SOCIALIST UNITY

28 December, 2009

EDDIE PREVOST ON 1968

Filed under: Communist Party, Trade Unions, SWP — Andy Newman @ 9:18 am

42 Comments »

Hi Andy

There is a revolution against the theocracy in Iran taking place at the moment. A bit like 1968, over there.

I know that George “It Will Soon Fizzle Out” Galloway works for Press TV which is claiming that there are only sporadic clashes and that the Government has killed nobody.

However Lenin has written a piece that is worth reading, although it appears that he can only support these protests on the basis that the US isn’t involved, which is a pity.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-iran-protests.html

Do you think you could put something up supporting the struggle of the Iranian people to overthrown their dictatorship?

Comment by Anti-Yazid — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Great to see Eddie here. He was one of those who educated me about socialism when I was very young.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:08 am
“Do you think you could put something up supporting the struggle of the Iranian people to overthrown their dictatorship?”

I think that may be difficult. Contributors to SU will be attempting to rationalise this into some Marxist interpretation of history. They will probably argue that this is a clear example of permanent revolution, and therefore in keeping with Gospel of Leon, but a sub group will see it as a Mossad/CIA/MI6 conspiracy.

There will then be a group that sees it as counter-revolutionary and express the need for the suppression of the protests as temporary, and any deaths as unfortunate but necessary for the greater goal of anti-imperialism. And anyway, the dead were petty bourgeoisie from North Tehran.

However, others will see this as the next stage in the incomplete revolution of 1979 in that it became an Islamic revolution and failed to progress all the way to a genuine Socialist revolution to create a workers state.

This will descend into the usual name calling and no-one will ever realise that they are trying to understand a Persian political movement through the distorting lens of western left wing myopia.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:19 am
And what particular distorting lense do you have Boab? Or are you just, you know, down with the kids?

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:21 am
“And what particular distorting lense do you have Boab? ”

A late 20th / early 21st century, educated, middle class, Presbyterian one. And it is lens, not lense.

“Or are you just, you know, down with the kids?”

Please. I’ve not been down with the kids since the early 1960s and even then it was just because I was one.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Right. On what basis do you propose that this perspective is more relevent to an understanding of what is going on in Iran?

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Boab, good post in 3, you banged it on the head sir.

Comment by howard — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Good to see Eddie Prevost again here. It’s so refreshing to see someone whose socialism obnviously comes from his own experience as a working class activist, who manages to speak with committment but without that soul-less hectoring/lecturing style so familiar with many prominent figures on the left. I also like his quote from Tony Cliff regarding political organisation - “If it doesn’t turn out to be any goods, break it up and start again.”

Comment by dennis — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Margaret Mead and Franz Boas first proposed the concept of cultural relativism to assist anthropologists avoid the mistake of understanding the dynamics of other cultures through their own cultural norms. For the far left, the need to see everything in terms of imperialism and class struggle places a distorting lens in front of everything.

This is a Iranian situation that can only be understood in Iranian terms. To analyse it through Marxist philosophy is culturally imperialist. And stupid.

“On what basis do you propose that this perspective is more relevent to an understanding of what is going on in Iran?”

I don’t try to understand what is happening in Iran through my belief system. I analyse it on its own terms.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 11:59 am
“no-one will ever realise that they are trying to understand a Persian political movement . . .”

Any thoughts on the other 49% of the Iranian population?

Comment by Wee Eck — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry in what sense are you analysing the movement in its own terms?

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
‘I don’t try to understand what is happening in Iran through my belief system. I analyse it on its own terms.’

Ho ho. I’m sure someone can tell me in detail why this is bollocks. Me I’m happy just to laugh.

Comment by swp member — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
There are similarities with the west though well for that matter the world,unemployment poverty and the like.I dare say there are socialist in Iran, yet they would be few and far between.On the surface and i will stand corrected it appears to be about the religious grouping of the President, the dodgy election,his governments inadequacy to deal with the rising social issue as stated above,and his governments foreign policies.

Politics and religion are siamese twins in Iran,and if can be believed the president has some shia islam cult thing going on about a 10 centuary Iman, who did not die but is hidden only to return similair to christianity.Politics and religion eh.

Comment by howard — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
SWP member.

I can assure you, it is possible. You just look at the facts first and then come to a conclusion. What SWP members do is start with an opinion and then look for the facts to support that position.

I know that this will be a the first time you have heard this idea, so I will summarise and even take it to the advanced level for you and include a summary of SWP logic for you to compare.

Objective logic.

1 Look at the facts.

2 Come to a conclusion.

3 Examine new facts as they come to light.

4 Adjust the conclusion to fit the new facts.

SWP logic

1 Start with an unproved political theory based on an unprovable historical theory.

2 Look for the facts that might support it.

3 Suppress facts and people that oppose this.

4 Excommunicate anyone who disagrees. Or writes an email without Politburo permission.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Wee Eck

Any thoughts on the other 49% of the Iranian population?

No, as the disturbances have not spread into the other regions yet. But I am sure the Azeris & Co will join in soon.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I know there isn’t a correlation between being right wing and stupid but on the internet it sure sometimes looks that way.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
I think given their disastrous record of misinterpretation of the Iranian revolution in 1979 Trotskyists of all stripes should be a bit chary of claiming any kind of superior “lense” through which to analyse events in that country. Actually, for all his empirical errors, I think Foucault came up with the most prophetic insight, that this was genuinely a revolution of a new type with a profoundly religous character, and that Teheran was never going to be Petrograd, nor Khomeini Father Gapon, or whatever other ludicrous reruns of history far leftists were expecting.

Comment by lone nut — 28 December, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Sorry Lone Nut, have you ever actually read anything written by anyone on the left on the Iranian revolution? Or…anyone else?

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Anyway if you want a debate on the Iranian revolution go to the tomb. On this thread I’d like to discuss Eddie’s talk further.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
#18 johng

I remember talks by Terry Povey on Iran when I was at London univ in 1979.

Tery had been in Iran at the time of the revolution and could give a well-informed account of what was going on. In my local branch we had a comrade who had visted Iran and also filled in some of the gaps.
Now all we have , so far, are accounts in the Guardian (today) and TV reports of the supporters of the opposition on the streets in their thousands in various cities, being brutally put down by the regime whilst showing their respect (and protesting ), on the occaision of the death of a liberal opppositon cleric.
The priest in question had been under house arrest for expressing his oppositon to the regime and I say good on him !
I can’t await to hear more, especially as there are accounts of dissent in the ranks of the police and the militia and growing defiance by the protesters.
What this has to do with 1968 (or indeed 1979) by comparison IMO is too soon to say.
So you see Boab, the view I have (at least at present) is quite pragmatic, wait and see !

Comment by Halshall — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
“have you ever actually read anything written by anyone on the left on the Iranian revolution?” Yes. Virtually the entire far left press from 1979 to 1981, for starters.
Or…anyone else? Yes, hence my reference to Foucault, for example. Did you think I was referring to some bloke I met down the pub?

Comment by lone nut — 28 December, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Halshall

“So you see Boab, the view I have (at least at present) is quite pragmatic, wait and see !”

And as you do so, I add your words to my evidence column and adjust my theory accordingly.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Can I suggest the posters that popped up on this thread, have a read of these articles,

http://www.isreview.org/issues/67/67.shtml

while you’re doing that, the rest of us can discuss 1968

Comment by Richard Searle — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Halshall

I’d be a bit careful about using the word “priest” though. A bit culturally Imperialistic. Scholar, cleric at a push. Priest is a bit dodgy unless you’re talking about Zoroastrians, and then it is safer to use Zautar.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
pardon my ignorance but who is Eddie Pervost??

Comment by ben — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Well if you watch the video you’ll find out.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
#19 johng

Took your advice and went to Lenin’s Tomb.
It made instuctive reading. [what does comprador mean?]
Hmm, interesting clips except the night protest was, well amusing ie: total darkness ! But never mind the last and best one; (best for content that is, but not by artistic standards, it brought a new dimension to camera shake) the sight of an apparently defiant and massive crowd cheering a riot helmet held aloft as a trophy and collecting stones might be indicative of something bigger.

Now to get back to Eddie’s talk on ‘68 ……………………….
Who’s making comparisons ?
History may repeat itself to some extent, but never in the same exact way, not by a mile in fact. Different people, different political culture, conditions, ideologies etc; and different outcomes.
Not rocket science really !

Enough said by me ………………………. over ?

Comment by Halshall — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
I just thought it interesting to find out what people made of his politics. He was in the CP from 1959 till 1972 as an industrial militant, when he joined IS (as then was). I can remember him telling me that in the CP meetings they used to go to sleep when the speaker from Kings street would show up and wake up for the business section.

Anyway I have fond memories of sitting in the back of a car taking us back from Tilbury docks during the miners strike with Eddie and Bob in the front seat discussing the relative merits of Lenin and Trotsky.

Eddie had a decided preference for Lenin.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
#28 Johng

Okay but what about 68 ?

Comment by Halshall — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Well it is connected isn’t it. The new left emerged after 1956 in Britain. 1968 was the year in which these ideas began to take organisational form and the far left emerged across western Europe. Eddie discusses his own responses to these events as a CP member. Its what the talk is about.

Comment by johng — 28 December, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
“But master drummer Eddie Prévost hasn’t renounced the bourgeois pleasures of swing either. Duets recorded in the nineties with Marilyn Crispell and Evan Parker (and mercifully released on his own Matchless label) should instantly dispel any noises about free music being either “cerebral” or “confused”.”

Is this the same bloke?

http://www.monastery.nl/bulletin/prevost/prevost.html

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Boab: @ #14:

SWP logic

1 Start with an unproved political theory based on an unprovable historical theory.

2 Look for the facts that might support it.

3 Suppress facts and people that oppose this.

4 Excommunicate anyone who disagrees. Or writes an email without Politburo permission.

This is pretty much spot on. Dressing theory up as fact, or attempting to force the facts to fit theory, never has happy consequences.

Why don’t they, along with other marxists, accept the faith status of their belief system?

Comment by Daveyboy — 28 December, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
31. This is not Eddie Prevost of AMM fame though I’m sure he would have an equally interesting and erudite take on the subject.(and possibly be able to express such through his kit!)

Comment by brechtian slade fan — 28 December, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
so boab/daveyboy where does theory or hypothesis come into your method?

Comment by swp member — 28 December, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
SWP member…
“so boab/daveyboy where does theory or hypothesis come into your method?”

Once you have worked that out, you’ll be on your way.

Comment by Boab — 28 December, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
#35 Boab

But have you worked it out ?

Comment by Halshall — 28 December, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Out of interest was Eddie Prévost a Maoist? Cardew, and I think, Tilbury is/was.

Comment by VofH — 28 December, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
To swp member #34

I suppose my ‘method’ is in trying to make sure that hypothesis doesn’t escape from its hypothetical status.

And I try to prevent ‘method’ from shaping hypothesis. Probably best to let one test the other, rather have them corroborate each other.
Another concern: isn’t the need for a method something close to the absence of integrity?

I go for learning how to manage the uncomfortable in preference to being eventually overwhelmed by the contradictions that a fallible perspective attempts to disqualify.

Comment by Daveyboy — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
37. His books are available and - a personal opinion - a match for Adorno; his political life arguably also more vital than the latter’s! (ouch). Mind you (J.S.) Bach’s bookshelf famously contained far more works on theology than it did on music (though I suppose anything he didn’t need to know about music hadn’t yet been written.) But then isn’t music the most philosophical of arts; and isn’t the philosophy of change the imperator of revolution? (discuss)

Comment by brechtian slade fan — 28 December, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
See also

Rupture and revolt in Iran:
http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=585&issue=124

Iran’s new rebellion
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10894

Comment by Mazdak — 29 December, 2009 @ 9:38 am
I really enjoyed Eddie’s talk and would have liked to see more of it, were there questions from the floor for example. I recognise the CP he describes from my own experiences, but the problem for me looking back, was whilst the CP marched to the rear of the class on many issues, the IS/SWP was far to far the front of the class, and this being so it failed in the main to connect with the more militant sections of the class let alone the working class people as a whole. Thus in truth it had very little influence within the Tilbury and London docks and Ford motors.

Whilst the Trotskyists stood at the gate selling their papers the CP had shop stewards on site. There were exceptions for sure and they were fine militants. But I cannot help thinking there are lessons to be learnt from this and a talk such as Eddie gave would have been an excellent opportunity to winkle them out.

By the way he is a double of the AMM Eddie Prévost both in voice and mannerism.

Comment by Mick Hall — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
The SWP argued for conditional, political support for the Iranian people’s right to defend itself against US imperialism. An imperialism so duplicitous, it militarily supported both Iran and Iraq in a war that saw the slaughter of millions.

Comment by avatar — 29 December, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

28 December, 2009

EDDIE PREVOST ON 1968

42 Comments »

Leave a comment