its plans for a democratically elected Constituent Assembly. Instead, it on the issue of press freedom. The proposed to set up an The decision to drop plans for democratic elections clearly represents an attack by the Islamic leaders on the gains won by the Iranian people in their struggle against the Shah. The reason behind it is quite clear: they fear that their version of an 'Islamic Republic' is increasingly being questioned by the masses and they want to clamp down on any discussion of 'alternatives'. CONFLICT Their fear is well-justified. During the lead-up to the Shah's overthrow, there was a general concensus among the people who marched together under the label 'Khomeini's people'. The uprising was, itself, the climax of escalating actions in which it seemed that the whole nation was involved in a common fight.
Now that the Shah has been toppled, however, there exists no agreement as to the development of the revolution or the type of society to emerge from it. On the contrary, it is clear that growing divisions have emerged amongst the once-united forces on clear class lines.
The tasks of the Bazargan government-appointed by the Ayotollah-have been to establish a stable capitalist rule by calling on the masses to give up their arms, abandon their self-elected 'appointed body' of 40 people to discuss the draft of a new constitution to be submitted, later, to popular debate.
committees in the army and in industry and meekly return to work.
OPPOSITION This attempt to clamp down on the democratic rights of the Iranian people has, inevitably, brought the Bazargan government into head-on conflict with the masses in three main areas: * Workers, who made the February revolution possible by their general strike, are not prepared to accept the mass unemployment meted out to them. Mass demonstrations have taken place-as on government attempted to close down the leftist daily paper Ayandegan by calling for a boycott. Newspaper sellers were threatened by Islamic thugs and the papers' offices were attacked in a number of towns.
Mass support for the paper, tion and it immediately became with a circulation of nearly one million. In contrast, the sales of since pro-Khomeini journalists staged a coup and removed from the editorial board all leftist' journalists.
CLAMP-DOWN It is this growing willingness to consider other views which explains why the Bazargan government has decided to postpone the elections to a Constituent Assembly. It realises only too well that point for the discontent building up among wide layers with the idea of an 'Islamic Republic' They would mean public debate and discussion in which socialist not 'legal'--would be able to participate and present their views.
son committee followed by a referendum, Khomeini hopes to preserve a 'semblance' of democracy while actually reducing democratic debate around the future course of the country to a bare minimum. He hopes to avoid the development of a crystalised opposition which, pioneering the growing discontent, might pose a socialist solution to the people' problems.
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY Opposition to the clamp-down is growing, however. All the left and liberal organisations-with the possible exception of the pro-Moscow Tudeh Party and pro-Peking Sazman Enghelabi-have launched a vigorous campaign against the Khomeini proposals.
They have already begun to receive wide backing in the labour movement and among the oppres sed nationalities, particularly the Kurds who have threatened themassembly. however, meant that within a fort- Union. night it was able to restart publicathe country's most popular journal Kayhan have dropped sharply ever they could become a national focal Chinese people.
PARALLEL organisations-which are at present By appointing instead a 40-perselves to set up a Kurdish national The fight for a democraticallyelected Constituent Assembly is going to be a crucial one in the development of the Iranian revolution. Around the struggle the oppressed masses-workers, oppressed nationalities, peasants and women-can begin to unite to say 'no' to any attempts by the (Below, PETE MARAIS takes up many of the questions socialists have to come to grips with in their day-to-day struggles in the unions, etc. Contributions to the column will be gratefully received.) "If you're so keen on the Soviet Union, why don't you go and live there?" Most socialists have come across this reply when trying to convince others of the need for socialism. And it doesn't come just from died-in-the-wool Tories either. Many trade unionists are confused and suspicious about 'socialism' because of the grotesque model held out by the Soviet The reply is quite valid, particularly when you consider some of the crimes committed by the Kremlin leaders in the name of socialism. There's no need to go back to the purge trials of Stalin's day. You have only to consider the persecution, today, of Soviet dissidents like Grigorenko, the general muzzling of free speech and cynical deals with the west.
The situation is much the same in China which is equally lacking in internal democracy. Just consider the bureaucratic 'ousting' of the vilified 'gang of four. This abrupt switch in the central leadership of the Chinese government was accomplished without the slightest consultation of the With such totalitarian rule, what is there for socialists to defend? Not to change the subject, let's discuss a parallel situation. Considering the enormous sell-outs by trade union leaders, how can one support the unions against the bosses? How can one support the TUC against the Tories when the slump. same TUC, last year, sold out the firemen's strike and earlier this year that of the NUPE workers fighting for a decent living wage?
For thinking trade unionists, the answer is not difficult. Long experience has shown that the worst union is better than no union at all. No class-conscious unionist would argue that defending the unions against the Toriesdefending, for example, the right to picket-means defending the bureaucrats who live off the unions. Generally speaking, it's the best fighters against the bosses who see most clearly the need to get rid of the bureaucrats.
For such unionists, the fight to remove the bureaucrats in the TUC is a key part of the fight against the bosses. But they keep I their priorities straight. They religious hierarchy or anyone e'se to determine their future for the..
The Iranian socialists in the Hezb Karegaran Socialist have : := sistently made the call for a free elected Constituent Assembly ore of their central slogans from the start. Its enormous importance is now becoming clear. know that the fight against the bosses comes first. A socialist attitude towards the unions is much the same as one towards tre USSR or China.
DEMOCRACY Socialists support the USSR against the capitalist West because 50 years ago, the Soviet people abolished capitalism, nationalise: industry and introduced a plane: economy for use and not prost Today, the Soviet people-still living in a hostile capitalist circecontinue to do without may material things. But their stance:: of living is still vastly better the before the revolution.
A similar case can be made ::: China. Before its revolution.:: was-like India-engulfed i! setingly insoluble problems. B: while India remains a cess: misery, post-rapitalis: C*m made mjaor steps forward despita the often ruinous policies of Me: and his heirs. A striking thing about the planned economies i: these countries is their ability to provide jobs for all who need them. Contrast that to the West where unemployment is endemis as we move ever deeper into a Such economic conquests are worth defending by socialists jus: as a union-despite its leaders-s worth defending against any attempts by the bosses to curb its rights. Such defence doesn't mean, however, any support at a. for the cynical cliques who run these countries and who daily crush the democratic rights of tre Soviet or Chinese people.
While defending these econt mies, socialists support each an i every struggle towards true socia ist democracy. Such a task is ire task of the Soviet and Chinese people themselves-aided by the world labour movement. Learing it up to the likes of 'human rights Carter is like leaving it up to Fords or British Leyland to ge: rid of the bureaucrats in the T&GWU or the AUEW.