A Look at the Right-wing Deviation of the “Left”

By exploring the philosophical outlook of political currents, one can actually understand the modus operandi of thier mindset, thus uncovering the basis of their theoretical flaws. Basically, every thought is based on a certain philosophical tendency, even if the beholder of that thought is not aware of it. For indeed, philosophy, in general, is nothing but the way we perceive the world. And this perception itself is based on a type of logic, because the basis of philosophy is logical thinking.

In my opinion, the right-wing deviation within the “Left” comes from its philosophical outlook, and this philosophical outlook, as mentioned, consequently stems from a certain type of logic. A look at the views and the way this “Left” works shows that its philosophical outlook is closer less to Marxism and more to philosophy before Marx. That is, in the philosophical outlook of this “Left”, one can find both; elements of dialectics as well as that of materialism, but only in a defective and formal, not dialectical relationship with each other. In other words, the outlook of this “Left” is more consistent with and related to mechanical materialism and Hegel’s idealistic dialectics rather than Marx’s materialistic dialectics. However, this very fact, in turn, has caused this “Left” to resemble Marxism, and it is this semblance that gives them their power of attraction. An attraction that, of course, fades when confronted with Marxism (materialist dialectics).

The Tudeh Party is a clear example of this reality. We only need to look at the 70-year performance of this Party to see its effects clearly. For example, we see how this Party—both during the monarchy and the Islamic Republic—instead of fighting towards the overthrow of the ruling regime, has always sought compromise and integration with it; always sought to melt into it. Is this not but an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable? Isn’t this Hegelianism (Gradualism)? It is not without reason then that this Party doesn’t have nor has ever had a revolutionary program for seizing power on its agenda. Because this Party has always, and in all circumstances, called for peaceful political work and gradual changes (reforms). In reality, the “revolution” sought by the Tudeh Party is essentially nothing more than “reforms” and has no other meaning—a project that, of course, has been unconditionally pursued by this Party and its followers for 70 years, and yet has not taken our people’s struggles even a single step forward, but has instead hindered them wherever it has been able to.

The Tudeh Party is cited here as an example because this Party is a common denominator that actually encompasses a large part of the Iranian “Left.” This means that whether in the realm of theory or in that of practice, we are faced with a wide spectrum that, despite differences in name or form, collectively represents a single tendency, and the Tudeh Party is a perfect indicator of this tendency.

And as for the materialism or “objectivism” of this “Left”, the scope of its understanding of materialism does not go beyond the limits of causal relations and that of formal logic. This means that in the worldview of this “Left”, the dialectical relations between phenomena are generally reduced to a mechanical relationship between cause and effect, and even these causal relations themselves are presented in an inverted form: instead of explaining the superstructure of society with regard to its substructure, on the contrary, it makes the superstructure the basis for explaining the substructure.

In fact, this “Left” lacks a specific analysis of the specific conditions of Iranian society. Instead of providing this type of analysis, it tries to explain the ruling system in Iran through the lens of a stereotypical understanding of the capitalist system and its political superstructure, and then it compares this stereotypical image with Iranian society. But since the political regime ruling Iran; namely naked dictatorship, does not correspond to the classic forms of capitalism developed in Europe, it is, therefore, unable to provide an explanation of capitalism in Iran. As a result, this “Left” falls into a delirium.

In fact, instead of analyzing the capitalist system ruling Iran and understanding its inseparable relationship with dictatorship—that is, without seeing what kind of capitalism this is that cannot be maintained without practicing naked dictatorship?—it uses form as a basis for explaining the content and, in a word, bypasses the problem itself. This means that upon seeing the authoritarian superstructure ruling society, part of this “Left” evaluates the ruling system as pre-capitalist , while another part attaches adjectives such as “ unconventional ” or “ Islamic ” to it, etc.! These are empty and meaningless characterizations that have no conclusive, theoretical basis and do not add even a bit to our knowledge of the nature of the system, and can only be a source of complacency for this “Left” itself.

By observing religion in the political superstructure of the system too, this “Left” reaches exactly the same conclusions as it did by observing tyranny in the political superstructure: it either arrives at pre-capitalist forms or at an “unconventional” type of capitalism! Because its guiding logic is unable to delve into reality.

As it is clear, this “Left” does not understand or cannot understand that in principle, it is futile and impossible to explain the economic system of any given country in the world, without considering its relationship with and its role in the relations of imperialist capitalism that dominates the world. In other words, if we say that the capitalist system is a global system, we must consider this globality as an organic whole; as a global “organism”, and as a result, we must understand and explain the economy of this or that country within this organism and as part of this whole. Only in this way can we come close to understanding the ruling system in any given country.

The fact is that the approach that proceeds from form to content; the approach that explains the base with the superstructure, is prone to superficiality. This approach never understands the essence of phenomena. And precisely because it does not properly understand the essence, it does not properly recognize the form either. That is why it sees behind the reaction and tyranny of the ruling regime, not the imperialist dictatorship—which constitutes the basis and inseparable part of the dependent capitalist system which indeed rules Iran—but rather “Oriental tyranny,” “religious tyranny,” an “unconventional” type of capitalism, etc.

As long as we cannot properly understand the nature of the capitalist system that governs Iran, we will remain incapable of understanding the real reasons and roots of tyranny, oppression, and inequality in our society. And as a result, instead of fighting against the content, we will go to war against the form; instead of confronting the basis of dictatorship, we will make the dictator the basis of confrontation. And perhaps once again we might overthrow a “dictatorial” regime without overthrowing the “dictatorship”!

A. Behrang

January 28, 2020