History does not always offer a variety of stances one can take. For instance, what to do in face of imperialist attacks on a country whose internal politics and system of governance we do not quite like? If one is inclined to assert her political convictions, she is inevitably faced with some hard choices. Such choices are especially uncomfortable in the age of indefinitely customizable consumption of goods and information. We are not used to compromises; we just have to customize and optimize each choice down to the last detail.
Of course, ambivalence is always a way out. “Well, it’s too complicated.” It is, however, frowned upon among progressives.
The other way out—more popular, gratifying and utterly dishonest—usually entails intricate intellectual gymnastics, but can be narrowed down to “Yes, but…” statements. A recent piece by Nathaniel Flakin for The Left Berlin on the US-Israeli attacks on Iran is a prime example:
“[…] while we support the resistance against imperialist attacks, as socialists we also fight for the political independence of the working class. This means we never give political support to capitalist governments […].”
Marx and Engels would roll in their graves were they to hear of such gross abstraction in their names. Like it or not, we live in a world of nation-states. And in the case of Iran, like it or not, the “resistance against imperialist attacks” is organized and delivered by the state. The Iranian state enjoys wide—and currently increasing—support from the general population, including the working class. That is despite serious grievances and ongoing struggles and contrary to Flakin’s claims as well as the skewed image one might get from the Iranian lumpen diaspora.
The core problem is simple enough: a country is attacked by the genocidal forces of imperialism. Which side are you on? At this level, there is no distinction between the country, the state and the nation. And it matters not what the state is formally called and/or how we choose to describe it—the Islamic Republic, the regime, a capitalist anti-communist theocracy etc. etc.
The principled anti-imperialist stance would be: we stand with the country (i.e. the nation and their state) and we unequivocally reject the imperialist aggression. Period. That would also be the strategically wise position, as it allows a potentially broad coalition with all those who agree on that principle. Alas, strategically wise positions are not Marxists’ forte, and Flakin’s piece reads mostly like an attempt to bash the author’s least favorite Marxist organizations around the world.
Aside from the fellow Marxist bashing, the article has passages bordering on nonsensical, typical of such pseudo-progressive gymnastics:
“A handful of socialist groups in imperialist countries […] go beyond the elementary need to stand with Iran’s resistance—they say the working class should give political support [to?] the Islamic Republic. This [?] spreads illusions in a semi-colonial bourgeoisie and ultimately weakens the struggle against imperialism [emphasis added].”
I have read that passage several times and I still have no idea what it means. But if there is anything bourgeois to point out here, it is Flakin’s deference to Financial Times (for Marx’s sake!) on Khamenei’s culture and literacy.
The more troubling aspect of the piece is the utter ignorance it channels through a grossly orientalist gaze:
“This government draws its legitimacy from god, even though Iranians do not appear to be very religious.”
As already mentioned, the political mythology (theology) of the Iranian state does not matter here and now. Iran—the land, the nation, the state—is under attack by imperialists. Which side are you on?
Moreover, the claim that Iranians are not religious simply betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iranian culture and history, and the central role of religion (spirituality) throughout the millennia of the Iranian civilization, including before Islam.
Finally:
“ ‘The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward [emphasis added] countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.’
“That’s the Marxist and Leninist policy today—and it’s defended by Trotskyists.”
Aside from invoking the Marxist deity (who’s being religious now?), that passage betrays Flakin’s ultimate ignorance about Iran, a country that was never colonized. I shall not indulge the ultimately colonial adjective that follows.
Perhaps all of that could be ignored as secondary at this time, but the graphic published with the article reveals, perhaps coincidentally, the troubling nature of its supposedly anti-imperialist stance, which is hard to ignore. The photo shows a US Navy ship firing a Tomahawk missile on the first day of the attack. Taken from the ship’s helm, it is literally the imperialist perspective.
Sometimes history has only binary choices to offer.
Which side are you on?
