Remembering Guernica

Stuart Hall - who was interviewed recently in The Guardian* - once asked the great Trinidadian Marxist C.L.R. James ‘about the three great moments in which he could see a single artist speaking on behalf of a whole historical revolutionary moment’.

‘He told me about the Acropolis, even though its architect is unknown. He told me about Shakespeare, and then he told me about Picasso’s “Guernica.” He said, “Look at Picasso. Look at ‘Guernica.’ A wonderful painting. What is it about? It is about the Spanish people. It is about the energies of the Spanish revolution. When you look at “Guernica” you see the whole movement, the whole maelstrom of the Spanish revolution encapsulated in an aesthetic form.”’**

Pablo Picasso’s 1937 masterpiece of ‘immeasurable chaos’ was a response to the Nazi Luftwaffe's bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War on 26 April 1937 - the first ever carpet bombing of an undefended civilian target. With the 75th anniversary coming up this year - and amidst a rising tide of propaganda designed to soften us all up for a military strike on Iran (though see this recent interview with Tariq Ali for why such an attack is currently probably not on the list of top priorities for the American Empire), Philosophy Football's anniversary T-shirt, reflecting Picasso's famous painting, bears timely witness to the collective memory of Guernica.

* Stuart Hall sounds particularly pessimistic in this interview because of his problematic association of Ed Miliband's Labour Party with 'the Left' in Britain. Recently the far-left - not least the SWP - has managed to deeply annoy the Tory Party and its rich supporters with its active and partly successful campaigning opposition to the exploitation of 'workfare'...
** Stuart Hall, ‘C.L.R. James: A Portrait,’ in Paget Henry and Paul Buhle (eds.), C.L.R. James’s Caribbean(London, Duke University Press, 1992), p. 15.

New issue of Revolutionary History

The latest issue of Revolutionary History is now available. This issue, the second volume on the history of the Left in Iran, covers the period from 1941 to 1957, focusing on the Tudeh Party, the only substantial left-wing organisation in Iran in these times.

Episodes investigated include:
* The foundation of the Tudeh Party of Iran in 1941.
* Moscow’s attempt to set up a pro-Soviet autonomous republic in Iranian Azerbaijan in 1945.
* The fake assassination attempt on the Shah and the ensuing banning of the Tudeh Party in 1949.
* The mass campaign to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
* The Tudeh Party’s hostility to Mohammad Mosaddeq and the national- democratic movement.
* The Tudeh Party’s failure to prevent the Anglo-American coup against Mosaddeq in 1953.
* The SAKA, an attempt to build a communist organisation based upon workers’ councils.
* The ideas of Mostafa Sho‘a‘iyan, a maverick Iranian Marxist.
* The continued influence of Stalinism upon the historiography of the Iranian left.
* The course of the Iranian left as reported in documents from the British, Soviet and US official archives.

It has been compiled under the editorship of Cosroe Chaqueri, who has produced a number of pioneering studies on Iran and its left-wing movements, in particular the sole major work on the ill-fated soviet republic on the Caspian coast of Iran, The Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran, 1920-1921: Birth of the Trauma (Pittsburgh University Press, 1995). He is currently preparing two major studies on the Iranian communist movement of the interwar period. He has also compiled over 30 volumes of documents from the labour and left-wing movements of Iran, thus enabling students of Iranian history to read material which might otherwise be forgotten. The first instalment, The Left in Iran, 1905-1940, is still available. A further instalment, covering the period of 1958-1985, is currently being assembled.

Lessons of Egypt for Iran

Lessons of Egypt for Iran: A Socialist Worker Forum

07 April · 18:00
School Of Oriental and African Studies, Lecture Hall G2
Thornhaugh Street
London WC1H 0XG

In January 2011 the Egyptian people took to the streets and in just 18
days successfully overthrew the dictator, Hosni Mubarak. In June 2009
a movement for change rocked the Iranian regime but failed ultimately
to remove the leadership. We ask what can Iran learn from Egypt and
how can the movement move forward from here?

With speakers:
Ali Alizadeh - Philosophy lecturer at Middlesex University and a Green
Movement activist
Alex Callinicos - Author of Imperialism & Global Political Economy and Bonfire of Illusions
An Egyptian speaker

New issue of Revolutionary History on Iran

Revolutionary History, Volume 10, no 2 - The Left in
Iran, 1905-1940

The latest issue of Revolutionary History is now available, and is concerned with the history of the left-wing movement in Iran from 1905 to 1940. It will be of particular interest on account of its coverage of the relationship between the Iranian socialist organisations and those of the Russian Empire, and the impact upon Iranian Communism of the diplomatic dealing between the Soviet Union and the Iranian government after 1917.
This issue of Revolutionary History has been edited by Cosroe Chaqueri, a leading authority on the history of Iran, and the author
of The Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran: Birth of the Trauma (Pittsburgh University Press, 1995). Over its 400 pages, Professor Chaqueri has provided a number of detailed essays on the Iranian left-wing movement, and assembled a collection of over 40 documents from Russian, US, British and French official archives and journals, the majority of which have never previously appeared in an English-language publication.
These documents include correspondence between Iranian socialists and their counterparts in Tsarist Russia; reports showing the involvement of Russian revolutionaries in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution; the rise of realpolitik in Soviet relations with Tehran that led to Moscow's abandonment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran in 1921; and Moscow's close supervision of the Iranian Communist Party.
For ordering Revolutionary History, Volume 10, no 2, The Left in
Iran, 1905-1940, please contact Merlin Press

Preparing Battlefield Iran

Via here, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reports on how the Bush administration has continued and continues to make secret moves against Iran...

See also the Campaign Iran website.

Charlie Brooker on the threat to world peace

'[Bush] says that since the [US intelligence] report indicates that Iran halted its weapons programme in 2003, there's a clear possibility it could start it up again. The very fact that the Iranians don't have a nuclear bomb proves they might still develop one. Therefore, Iran is dangerous.

That's a clever thing to say, because a) the future is unknowable, so it's impossible to tell him he's wrong, and b) the more he says it, the more likely it is to come true. Since Bush has shown that he'll view Iran as a nuclear threat regardless of whether it's got the bomb or not, the Iranians might as well build one. What have they got to lose?

Also, the report doesn't say whether the Iranians are developing a giant laser beam capable of sawing the sun in two, but that's no reason to assume they won't be starting work on it next week. Picture a world in which Ahmadinejad holds us to ransom by threatening to plunge one sawn-off half of the sun into the Atlantic, sending 900ft waves of boiling water rushing toward our shores. We can't let that happen. We've got to get in first: drive a space shuttle into the sun and blow the damn thing up before the enemy get their hands on it. It might solve global warming too. Let's hope the Pentagon is across this. Don't let us down, guys. Knock that baby out.'

From here.

The ABC of Anti-Imperialism

Good points, well made.

For more on the dangers of war on Iran, see Lindsey German's article in the December issue of Socialist Review

Paul Rogers on a clear and present danger

In The fire next time, Rogers notes that the anti-war movement needs to 'be prepared' over the coming weeks:

'To sum up: the US position in Iraq is in trouble, with the surge failing so far to deliver the expected results and a further expansion therefore planned; reinforcements have had to be sent to Afghanistan; meanwhile, the Iranian government is being particularly forceful and US naval forces have moved into close proximity to Iran in the Persian Gulf.

These circumstances will not necessarily result in a tipping-point on the other side of which is war, but at a time of pre-existing tension which they in turn reinforce they do present particular dangers. These are the circumstances in which there is a risk of unexpected events developing rapidly into confrontation, even where the latter is not the intended result. That is the situation the region and the world now faces, and there is little indication that it will ease in the coming weeks.'

Campaign Iran

Just came across the The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran site, which together with the Stop the War Coalition, are probably quite timely sites to visit if you live in the UK at the moment. Apart from Lenin's Tomb, that is, which has compiled an important post about the current situation in Egypt. Also check out The Sharp Side on Iran.

Scarface - Part II

He hated the American Dream. With a vengeance.

'Whattaya lookin' at?...You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fucking fingers, and say "that's the bad guy." So, what dat make you? Good? You're not good; you just know how to hide. Howda lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth--even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy. Come on; the last time you gonna see a bad guy like this, let me tell ya. Come on, make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through; you better get outta his way!'

Scarface - Part II tells the story of one small time gangster, Mahmoud Alpacinojad, who is determined to rise up the international criminal fraternity.

All I have in this world is my balls, and my word, and I don't break 'em for no one, you understand?

After a rapid rise to fame and power, Alpacinojad soon outmanoeuvres his corrupt and weak rival, Tony Blairino. Unfortunately Blairino has some very powerful friends in New York, including 'The Godfather' himself, Don Aldrumsfeld. After Blairino has tooled up with weapons of mass destruction, he meets the powerful heads of the Five Mafia Families in New York. They decide not only to condemn Alpacinojad but also to try and destroy him once and for all...But Alpacinojad is not one to go down without a fight...



'You wanna go to war? Ok, we take you to war...Say hello to my little friend!'

The Primitive Persians

Read Terry Jones on the treatment of the detained Royal Naval sailors by Iran...

In defence of the memory of a Revolution

'To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger...Only that historian will have the gift of fanning the spark of hope in the past who is firmly convinced that even the dead will not be safe from the enemy if he wins. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.'
Walter Benjamin, On the Concept of History.

I was struck by this quote of Benjamin's in the context of the looming threat of war on Iran. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said the idea that George Bush wants to bomb Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons, is 'completely nuts'. He is right - the consequences of such a strike would be disasterous - but the problem is that the US ruling class - George Bush aside - are not 'nuts' but know exactly what they are doing. They have 'unfinished business' in Iran they need to settle. This month's Socialist Review has a timely and excellent article by Chris Harman on how they need a future war on Iran to erase the memory of a past revolution which challenged their power:

'George Bush, wounded by his inability to crush resistance to the occupation of Iraq, wants to show that the might of the US can punish people anywhere in the world who disobey its orders - whether in the Middle East or in Latin America.

Many liberals and some of the left refuse to see this. They see the Islamic republic as a backward theocracy, steeped in medieval barbarism, and virtually fascist. The regime does have all sorts of reactionary attitudes and practices. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has an attitude to gays and women not a million miles away from that of the current pope, or the Christian fundamentalists in the US.

But Iran is neither medieval nor fascist. Ahmadinejad became president by getting the votes of some of the poorest people in an election which split the country's ruling layer. Iran is in fact a capitalist country, but with a state very much shaped by the struggles that convulsed it in the wake of the revolution of 1979.'

Though the revolutionary struggle of the working class in Iran was lost - the wave of reaction that followed had an important difference from most other waves of reaction which follow:

'Sections of the bazaar capitalists and the clergy around Ayatollah Khomeini wanted to maintain their independence from the US while smashing the left. They were also afraid of cutting themselves off from masses, who still expected to gain from the revolution. So in 1980 the Khomeini group backed students occupying the US embassy, and moved against their previous "moderate" bourgeois allies.

Anti-imperialist language won them the popular support to hit out at opponents of all sorts, using a bombing campaign from the then left inclined Islamist organisation Mojahedin-e Khalq (which went on to support Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and is now an ally of the US) as an excuse for massive repression.

This sealed the Khomeini group's domination of the post-revolutionary state, allowing it to establish a constitution in which there are elections, but vetoes on what elected politicians can do. But it also earned Iran the undying hatred of US imperialism, which will no more forgive what it did to the US embassy in 1979 than it will forgive Castro's Cuba for taking over US-owned sugar plantations in 1959.' Anyone who stands up against US power is not safe from Bush and Blair's 'war on terror', even those past fighters who are already dead.