(Militant No. 448, 23 March 1979 p. 11 [I think we would today not use the term ‚Islamic church‘])
The first of three articles
By Peter Taaffe
A vast crowd of three million people turned out to greet Ayatollah Khomeini when he returned to Iran. One and a half million people welcomed the Pope when he visited Mexico in January. Similar numbers are expected to greet the Pope when he visits Poland soon.
Do the tumultuous greetings which these church dignitaries received herald a new religious revival across the globe?
The religious colouration which the Iranian revolution appeared to take has certainly confused many workers in Britain and in the advanced capitalist countries as to the significance of the mighty events in Iran. For their part, the spokesmen for capitalism have of course deliberately played up and exaggerated the features of the ‘Islamic revival’ rather than the social context of the revolution.
In the advanced capitalist world, the Church seems to have recognised that religion – Christianity – is on the retreat. Last year, a report in the Evening Standard (29 March 1978) summed up the feelings of the Vatican in relation to Europe:
“Great sections of France, Italy, Holland, Germany are de-Christianised. Many people in these sections are not even baptised. Overall throughout Europe and the Catholic countries, there is no reasonable probability of a religious revival. Religion in the West is banished to the realm of personal belief and family life.”
This verdict of the Vatican is borne out by the situation of the Church in Britain. The Church, which Lloyd George described as a power station serving all (ruling) political parties, has experienced a sharp decline in numbers and influence in the past fifty years. Some of the reasons for this are given in the interesting little booklet published last year, ‘The Cross and the Sickle’ by Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark.
He shows clearly that the church has been a staunch defender of capitalism:
“I came to the conclusion slowly and sadly that the Church of which I was a minister had little to do with the world in which I lived. It was a bulwark of the established regime. In a crisis it could be counted upon to underpin the government.”
“And what was true of Britain, was true, with few exceptions, of other countries – Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Stalin’s Russia. The Vatican, when it thundered against the Left and connived at the Fascist and Capitalist regimes was the spokesman of most denominations, not least the Church of England.” (pages 10-11.)
The open class bias of the churches, at least the tops of the church, was underlined recently in attacks on striking hospital workers by Archbishop Coggan. Mervyn Stockwood shows that this is one of the factors in their decline:
“It dawned on me that religion, especially as practiced by the Established Church, was being used to supply the spiritual varnish for the status quo. It talked about brotherhood and justice, but it was usually on the side of those forces in society which were determined that changes should be restricted to modest amelioration.
“Moreover, the congregations of the churches, still more the legislative assemblies, were destitute of representatives of the working classes. The Church of England was, as it still is, largely a middle-class institution. A national church it certainly is not.”
Another factor which has undermined religion is the enormous increase in man’s knowledge and power over nature. It was fundamentally the helplessness of the savage in his struggle with nature which gave rise to a belief in gods, devils, miracles etc. Throughout the ages the helplessness of all exploited oppressed classes in their struggle against the exploiters generated a belief in a better life after death.
But the tremendous increase in the general cultural level of the population has served to undermine the foundations of religion in the advanced capitalist world.
At the same time, the rise of socialism and Marxism – together with the mighty organisations of the labour movement – which seek to arm the working class with an understanding of the workings of society and a programme to solve their problems, has had the effect of striking a decisive blow at the influence of religion. But as Lenin pointed out sixty years ago:
“In modern capitalist countries the basis of religion is primarily social. The roots of modern religion are deeply embedded in the social oppression of the working masses, and in their apparently complete helplessness before the blind forces of capitalism which every day and every hour cause a thousand times more horrible suffering and torture for ordinary working folk than are caused by exceptional events such as war, earthquakes, etc.
“‘Fear created the Gods’. Fear of the blind forces of capital – blind because the action cannot be foreseen by the masses – a force which at every step in life threatens the worker and small businessman with ‘sudden’, ‘unexpected’, ‘accidental’ destruction and ruin, bringing in their train beggary, pauperism, prostitution, and deaths from starvation.”
These conditions described by Lenin, which still exist in the advanced countries, are increased a hundredfold in the ‘underdeveloped’ areas of the world. There is a colossal reservoir of backwardness and ignorance amongst the masses in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
It is in these areas that the various organised religions have had their greatest successes. There, they claim, the growth of religion is outstripping socialism and Marxism. The churches’ task has undoubtedly been enormously facilitated by the complete failure of the socialist and communist parties in these areas to conduct serious struggles against the military-police dictatorships which sit on the back of the workers and peasants.
Opposition vacuum
Like nature, politics abhors a vacuum. Thus the first stirrings of the masses, particularly the rural and urban middle classes is reflected in the growth of the various Churches. There are many parallels for this in history.
Leon Trotsky pointed out that the only institution through which opposition to the Nazis could be openly expressed, was the Protestant and Catholic churches. The discontent and opposition of the middle class in particular was first of all expressed within the churches.
Marxists – the Trotskyists – supported the Catholic and Protestant churches against the Nazi regime. They demanded freedom of conscience, equal rights regardless of creed, and the right to form organisations.
They hoped the success of the church in the struggle against the Nazi state would prepare the ground for a successful movement of the German working class.
We have witnessed a similar process in Iran over the past period. The Shah’s regime as ‘Militant’ has pointed out, had many of the features of Nazi Germany, with the Shah’s secret police SAVAK emulating all the bestial methods of the Gestapo. All the organisations of the working class, and even of the middle class, with the exception of the Mosque, were suppressed by the Shah.
The mullahs came into opposition to the Shah partly because the land of the Islamic Church was expropriated in the Shah’s so-called ‘white revolution’. Even when some of the land was subsequently returned to its former owners, the church did not receive a similar response from the Shah.
The enormous discontent of the middle class in the cities and in the countryside and also of a section of the working class was expressed within the Mosques.
In turn, the mullahs were forced to echo some of the social demands of the masses, if only in a confused and inchoate form. In general, the more backward the society, and the greater the influence and social weight of the middle class, particularly the rural middle classes, the greater the hold of religion on the outlook of the masses.
Throughout the 1970s, the rapid industrialisation of Iran created a mighty working class. Nevertheless, approximately half of the population still live in the countryside. At the same time, the Iranian working class is a young working class which has only recently left the countryside. It has brought with it the religious prejudices of the rural areas.
Life expectancy in Iran in the early 1970s, was only 50 years, which was one year less than in India! Over 60% of the population is illiterate. These factors, together with the complete incapacity of the Tudeh (Communist Party) to organise an effective opposition to the Shah, resulted in the mass opposition first of all being reflected through the Mosques.
But, as Fred Halliday in his book ‘Iran: Dictatorship and Development’ points out: “The principles of Islam can be read to justify both rebellion and submission to authority.” Each class has interpreted these principles according to its own lights and class interests.
The ‘Financial Times’, for instance, recently quoted a letter submitted by Algerian metal workers during the debate on the national charter in 1976: “Islam up to now has been distorted by the bourgeoisie who have interpreted the sacred text, deforming both its content and very essence, on the pretext that religion supported their actions. The working masses have been duped. That is why we ask for the broadening of the teachings of the true, austere, and militant Islam.”
Islamic rule
In Iran, Khomeini’s interpretation of Islamic principles is opposed by wide layers of the working class and those mullahs close to them. Opposition has rapidly built up to his recent antagonism to the introduction of “decadent democracy” into Iran, to his threat to re-introduce all those ‘Islamic laws’ which seek to perpetuate the enslavement of women, and the secret ‘Islamic’ courts which do not involve the democratic participation of the workers and peasants.
Very quickly, the Iranian working class – the main force which toppled the Shah – will see through Khomeini. The Russian revolution in 1905 started with a march led by the priest Father Gapon. But in the fire of events the working class learnt very quickly and passed beyond Gapon’s vague opposition to Tsarism. This process was of course speeded up enormously by the existence of the Bolsheviks.
One thing is certain: Islam will not put bread on the tables of the Iranian workers and peasants. Nor will it abolish illiteracy and eradicate all the features of backwardness inherited from the Shah.
Only a mass party with a Marxist leadership can achieve this by leading the Iranian masses in the carrying through of the socialist revolution.
Schreibe einen Kommentar