Save Trotskyism from the Trotskyists!

As the US and Israel lay waste to Iran, it’s obvious to a lot of people around the world where to stand. Not for most Trotskyist tendencies, though. Among leftists who won’t take a straightforward position in defence of Iran against imperialism, Trotskyists are overrepresented.

They turn up at protests with placards calling: “No to war” and “Hands off Iran”. They denounce war in general, imperialism and oppression. They publish articles of abstract geopolitical analysis that include every point under the sun. Except that there’s a side to be had in this conflict: for the defeat of imperialism. If they mention that, it’ll be buried on page 9 of a nine-page article.

This isn’t what Trotskyism is supposed to be. If you judge by what Trotsky himself stood for, Trotskyists should be the most consistent anti-imperialists. As Trotsky explained, defending Lenin:

Most Trotskyists today, however, take the opposite approach. For them, it’s important to swim with the stream of petty-bourgeois public opinion, and especially to avoid rubbing the trade union officials the wrong way. So they capitulate to imperialism. There needs to be a struggle inside the Trotskyist movement for the defence of Iran against imperialism in order to build a revolutionary opposition to the imperialist ruling class, and to rescue the reputation of Trotskyism.

Strikes and strike-breaking

Many Trotskyist groups outright reject the defence of Iran, equally opposing the US waging war to subjugate Iran and Iran fighting against subjugation. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SP) and Socialist Alternative (SA) all share this scandalous neutrality between oppressed and oppressor.

Their main justification is the reactionary character of the Iranian government. It’s true that the Shia theocracy is a hated oppressor of women and national and religious minorities, which slaughtered thousands of protesters in January. But to criticise the regime without defending the country against the imperialists who are devastating it is completely social-chauvinist.

Take the example of a strike. Most strikes are led by union bureaucrats who make a profession of maintaining class peace. But when these bureaucrats are forced to call a strike, it is necessary to support the struggle despite its leadership. Anyone refusing to do this because the leadership is in the hands of bureaucrats would rightly be branded a strike-breaker. And any socialist tendency producing long analytical articles about the strike, denouncing the leadership and obscuring the fact that there was a side to take in the struggle, would rightly be reviled by the strikers.

As Trotsky explained, the struggles of oppressed nations against imperialism are doubly progressive because on one side they create more favourable conditions for national development, and on the other they deal blows to imperialism. For that reason, he insisted: “In the struggle between a civilized, imperialist, democratic republic and a backward, barbaric monarchy in a colonial country, the socialists are completely on the side of the oppressed country notwithstanding its monarchy and against the oppressor country notwithstanding its ‘democracy’” (“Lenin on imperialism”, February 1939).

The Iranian regime’s political authority comes in large part from its posture as the defender of the country against imperialism. To win the allegiance of the masses of the Middle East, it is necessary to show in practice that it is Trotskyists who are the best fighters against imperialism. Trotskyists in the West who renege on the defence of Iran cede the terrain to the mullahs. And they discredit Trotskyism in the countries that are oppressed by imperialism.

The SP calls for “unity of the working people of the Middle East and internationally in a struggle against our common enemies”. But there is only one way to unite the working people in the Middle East with those in the imperialist countries whose rulers are devastating and enslaving the region. The workers movement in the imperialist oppressor countries must actively fight for the defeat of their own rulers.

The implications of opposing both sides in the war can be seen concretely in SA’s call: “Workers across the Middle East should coordinate strike action against the war. A regional general strike should be prepared” (internationalsocialist.net, 4 March). This perspective is one thing for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whose governments are abetting the US-Zionist onslaught, or in the UK. It is quite another in Iran.

What would a general strike against the war in Iran look like? It would actively stop the production, transportation and delivery of the drones and missiles used to defend the country against attack. It would directly assist the US and Israel in pounding the country into rubble. This is a totally reactionary position.

Pacifism disarms the movement

The answer to the war in Iran for the Socialist Workers Party and most Trotskyist tendencies is to build an anti-war movement together with the liberals, left Labour MPs and trade union officials. Since these elements oppose the war on a pacifist basis, pacifism dominates the Trotskyist tendencies, too. In its paper, the SWP accepts that Iran has the right to defend itself. But the SWP doesn’t build the movement on that basis; it mobilises around pacifist calls to stop the war. Defending Iran is a red line for the British ruling class—you will never get a Labour MP on the platform if you organise on that basis.

The Labour government is assisting the American war in the name of peace and de-escalation. The pacifism of the left Labourites, the Greens and the trade union officialdom echoes this hypocrisy. Zack Polanski demands sanctions against Iran instead of bombing. The TUC condemned the attack by the US and Israel…and condemned Iran for defending itself. “Progressive” trade union officials petitioned Trump and Starmer to return to diplomatic talks, the whole purpose of which was to disarm Iran at the negotiating table. At bottom, they all agree that the imperialists should bring Iran to heel; they only differ on method.

Britain is assisting the US to protect the “special relationship”, the fundamental basis for British imperialism’s standing in the world. To stop British involvement in America’s war will require the kind of action that threatens the ruling class’s interests at home. Because they support the predatory aims of their own ruling class, these union leaders will never take the kind of action needed.

To mobilise the working class as a factor in the conflict, it is necessary to drive a wedge between workers and their leaders who, as Trotsky put it, serve capitalism “directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena” (“Trade unions in the epoch of imperialist decay”, 1940). But the SWP and the SP sanitise the statements of the trade union bureaucrats, covering up their support for sanctions and their condemnation of Iran.

It is impossible to build an effective opposition to the war while remaining within the bounds of bourgeois respectability. This was the main lesson of the Palestine movement, which brought tens of thousands out to protest for almost two years. Despite the popularity of the cause and the commitment of its activists, the movement failed to stop the British government’s support for Israeli genocide. What held the movement back? It was built to attract the support of Labour MPs, union officials and liberals. That meant it never went beyond what was acceptable to public opinion: bourgeois pacifism, human rights and international law. This ruled out all the most effective methods, like working-class actions to stop weapons shipments, and made the movement powerless.

The task of Trotskyists in this movement was to fight the leadership’s pacifism and conciliation of the Labour government, to build an anti-imperialist pole. What did the SWP do? They repeated the same slogans as the rest of the movement, allowing it to stagnate and collapse. Having drawn no lessons, they are repeating the same mistakes in the Iran war.

Are you a Trotskyist?

In the Twelve Day War, the Revolutionary Communist Party took a correct stand in defence of Iran—but almost a week after the conflict was over. This time, when war broke out again, they started by taking a side. Good, this is a step forward. However, the most correct position in the world is meaningless unless you fight for it inside the left and workers movement.

But the RCP’s position for the defence of Iran is buried in articles and isn’t the basis for its intervention. In France, its comrades at least issued a polemic against leftists who don’t stand for the defeat of imperialism. Not, however, here in Britain. Like the SP and the SWP, the RCP’s main slogans on the war, “Hands off Iran” and “No to imperialist war”, go with the flow of Labourite pacifism. This does nothing to challenge the hold of the pro-imperialist Labourites and union officials on the anti-war movement, which should be the whole point for Marxists.

The British RCP did publish a polemic, “The trade unions and the war on Iran” (communist.red, 12 March), which makes correct criticisms of the union leaders, despite its fatuous optimism about mass radicalisation of the British working class. But it doesn’t even mention the need to take a side in the war. The “sharp turn in strategy and tactics” it advocates comes down to building a mass demonstration against the war and showing how this “links to the crisis of capitalism itself, which has done so much damage to our lives”. Meanwhile, the unions are bankrolling Labour, which is in government assisting the American war effort.

What constitutes a revolutionary intervention is not denouncing capitalism or waving red flags but fighting to take opposition to the war out of the hands of those who support and conciliate imperialism.

US imperialism is on an offensive, raining death and destruction around the world in order to defend its rotting empire. The workers movement is tied by its leadership to the British imperialists, who support their American cousins because they depend on the US empire for their standing in the world. It is necessary to fight this influence to bring the workers movement to its feet against imperialist depredation abroad and at home. Instead, most Trotskyists are capitulating to British capital’s lieutenants inside the workers movement.

Trotskyism cannot continue to be tarnished by such concessions to imperialism. We live in an epoch where this will cost dearly. A fight must be organised.