Vol.64/No.9 March 6, 2000
The weakness of capitalist rule in Iran
{Discussion with our readers column}
Militant reader Robert Dees in his letter to the editor last week asked for an explanation in class terms of the frictions in Iran between those the capitalist media calls "mullahs" and "reformers." I agree with him that these terms should be placed in quotation marks, because they say more about the views and prejudices of bourgeois writers than the unfolding politics in Iran. The reports in the big-business media can get a little strained on this point, since, after all, most of the "reformers" are also high-ranking Islamic clerics.
There are serious divisions in the ruling capitalist class in Iran which gets reflected in what may be loosely called a conservative and liberal wings--in Iranian press it is more common to call them right and left factions. The liberal wing, represented by President Mohammad Khatami, is seen by many workers and youth as responsive to their demands for more political space and democratic rights. In the recent elections to the Majles (Parliament) some 80 percent of those eligible to vote turned out and elected by a wide margin those they considered to be in favor of democratic rights. One 19-year old university student told a reporter at a pre-election rally that "the most important change that could happen is a more open political atmosphere--something to give us the space to breathe." For workers this also means space to organize and fight for the interests of all working people.
In speaking about "mullahs," the imperialist rulers and their mouthpieces express their class hatred of the Iranian people, who dared to rise up by the millions in a revolutionary struggle in 1979 and overthrew the hated regime of the shah of Iran, the Persian monarchy. That regime was brought to power in 1953 through a military coup organized by the U.S. government. It was armed and maintained by Washington as a centerpiece of defending imperialist interests in the region.
In the process of the revolution, workers and peasants gained pride and self-confidence. The inability of either imperialist military and economic pressure on Iran or the native capitalist class to push workers, peasants, and youth out of the political arena has become an obstacle to consolidating a stable capitalist regime there. In a country where 60 percent of the population is under the age of 20, millions of people are finding openings for discussion and organization. The open feuds between the ruling factions accelerate this process. In the recent elections these divisions opened the doors for thousands of independent candidate to get on the ballot.
To a large extent the capitalists and landowners who fled the country in 1979 have been unable to reclaim their property, despite backing from the legal system of the state. In this context when the capitalists talk of "reformers" they are looking for a bourgeois social layer that can rise to consolidate a stable pro-imperialist regime, widen contacts with the imperialist "west," and open up Iran for wider imperialist exploitation.
The frictions in Iran's ruling class have plagued the regime since its inception. It was a weak and fractured capitalist class that was able to cling onto power in the face of a national revolution where victory was insured by a sustained general strike of the entire working class. Workers and peasants, lacking a leadership that represented their historic interests, were prevented from establishing their own government.
Since the revolution capitalist industrialization has been taking place. But this development is marred and held back by the world capitalist economic crisis and imperialist pressure, leading to further class differentiation in the face of high unemployment, which stands officially at 20 percent. The refusal by the workers and peasants to subordinate their class interests to that of the law of value also puts a damper on the rise of a modern capitalist class. Strikes are illegal, but a tug of war constantly goes on. Workers have been able to win their demands at times using their numbers and their social prestige, gained through their general strike to save the revolution in 1978 and then their defense of it during the 80s in the war imposed by the capitalist regime in Baghdad.
So the conflict within the Iranian ruling class is how best to confront these challenges, cope with imperialist pressures, and create internal conditions and structures for dominance of capital over labor. During the revolutionary struggles coming out of World War II Stalinist misleaderships in the country helped the bourgeoisie stabilize its rule and defeat the struggles of workers and peasants for power. Today the toilers don't face that obstacle.
The inability to have a stable regime in the declining capitalist world system, and the resistance seen among the exploited and oppressed in Iran, and further openings of political space do not bode well for long-term imperialist domination either.
--MA'MUD SHIRVANI