|
It was during a visit to Revolution Books in Manhattan that I first considered the topic of Communism and Islam, particularly in Iran. The manager of the book store, during a discussion on Islam and Islamic movements (particularly those of an anti-imperialist, or anti-Zionist nature) supported by Marxists, said that "Islam has a strong revolutionary spirit." Though the manager was herself an Atheist, she had meant this in a sense of praise for Islam. I disagreed but kept my comments to myself. In my mind I could only agree with such secular critics of Islam as Ibn Warraq and Ibn al-Rawandi, who have stated that Islam is religious fascism, and that it is only "a feeble-minded political correctness that prevents it from being recognised as such.[2]" Why did communism fail to survive in a country with such a strong
communist influence? Why did one of the most advanced nations in Western
Asia succumb to the clerics of an outdated goat-herder superstition? What
do communist thinkers today claim was the reason for their failed revolution?
This essay will attempt to look at the Islamic revolution of Iran[3],
and explain why it was Khomeini's brand of late 20th century Shia
Islam that took control of Iran rather than any particular brand of communism.
to set the pattern for prison life for forthcoming generations of political inmates.[4] The communist party of Iran was nearly wiped out under the first Shah. After numerous successful strikes during the late 20's, the Irani government brought the hammer down on those who adhered to any sort of maram-e ishteraki ("collectivist ideology"). Through exile and imprisonment, the communist party, temporarily, ceased to exist in Iran, with the exception of single cellblock in an Irani prison[5]. Things did not get any better for the communists over the next 70 years, as their various incarnations were constantly persecuted, and always the subject of some government supported conspiracy theory. One example would be the People's Mojahedin, a group that suffered under both the Pahlevi regime as well as the Islamic Republic. Their blend of Islam and Marxism did not go well with either regime, and one book on their history (actually, the only book to date that is dedicated to their history) put it this way:
was Khomeini's charismatic authority.[7] First there is the influence of Marxism on Khomeini's ideology. With polemicists such as Ali Shariati, and groups such as the People's Mojahedin, Marxism was being promoted in various forms throughout Iran during the 1960's and 1970's. The idea of the poor uniting against the rich obviously agreed with Khomeini's ideology. His concept of the mostazafin (oppressed) and the zagheh-neshinha (slum dwellers) going against the mostakberin (oppressors) and the kakh-neshinha (palace dwellers) had obvious Marxist connotations. Khomeini, at one point, admitted the influence of the Marxists on the clerics. Speaking of the late response of the clerics to the movements against the Shah, Khomeini wrote "[w]e cannot remain silent until college students force us to carry out our duty.[8]" It was also during this time that Khomeini spoke poorly of sarmayehdaran ("the capitalists"). Khomeini was even quoted as using the famous phrase "oppressed of the world, unite![9]" It was through this sort of rhetoric that Khomeini lulled at least
some of Iran's communists into thinking that he was on their side. Many
were at least convinced that he was not the sort of threat to Marxism in
Iran that he would later prove to be. Possibly the communists, and other
assorted groups, in Iran were siding with the theory that "the enemy of
my enemy is my friend." Feminists, communists, and Islamic fundamentalists
side-by-side, united under the cause of removing the Shah. It is after
the removal of a common enemy that formerly allied groups suddenly focus
on each other's intolerable differences.
After the revolution however, this statement actually becomes an implication of anti-Marxist sentiments. Islam is not the opiate of the masses as the nonbelievers would claim; anyone who would dare say such a thing has an obvious desire to wage war against God, an unforgivable crime. In fact, in early January 1989 Khomeini wrote a famous letter to then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in which he wrote "by granting relative religious freedoms to some of the Soviet republics, you have practically proved that you no longer think of religion as the opiate of society.[12]" Inevitably, the Islamic Republic clashed with the Marxists within the first two years following the revolution. The results were frighteningly brutal. The People's Mojahedin had started to openly ridicule and insult the Khomeini regime in 1980, referring to it as "blood thirsty.[13]" The Islamic Republic responded with harsher punishments against the Mojahedin. Two Mojahedin were executed for stockpiling arms, and another man, Taqi Shahram, was executed simply for refusing to openly denounce the Mojahedin[14]. The main paper of the Mojahedin (Mojahed, or "Holy Warrior"), which was more popular than the Islamic regime's official paper (Jomhuri-ye Islami, or "Islamic Republic") was closed down; leading members went underground, and sympathizers were executed after June 1981. Nearly twelve hundred Mojahedin were thrown into prison during the previous month, and Hezbollahis (supporters of the religious establishment, those who are part of the "Party of God") began a reign of terror, beating, shooting, and bombing Mojahedin who were high school and college students[15]. On June 20 1981, half a million people poured into the streets to criticize Khomeini and his regime. When the people came into contact with the Hezbollahis, the latter was well armed. Fifty people were shot dead, and another two hundred wounded. The result was intimidation, and no protest of that magnitude took place after that. The regime then started arresting communists and alleged communists all over Iran, and executing them. People who made contributions to the Mojahedin, polemicists, and even a cleric, Hojjat al-Islam Ashuri, whose writings of a decade earlier were popular among the Mojahedin, were executed. By December, twenty five hundred people had been killed by the Islamic republic. After four years of back and forth attacks (including numerous Mojahedin assassinations of various Ayatollahs), over twelve thousand people had been killed. Seventy five percent of those killed were Mojahedin and their sympathizers[16]. In 1988, the Islamic regime held an inquisition of sorts in the
prisons. Leftists of varying degrees were questioned with regard to how
they were raised. Were they raised as Muslims? After that they were asked
if they believed Muhammad was the final prophet, if they believed the Qur'an
was the word of God, if they believed in life after death, and other assorted
questions that would separate the believers from the nonbelievers. Those
who were deemed apostates (i.e. those who were raised Muslim, yet no longer
accepted the tenets of Orthodox Islam) were hanged. The number of communists
executed was in the thousands.
are at a loss to explain the events of that great mass movement."[17] Phil Marshall, author of Revolution and Counter Revolution in Iran, attempts to describe what happened along two lines. First, he puts a small bit of emphasis on the fact that the different groups were not organized. Second, he puts much more emphasis on his theory that Marxism failed to take hold in Iran because the type of Marxism being pushed in Iran at the time was inherently false. He felt that what the Mojehdin, Tudeh, and Feda'yin groups were practicing a sort of pseudo-Communism. For Marshall, the Tudeh sided with the Khomeini regime, and therefore separated themselves from the workers. The Feda'yin, Marshall argued, had put too much emphasis on guerrilla warfare and "adopted a strategy which placed them wholly outside the workers' movement.[18]" Marshall also argued that the Mojahedin put too much emphasis on guerrilla attacks, and also claimed that the group suffered a set back when they spent more time focusing on comparisons of Islam and Marxism. According to Marshall, "the Mojahedin split into 'Marxist' and Islamic wings.[19]" Finally, Marshall made arguments along sectarian lines, claiming all the communist groups of Iran were involved in theories that were too close to Stalinist ideology. In an article written by an anonymous author[20] from
Union of Iranian Communists (UIC, Sarbedaran), it is argued that
communism lost due to the inexperience of the group, as well as improper
implementation of Maoist ideology. The author also insinuates that the
other groups were even less in tune with true communism. Most interesting
of all, the author points out that Khomeini repaired and sought to maintain
the basic class structure that was present under the Shah. This may be
a hint that this person was originally under the impression that Khomeini's
"oppressed vs oppressors" rhetoric meant the Ayatollah was for Marxism
and the dissolving of private property in an attempt to create equal financial
status for the people.
The communists in Iran failed to take control of the country mainly because of division among their ranks. Due to their own collective idiocy and desire to over-emphasize sectarian differences, the communist movement was fragmented by constant infighting and far too weak to overthrow the Islamic regime. This is the same reason the communist movement is not at all successful anywhere else in the world. Those who are already a part are not at all interested in furthering the cause or spreading their message; rather they only desire to argue irrelevant points and slander other communist groups whom they consider deviant. The communist community is mostly made up of old men who still want to debate such worthless topics as Stalin's nonaggression pact with Hitler and other assorted nonsense the way two Rabbis would endlessly squabble about a particular verse in a religious scripture. While there is no proof that a single united communist movement could have overthrown the Irani Islamic government, such a group would've been more powerful and had a better chance of fighting successfully against the Islamic regime before it became too powerful. Instead there was nothing but division, and to this day the different groups still point fingers at each other, claiming that Marxism was not properly represented in Iran. Notes (1) Minou Reeves, Female Warriors of Allah, (EP Dutton, 1989), p. 108. (2) Warraq called Islam "religious fascism" in the dedication of his book Why I am not a Muslim, (Prometheus, 1995), and al-Rawandi agreed in his on-line review of Warraq's book for the Secular Web. The quote is from that review. (3) This is done, admittedly, by way of secondary sources, as well as via writings that let the reader see the revolution through the eyes of exiled Irani Marxist polemicists who attempt to use a sort of political alchemy to explain their failures. (4) Ervand Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions, (California, 1999), p. 28. (5) Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions, p. 29. (6) Ervand Abrahamian, The Iranian Mojahedin, (Yale, 1989) p. 2. (7) Henry Munson, Islam and Revolution in the Middle East, (Yale, 1988), p. 131. (8) Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism, (California, 1993), p. 23. (9) Ibid., p. 31. (10) Faqtulul-Mulhidin means "kill the Atheists," and though I have never seen this in any published works, I imagine it would make for a brilliant war cry in the struggle to purge an Islamic state of Marxist infidels. (11) Ibid. (12) This was covered in several news paper articles, including MJ Akbar, "At the Center of the World," NY Times, January 10, 1992, p. A27; the quote is from a March 9, 1989 article of The Guardian (London) by David Hirst. (13) Abrahamian, Mojahedin, p. 206. (14) Ibid., p. 211. (15) Ibid, pp. 212-215. (16) Ibid., pp. 218-223. (17) Phil Marshall, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Iran, (Bookmarks, 1988) p. 7. (18) Ibid., p. 64. (19) Ibid., p. 67. (20) Anonymous, "Defeated Armies Learn Well," A World to Win, (1985, #4) pp. 44-65. |