“They shoot women because their hair is uncovered. They shoot students. They just suck the oxygen out from these brave and gifted people, the Iranian people. The decision to act, to rise up this time, is the decision of the Iranian people.” These were the words of Israeli PM Netanyahu in the midst of Israel’s war of aggression against Iran.
In the summum of hypocritical cynicism, he was using the language of human rights to justify a call to overthrow the Iranian regime.
Most people would be repelled by such language coming from the head of the Israeli regime, which is currently waging a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in Gaza. However, the question of the position of revolutionary communists in the so-called 12-day war is worth considering in the light of historical precedent.
In the 1930s, Trotsky waged a polemic about the position revolutionaries should adopt in a military conflict which has many parallels with the Israel-Iran war. We think it would be useful to revisit that discussion.
In 1935, fascist Italy waged a military campaign against Abyssinia (also known as Ethiopia). The aim was clear: to colonise one of the last remaining independent states to have survived the 19th century ‘scramble for Africa’ between the major imperialist powers.
But, as is always the case with imperialist intervention, the invasion was couched in the language of human rights. Mussolini claimed that his was a civilising mission, carried out under the banner of abolishing slavery, much as Netanyahu, the butcher of Gaza, claims he is defending women’s rights in Iran. Of course, in practice, Italian imperialism used pretty brutal methods to “civilise” the Ethiopians, including brutal massacres and the widespread use of mustard gas.
The Ethiopian Empire was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie, a regime which could not be described as democratic in any way, shape or form. This led some on the left to argue that this was a conflict between two dictators and so the workers’ movement should take no position.
This was the position of the leaders of the British Independent Labour Party, including James Maxton. In an article titled, On dictators and the heights of Oslo, Trotsky dismissed this ‘plague on both your houses’, moralistic position:
“They thus define the character of the war by the political form of the state, in the course of which they themselves regard this political form in a quite superficial and purely descriptive manner, without taking into consideration the social foundations of both ‘dictatorships’.”
Trotsky insisted that the main criterion for determining the position of the workers’ movement in the war was not a superficial analysis of the political form of the state, but rather the actual content of the struggle:
“Should a dictator place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people in order to smash the British yoke – would Maxton then refuse this dictator his support? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse his support to the Ethiopian ‘dictator’ who is attempting to cast off the Italian yoke?”
He posed the question in concrete terms:
“If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus [king], however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really be completely blind not to see this.”
As we can see, Trotsky’s position was determined by the understanding that, at bottom, this was a struggle between a capitalist imperialist country (Italy), which wanted to subject a backward country (Ethiopia) to direct colonial domination. He had made the same point a year earlier in a letter to the International Secretariat:
“Of course, we are for the defeat of Italy and the victory of Ethiopia, and therefore we must do everything possible to hinder by all available means support to Italian imperialism by the other imperialist powers, and at the same time facilitate the delivery of armaments, etc., to Ethiopia as best we can.
“However, we want to stress the point that this fight is directed not against fascism, but against imperialism. When war is involved, for us it is not a question of who is ‘better’, the Negus or Mussolini; rather, it is a question of the relationship of classes and the fight of an underdeveloped nation for independence against imperialism.” (our emphasis)
Trotsky returned to the question in 1940, in the context of the debate in the US Socialist Workers’ Party against Max Shachtman. Trotsky was arguing that the policy of defence of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with political solidarity nor support for the actions of the Stalinist bureaucracy. Unconditional support for the Soviet Union and defence of the USSR against imperialist intervention was justified not on the basis of its political regime, but rather on the basis that the Soviet Union had abolished capitalism, that is, on the basis of the social relations represented by the different regimes involved.
“We supported Abyssinia not because the Negus was politically or ‘morally’ superior to Mussolini but because the defence of a backwards country against colonial oppression deals a blow to imperialism, the main enemy of the world working class.” (Balance sheet of the Finnish events)
He stressed this point in his fragmentary notes on the USSR, which he wrote in the same year:
“When Italy attacked Ethiopia [in 1935], I was fully on the side of the latter, despite the Ethiopian Negus for whom I have no sympathy. What mattered was to oppose imperialism’s seizure of this new territory. In the same way, now I decisively oppose the imperialist camp and support independence for the USSR, despite the Negus in the Kremlin.”
There was another time when Trotsky dealt with a similar question. In a discussion with Argentinean trade union leader Mateo Fossa, he argued against the Stalinist policy of ‘democracy vs. fascism’. In Latin America that meant, in practice, that the Communist Parties sided with the rulers and parties that were pro-US imperialism, regardless of their democratic character or otherwise. This policy saw, for instance, the Cuban Communist Party join the government of Fulgencio Batista in 1942 with two ministers.
This is what Trotsky said:
“I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be?
“I will answer for myself personally – in this case I will be on the side of ‘fascist’ Brazil against ‘democratic’ Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.
“The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks, one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!” (Anti-imperialist struggle is key to liberation)
There are, of course, limits to any historical parallels, but we think that the method Trotsky applied to these cases is correct and can be applied to the war between Israel and Iran.
Israel is a capitalist power with aggressive ambitions in the whole region. Behind it stands the most powerful imperialist power on Earth, the US, and all of the European imperialist powers. Its war against Iran is a war of imperialist aggression. This is the fundamental character of the conflict, regardless of the nature of the political regime in Israel and Iran.
Revolutionary communists stand fully on the side of Iran, even though we have no sympathy for the political regime of the ayatollahs, which is a reactionary, anti-working class regime. This is why our slogans in this war have been, “Hands off Iran! Down with US-Israel imperialism!”
