is mainly due to the collapse of the left and the refusal, mainly on the part of PPP leadership, to stand up against imperialist aggression. This is despite the fact that US imperialism was instrumental in the coup and assassination of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by General Zia ul Haq in April 1979.

The terrorist act against the people on the procession has been quite effective in diffusing the impact of this marvelous mass upsurge. The media and intellectuals are harping in some sort of game of speculative accusations on these blasts. From the look of it, this madness seems to have a method in it. It also shows the wrangling within the state and rattling of its structures. But these acts, whether carried out by the state or its Frankenstein monsters will not be able to totally curb the movement. The PPP leadership is trying to pacify the wrath of the masses against this outrageous act. But the vengeance of the masses will express itself in the electoral process - or more fervently in the revolutionary storms that loom large on the horizon.

The Islamic fundamentalists had called for several "Million Man Marches", in the last couple of years against the US. But they could not get even 5% of that to their rallies. Now the fundamentalist alliance is also splitting, which is another reflection of the contradictions within the state. This could further aggravate their bigotry and fanaticism leading to more instability and turmoil. This distilled essence of capitalism cannot be controlled or curbed by this state or the system.

Similarly, when Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister and a fabulously rich business tycoon, returned to Pakistan on September 10 this year, he could not muster a reception of more than five thousand people. This was in spite of the fact that there was a big media hype and massive sums of money pumped into propagandizing his "huge" popularity.

This was easily curbed down by the Musharraf regime. Nawaz Sharif would have long ago gone into political oblivion had Benazir not tried to prop him up as a political partner for "democracy". Her main aim was to create an alliance with the right-wing to diminish any left radicalization within PPP against her class collaborationist policies. The media hype around Sharif was possible through the massive amounts of money pumped in to get the media coverage. Sharif's social base is mainly amongst shopkeepers, wholesale dealers and small businessmen and sections of the urban petty bourgeois. These strata of society are historically and socially incapable of launching any defiant struggle against dictatorships. Sharif was also the product and political heir of the worst military dictatorship in Pakistan's history under Gen. Zia ul Haq.

The media and radical petty bourgeois are shouting that the deal with Musharraf facilitated her return and allowed a mass turn-out to welcome Benazir. This is an insult upon injury to the downtrodden who braved so much agony and so many obstacles to reach Karachi. No doubt the state did not put up much resistance to the moving crowds. It is also true that those bourgeois and petty bourgeois PPP leaders who wanted party tickets to win elections also invested a lot of money in transportation and huge banners etc., to prove their loyalty. But larger capital was invested to swell the rallies of Musharraf, the Muslim League and the MMA (Islamic parties) but they were no match for what happened when Benazir returned.

The state's resistance to the PPP rally was also weak because the state was split on the issue. They were terrified that if they attempted to block the millions from coming to the streets, that it could produce an explosion that would be impossible for the state to control. No obstacle can stop a mass of millions from reaching their destination.

It is not just the question that the Americans forced the possible coalition between Musharraf and Benazir (although both entered negotiations reluctantly) to strengthen Musharraf in the ongoing war against the Taliban. The main motive of the serious strategists of imperialism for pushing this deal was their fear of a workers' uprising against privatization and other vicious attacks on the Pakistani proletariat.

Under the thunder of the terrorist bomb blasts, the political wrangling and the churned up "election" mania, the present regime, clearly in its twilight, is trying to carry out massive redundancies and complete the IMF's assigned agenda. Just in the telecommunications (PTCL) sector alone the regime is sacking 29, 000 workers in an effort to carry out orders for privatization. Similar steps will be taken to carry out major redundancies and restructuring in other main sectors of the economy. The plan then would be to bring Benazir into some sort of a power-sharing deal and get her endorse these crimes against the working classes.

It won't be easy. This is not 1988 or 1993. The bomb blasts in Benazir's procession show how far the state and society have deteriorated since she was in power the last time.

The masses who converged to Karachi certainly don't want this. They will vote Benazir into government as they have no other alternative at this point in time. They came out for exactly the opposite. They endured hundreds of casualties, stood waiting for her arrival for 30 hours, thousands walked miles and miles to reach the venue, and remained without food, water and sleep. For what? Certainly not for privatization, deregulation, restructuring, price hikes, unemployment and poverty. The oppressed and exploited gathered not to endorse corruption, liberal "democracy", capitalist policies and the appeasement of imperialism.

Benazir has, at least verbally, changed the founding principle of the PPP from "Socialism is our economy" to "Mohammadi (Islamic) egalitarianism". This won't work in the long run. "Roti kapra aur Makan" (Food, Clothing and Shelter) can't be provided through trickle down economics, necessary to maintain this crisis ridden capitalism and cozy up with US Imperialism.

On the basis of capitalist policies her stint in power will not be very long. On the one hand the intensifying crisis of Pakistani capitalism is exacerbating religious bigotry and terror. The economy is in shambles with the highest trade, current account, and budget deficits in history. Social indicators are amongst the worst in the world. The oil price hikes and the impending world capitalist economic crisis will have devastating effects on the already sinking Pakistani capitalism.

The state is deeply mired in internal conflict, and society in a deep malaise. The continuation of these policies would exacerbate the contradictions. On the one hand further blood, chaos and anarchy could push towards a barbarous nightmare, the elements of which are already making a frightening appearance in border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But this rally on October 18 has clearly shown the other face of Pakistan. On April 10, 1986 Benazir was accorded a similar rousing reception of more than a million people. On April 11, at a press conference she confessed that if she wanted to take power the previous day she could have done it easily. She was right! But she refused to take a revolutionary path. Still she was brought into power through a compromise with the establishment. She dashed the hopes of the masses and tried to maintain the status quo. The movement ebbed and she was overthrown.

Again in 1993 she was pushed into power by mass pressure from below. Yet once more she shifted further to the right. Will the story be the same this time around? Will this vicious cycle go on forever? We don't think so. The misery and poverty is too immense. Living conditions are intolerable. The masses have endured a long period of reaction and oppression. It has taken an enormous effort for the masses to come to the fore. Millions united in a mass gain great confidence and a sense of collective strength. If Benazir follows her precedent this time around, it will not be the right-wing reaction or the State that will lead the revolt. Opposition will come from the same masses that came to welcome her with high hopes.

No force of reaction has ever and could ever mobilize such a huge sea of people in Pakistan. The toiling masses came out for change. They opted for what has been their political tradition for more than three generations. If this fails then the next time they enter the arena of history, instead of going to Karachi Airport they will move to occupy factories, take control of railways, telecommunications, electricity networks and expropriate imperialist wealth and assets, besiege landed estates and seize other key sectors of the economy on a much higher plane than their ancestors in the 1968-69 revolution.

The Musharraf-Benazir deal is still in confusion. Even if they try to act on the Washington script there are too many bumps and potholes on this path. It can fall apart as a result of any event - from judicial activism to terrorist attacks. Even if this uneasy alliance crosses onto the election plane and takes the shape of a new regime, the chances of its continuation are very bleak and imbedded with internal and external danger. The uprising of the masses from below will blow it apart at the first blow. The turbulence in the economy and convulsions in society are too severe to overcome by this conflicting implementation which the US is trying to manipulate.

This working class of Pakistan will take its destiny into its own hands and transform society. The Marxists in the PPP have been vindicated once again in their strategy and perspectives by the events on October 18 - after 21 long years. This vindication brings the revolutionary challenge much closer and clearer to them. The tasks of history are being posed more concretely today than perhaps ever before. The mass mobilization in Karachi has clearly expressed what people want - emancipation from exploitation, drudgery, misery, disease and slavery. A revolutionary socialist alternative was put forward to this movement by the Marxists. Through the events in the next few weeks and their experiences, the wider layers of the masses shall turn towards the revolutionary path. The tasks of the Marxists is to ensure that these toiling masses achieve their socialist victory - sooner rather than later.RENEGADE EYE

New Writer Added To This Blog

John Peterson will be posting stories occasionally on this blog.

John's grandfather fled Spain after the Spanish Civil War and moved to Mexico, where John was raised. He later moved to Fargo, North Dakota and went to college there. He later continued schooling in London, where he became politically active, after meeting Ted Grant, the famous Trotskyist. John founded the Workers Int'l League and is the national chairperson of the Hands Off Venezuela group in the US. He lives currently in the Twin Cities. Peterson is also a percussionist and future mixed martial arts fighter.Renegade Eye