Firstly, please accept my apologies for the delay for this reply to your latest letter.
The CCI(T) supports the struggle of the WPOI against the Islamic regime in Iran and for the liberation of jailed or sentenced Iranian militants as much as it possibly can. For us this is a duty of basic and indispensable internationalist solidarity. At the same time we are very interested in the political orientation of the WPOI which was born during the Iranian revolution. Unlike many others, the WPOI was formed by clearly refusing to support, even critically, the Islamic regime set up against the revolutionary movement of the masses and by focusing on the combat for the seizure of the political power by the workers and for the socialism. For us, the CCI(T), this matches with the analysis and political line we were defending at that time, whereas nearly all groups and organizations claiming to belong to the workers’ movement, in France as well as internationally speaking, were calling to support Khoemini in order to “fight American imperialism”. That’s the reason why the CCI(T) thinks that the existence of the WPOI and its political line is of utter importance not only for the workers and youth of Iran but also for all the militants and workers throughout the world working to build a revolutionary party for the seizure of the political power, for the socialism. And that’s the reason why the fraternal debate with the WPOI is very important to us.
You’re right to say that we must beware of “semantic” differences which can lead to endless discussions of little interest whereas basically we’d want to say the same thing. But I do not think that the problems addressed in our discussion consist in semantics but in fundamental political issues. Therefore I’d like to consider the points you have developed.
1 – The WPOI, in its perspective of the “Third Camp”, fights at the same time both against the Islamic regime of Iran, the godfather of the political Islam and the origin of Islamic terrorism, and American imperialism and its western allies, and therefore for a third camp, the one of the Humanity against fanaticism and capitalism in all their forms.
For us, the CCI(T), there can be only two sides, the workers’ class, gathering all oppressed masses, and the bourgeoisie on the other side. The Iranian regime is, for us, first and foremost, a capitalist and bourgeois regime, but which can maintain its power against the masses only by the means of a religious, Islamic dictatorship. This specificity comes from the fact that at the time of the revolution, the masses having overthrown the regime of the Shah, the “classic” the Iranian bourgeoisie found itself unable to face and stop the revolution and the development of the chouras which were about to change things decisively, and the fact that the only political force still organized to some extent at the disposal of the ruling class was Islam and its clerics. That explains the support from the imperialism, especially from the French one, to Khomeini, in order to stop the revolution. It should also be noted that more and more, in many countries, the bourgeoisie, or some parts of it, are trying to give more power to the religion and to churches in order to gain a better control of the masses. That’s true in Turkey, in the USA, and even in France. Of course, this doesn’t turn to be a dictatorship like the one in Iran today, but we should remember that under the fascist rule of Franco in Spain, the Catholic Church was one of the main pillars of the moral order, and simply of the bourgeois order. The fact that the Iranian regime is bourgeois and capitalist doesn’t mean that claims of Iranian masses against the political grip of Islam are of no interest, it’s all the contrary. The requirement of freedom of thought, separation of religion from the state, secularism in all spheres of public life, school, the University, in the street etc. is as important as the struggle for better wages, against job cuts etc. All that can be taken in the everyday struggle is a positive step, but all these claims and struggles point towards a unique goal: the overthrow of the Iranian bourgeoisie’s dictatorship. What should replace it? Certainly not a liberal bourgeois and democratic government as some think [translator’s note: In French a liberal means someone who favours the free market economy], which is not, we know it, the WPOI’s point of view. Indeed, the Iranian bourgeoisie is unable, given the political power balance between social classes in Iran, to durably satisfy any democratic requirement, since this would pave the way for the revolution. The only mean of domination at its disposal is the Islamic dictatorship. But letting anyone believe that there could be a pacific transition towards a democratic bourgeois regime in Iran would be distracting the masses from the fight to take the power themselves, to kick the capitalists and the bearded (mullahs) out. And this issue is decisive for the confrontation between social classes, which requires the existence of a revolutionary party fighting openly for the seizure of the political power by the masses, to crush the capitalist state and its institutions, such as the church, the police, the army, and for a workers state with the goal of taking on capitalism and organizing the society to fulfil the needs of the masses and not for the profit of capitalists and the obscurantism of the clerics. Only the Iranian worker class, leading all oppressed social strata can, by taking the power, fulfil all democratic requirements/claims.
If we consider the situation in Iran, even at a quick glance as I’ve done, there’s no place for a “Third Camp”, and it is indeed about, beyond the particularities, fundamental problems of the struggle between the worker class and the ruler capitalist class.
But maybe the “Third Camp” theory doesn’t concern Iran but the international level. Nevertheless, for us the CCI(T), the world is not divided in three camps, with imperialists on one side, and the Islamic regimes on the other, both being dynamically linked as you stated, and finally the third camp, the one of the Humanity. Because, apart from main imperialist powers, apart from Islamic regimes, there is an important number of bourgeois states that oppress and exploit their people, that can ally themselves with an imperialist power in order to oppose the pressure from another imperialist state depending on the context, or to oppose for instance American imperialism to defend the interests of their own bourgeoisie, taking advantage of the movements of the masses as it is currently the case in Venezuela, Bolivia or even in Brazil. The Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez doesn’t spend a single day without blaming American imperialism and pretends at the same time that he’s building socialism in Venezuela with the bosses. Are they part of the Third Camp of humanity? And if not, in which camp are they? And what’s the nature of the dynamic link between the imperialism and Islamic regimes? How would it be possible to understand that the American imperialism (as the French one) has first supported Saddam Hussein who was a dictator but not an Islamic one, in his war against Iran, and subsequently turned against him and invaded Iraq? What’s the reason that currently pushes the American imperialism to threaten Iran with war? Certainly not the fact that there’s an Islamic dictatorship in Iran. The US can live very well with dictatorships, Islamic or not. The main motivation of the US today, is that the Iranian bourgeoisie is becoming a regional power, which contravenes to their plans to control the whole Middle-East. If the Iranian bourgeoisie was cooperating like the emirs of Saudi Arabia, another theocratic regime, there wouldn’t be any problems. But the Iranian government cannot do it, even if parts of the Iranian bourgeoisie defend this solution. Why? Because the Islamic dictatorship has been put in power as a last resort of the domination of the bourgeoisie, to stop the revolution and it was able to do so only with a stance against American imperialism. The Iranian bourgeoisie cannot change its position today, at a time when it is more and more contested by the masses. It finds itself in a dead-end: if it did it would sign its own death warrant, losing its last supporters within the population. If it didn’t, it will have to face very serious threats anyway. Beyond the issues regarding the control of oil and other natural resources of Iran, it’s precisely the fact that the Iranian bourgeoisie is more and more threatened by being overthrown that is worrying the US because this is a major risk of revolutionary destabilization of the whole Middle-East and beyond. For us, the most powerful bourgeois regimes, having become imperialist powers, are struggling continuously to gain or retain zones of influence. All of them are not equally powerful and the US imperialism is by far the most powerful among them, even if currently it has to deal with economic contradictions of the capitalist world. These powers struggle with each other in economic fields, but also over zones of influence, for the control of natural resources and so on. The bourgeoisies of countries dominated economically by imperialist powers, either cooperate with them in exchange of a little gain these powers may grant them for maintaining the order, or try to take for themselves some part of natural resources of their country. But that doesn’t make them progressist in any way. On the contrary. The economic crisis on one side and the revolutionary pressure of the masses on the other, tend to push them in a more and more reactionary policy, with or without the help of religion. Therefore for us basically there are only camps that Marx already identified at his time, the camps of the bourgeoisie and of the working class worldwide.
Without doubt the WPOI considers all the working class and oppressed masses of the world in the “Third Camp”. But this theory seems to be a source of confusion to us. If it was only a debate between “intellectuals, specialists of Marx”, this wouldn’t have any importance of course. But according to us confusion in a revolutionary party can lead to disastrous political consequences for millions of people.
2- The CCI(T) thinks that it’s better to talk about “socialism” than “a better world”.
We are aware of the positions of the WPOI in Iran et we know very well that when students or others demonstrate, stating “socialism or barbarity”, they’re following the political line of the WPOI. And we know that the WPOI defines itself as a communist movement. But that’s precisely the point! The words of “socialism” and “communism” have been betrayed and dirtied by so many socialist parties that have nothing to do with socialism except the use of the name and by the Stalinist bureaucracy in the USSR or by another variant in China. Nevertheless, facing the crisis of the capitalism which leads further and further in regression, the masses have no other choice but to fight to end this system. That’s why, in France, in Germany, in Latin America etc. the masses need to know that there is a party in Iran, with deep roots in the working class and the youth, which fights to take to power for the socialism. They need to know that it’s possible to build such a party. Political problems they have to face are in a great extent the same than what the WPOI started to solve But we have the impression that there are, in some way, two political positions in the WPOI: a first position, valid in Iran to take the power, for the socialism. And a second one, out of Iran, for democracy and against Islamism. Of course we understand that a big part of the WPOI’s work abroad is focused on the defence of jailed militants in Iran, victims of the repression, and that in order to defend them, the WPOI underlines democratic liberties. That’s perfectly fair. A worker in France, the UK or elsewhere is not asked first to agree with the perspective of socialism in Iran to subsequently support the liberation of an imprisoned Iranian militant. But at the same time we think that the WPOI should publicize abroad much more all sides of its struggle, which is an example and could help considerably to strengthen the efforts to build revolutionary parties. And why so? Because, in some way, the fate of the Iranian revolution also depends on this. The best support for Iranian workers at struggle, beyond internationalist solidarity, is that French, German and other workers also fight to overthrow their own bourgeoisie, to take to power and for that, they need a revolutionary party just like Iranian masses need the WPOI. That’s the point of this discussion. In Bolivia, in France, Spain and elsewhere, the masses are looking for a party which would clearly state that the only possible alternative is either socialism, or barbarity.
I lack the time to address the third point regarding the international campaign to isolate the Islamic regime of Iran, the UN and so on. Please accept my apologies, but it’s just a matter of time.
Fraternally,
Etienne
July, 2008.