India: Response to an Open Letter in The Guardian by Ajith
We hereby share an article published by Ajith on September 6.
On the Guardian Open Letter
The Guardian had published an Open Letter, signed by Angela Davis along with others. The letter claims to be a declaration of support to political prisoners in Iran. Yet its content does not accord to this stated purpose. Addressing political prisoners in Iran, it says, “…we stand in solidarity with you, as you are at the intersection of two sources of oppression.” Further, you “feel stuck between the two blades of a scissors.” This amounts to equating the aggression of US imperialism and the Zionist regime against Iran with the repression carried out within Iran by the theocratic, fascist regime ruling the country. It cannot be whitewashed with the few words of condemnation against that aggression.
This statement is bad. The US-Zionist attack on Iran is an act of imperialist aggression against an oppressed country. It is unjust. The resistance of Iran is just. The theological fascist comprador character of the Iranian regime does not alter this essential nature of the war. The peoples of the world must not just condemn US aggression. They must support Iran’s resistance war.
However, the just nature of this war does not mean that people in that country or worldwide must unconditionally support the Iranian ruling classes. Being dependent on the imperialist system there is a limit to their resistance. Even now, they sustain with the backing of Chinese social imperialism and Russian imperialism. That is where their comprador character invariably takes them, to one or the other imperialist power. Their oppressive, exploitative nature prevents them from relying on the people.
We must see both these aspects. The Guardian letter fails to draw a firm line of distinction between the imperialist aggressor and an oppressed country. Aping its lack of class analysis, Vijay Prashad and the Monthly Review editors, equate the Iranian regime’s resistance to US imperialism with anti-imperialism in general. They state that “…Iran’s anti-imperialism has not been ‘hollow’ at all.” Its resistance is not ‘hollow’ but its ‘anti-imperialism’ certainly is. It fights, and is able to continue fighting, with the aid and support of two other imperialist powers. Vijay Prashad and the Monthly Review editors can’t, won’t, see this. Blinded by their neo-revisionism they even brazenly place the Iranian regime’s resistance on the same level as the historic People’s War of Vietnam. Their argument that, “…neutrality or a third space does not exist in the midst of a war of aggression.”, falsely equates one with the other. A third space surely exists. It has been demonstrated in China by the CPC led by Mao Zedong during the Japanese aggression and in Bangladesh by Maoist revolutionaries during the Indian invasion.
The repression within Iran and the resistance put up against it from various political forces in that country must be situated within this frame. The repression and exploitation faced by the people in Iran, or by its political prisoners, is not some ‘intersectional’ matter. They are not being caught between two blades. They are caught up in the global web of imperialist exploitation, plunder and oppression. Their immediate oppressors, the Iranian rulers too, are agents of this imperialist system, which is much more than US imperialism alone.
In a situation where their country is being attacked by US imperialism the communist revolutionaries in Iran have a two fold task. They should maintain their independence and initiative and unite with patriotic forces in mobilising the masses to resist imperialist aggression. Along with that they should continue resisting attacks from the regime while demanding that it stops execution of prisoners and accede the democratic rights of the masses, to allow and ensure their broadest, active, participation in the national resistance war.
