On the Manifesto “Together facing the new Totalitarianism”

Interview with Azar Majedi

WPI Briefing: The Manifesto: "Together facing the new totalitarianism" was published in the French left wing newspaper at the end of February following the publication of Mohamed Caricatures. The Manifesto was signed by 12 well known writers and intellectuals. You were asked to sign the manifesto yourself, how come your name did not appear as the signatory?

Azar Majedi: I refused to sign the manifesto in its original form, where it referred to fascism and excess of communism, as two old totalitarian regimes, two parallel systems, being defeated. Obviously, as a communist I could not sign a manifesto with anti-communist notions. It is true that the manifesto refers to the Soviet system, but by referring to the Soviet system as communist it succumbs to the cold war outlook and anti-communist propaganda. In fact, this outlook falsifies the truth and it diverts the focus and attention from the real problem and its roots. In receiving the manifesto I wrote the following letter to Caroline Fourrest:

Dear Caroline

I would very much like to sign this manifesto because the demands are sound and I share them. But I have one reservation that does not allow me to sign it in its present form. I do not think it is right or justified to condemn communism in such a manifesto. I see this manifesto in the spirit of the cold war. How could we not see the result of US or Western governments' aggression, particularly in recent years, on freedom and on destruction of human lives and human societies. Plus what is called communism, referring to the Soviet bloc is not considered communist by many trends both left and right. I am myself a communist and have fought for unconditional freedom of _expression, secularism, for women's rights and an egalitarian society and fought against political Islam for the past 30 years. I think the phrase excess of communism should be deleted and refrain from stepping into ideological sphere. My colleagues and me have been an important force in fighting political Islam, cultural relativism, and for women's rights and secularism. Our reaction to the sharia courts, to the row over caricatures, to the new moves by the British government to restrict freedom of speech are only few examples of our activities. I look forward to your positive response. I would like to ask you to forward my letter to all those who have signed the manifesto, and hear what they think about my points.

In response to my letter Caroline wrote that the original text had stated excess of Stalinism, and in translation into English it has been changed to Communism. I still had reservations about the outlook of this manifesto. The so-called “Stalinism” is used interchangeably with communism by politicians, journalists, and historians. By condemning Stalinism, the bourgeois camp in fact condemns communism, and not only the Soviet system. By using this concept the manifesto presents a cold war outlook. Having said that, after a long deliberation, I came to the conclusion that the manifesto could have positive effects for its demands and position on many issues is progressive and similar to mine. Finally, I decided to sign it but it was too late and the manifesto was already published.

I wrote this letter to Caroline:

“Dear Caroline
Thanks for your prompt response. This suggestion sounds much better. But I still don't understand the necessity of entering this realm. I still believe this represents the cold war atmosphere and era. I would sign the manifesto, but I would rather not have this phrase at all.”

WPI Briefing: What is your assessment of this manifesto and its impact on raising the profile of critics of the political Islamic movement?

Azar Majedi: I believe that the demands it puts forward are right and progressive. By demanding the right to free speech and criticism and universal rights, by Condemning cultural relativism and by refusing to recognise the validity of the invented concept of “Islamophobia, it takes a solid stance vis a vis some significant inroads made by religious and right wing trends, particularly political Islam. These demands are in line with our party policy. We have worked hard to show the significance of these demands to the attention of the world. Therefore, we see this as an achievement.

I think that in present circumstances the manifesto can open up opportunities to move our cause and struggle for a freer world, for secularism, and against religion forward. This is an important part of our struggle to build a free and egalitarian world. However, this manifesto promotes a liberal ideology which contradicts communism, the ultimate ideology for liberating the world and humanity, to create a world free of discrimination, exploitation, and inequality. To my opinion, it is necessary to make this distinction clear and to explain it to the public. The manifesto wraps some good and progressive political demands in an ideology that at the basis of it is not only incapable of delivering freedom and equality, but stands against it. We should not allow this falsification of world outlooks go unnoticed

WPI Briefing: The manifesto opens with Cold War terminology. What are your comments on this?

Azar Majedi:  To my opinion, it does not only open with cold war concepts, it presents a cold war outlook. One may ask why it is so significant to state this and oppose it. Cold war outlook refers to an ideology which depicts the rivalry between two super-powers as a fight between totalitarianism and freedom. It portrays the Soviet system as communist. At one hand, it equals communism with totalitarianism, dictatorship and deprivation and on the other hand, the free market capitalism with the free world and ultimate achievement of humanity.  This is an outright falsification of real state of the world. In fact, both capitalist poles, i.e. state and free market, benefited from this portrayal.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc, which the manifesto presents as the defeat of one of the two main totalitarian systems, was applauded by free market capitalism as the defeat of socialism, equality and freedom.

As Mansoor Hekmat stated:

“However, what was decisive in the realm of ideas and thoughts was the fact that the rulers of the world and their herds of spokespersons and scrounging propagandists in the universities and media were able to portray the fall of the East as the fall of communism and the end of socialism and Marxism. All these theatricals did not last more than six years, and all indications today suggest that this period of deceit has reached its end. These six years, however, shook the world. This was not the end of socialism, but was a glimpse of what a nightmare the end of socialism could really be and what a swamp the world could become without the herald of socialism, the hope of socialism and the “dangers” of socialism. It became clear that the world- both ruler and ruled _ identified socialism with change. The end of socialism was called the end of history. It became clear that the end of socialism is the end of the expectation for equality and prosperity, of free thinking and progressiveness and of hope for a better life for humanity. They interpreted the end of socialism as the unchallenged rule of the laws of jungle and the right of might in economics, politics and culture. And immediately fascism, racism, ethnocentrism, religion and bullying spilled out of every crack in society.”

Mansoor Hekmat, , Selected works,  “The History of the Undefeated”, pg 333-4.