In recent days Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was heard to say, "I believe that Feb. 11 marks the demise of the liberal capitalist system." In all probability, he was not boasting of an impending terrorist operation. The date in question is the anniversary of Iran's Islamic Revolution, which signifies for Ahmadinejad the decline of the West. Referring to America, he further explained that "the hegemony of arrogance has been undermined. Nations do not trust it anymore. Its principles are under question. Its efficiency is close to zero. Its power curve is dropping quickly."
Sometimes a person who celebrates your demise has a point. During a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Ahmadinejad said, "If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles." Well, that may be a bit hypocritical -- since the power-seeking of the Islamic revolutionaries includes their own quest for nuclear weapons. What nearly all observers will overlook, however, is the way Ahmadinejad divides the rest of the world into two camps. He calls these camps "liberalism and Marxism."
Now where did he get this extraordinary idea?
In the West we're taught that Marxism died with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But this is an error, since Marxism thrives in our midst and has appropriated to itself the liberal label. One could say, with justification, that today's liberals are Marxists while today's conservatives are liberals. For those who do not understand old terminology, a Marxist is a Communist. For example, the ruling Communist Party in China is Marxist. The Communist Party USA, and many of its front groups (which may, perhaps, include at least one of America's major political parties), is Marxist.
The goal of Marxism is to establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat." According to a Soviet textbook on the subject: "The proletarian state re-educates the workers and peasants in a spirit of socialism; it frees their consciousness and behavior from private-ownership mentality and from such survivals of capitalist society as egoism, individualism and money-grubbing; it forms a socialist state of mind and makes them realize that they are the true masters of their country. The proletarian state searchers for and promotes, from among the masses, people with a talent for organization, otherwise it is impossible to build socialism."
While the global press focuses our attention on Ahmadinejad's statement about "the demise of the liberal capitalist system," they will neglect his statement about "liberalism and Marxism." Everyone knows that the Cold War ended in 1991. It was drilled into us, long ago, that there is no longer an "ideological struggle" between the communist bloc and the West. We have been told that Marxism is dead. But the president of Iran lists Marxism as a force in the world, along with liberalism. Taking into account the help that Iran has received from Marxists in China and North Korea, Ahmadinejad explained that the liberal United States had been the "biggest impediment" to the Islamic Revolution: "It is clear that the materialistic and hegemonic system has reached the end of the road, in theory and practice. Forty years ago when someone mentioned the name of America, many would drool. In the minds of many, America was a mythical and invincible power."
Now, he says, the power of America is broken -- or nearly broken. And what about the Marxist power? Perhaps there is a myth here, as well; namely, that Marxism passed away quietly, though we should hardly refer to someone like Hugo Chavez as "quiet." Of course, the Latin American loudmouth is an exception to the rule. Marxists have been quiet. In fact, they have remade themselves into liberals, going about in disguise. Such camouflage is strategically useful; for there is little profit in setting off alarms, especially when you are effectively "breaking and entering" into the capitalist heartland itself.
In a Soviet text on Communism by Kharis Sabirov, we read: "In the course of its emergence and evolution a communist formation passes through three basic stages: (a) the period of transition from capitalism to socialism; (b) socialism -- as the first phase of the communist formation; (c) full communism, as its highest stage." According to Sabirov, "It is impossible to deprive the deposed bourgeoisie [i.e., middle class] of its privileges and advantages immediately. This can only be done in the course of a relentless struggle by stamping out the sources of its might and power step by step. Once the bourgeoisie is removed from power, it feverishly starts finding schemes for restoring capitalism. The nature and content of its schemes and the ways of carrying them out, change as the socialist revolution becomes more established."
Here is the true "demise of the liberal capitalist system" -- at the hands of Marxism. President Ahmadinejad is aligned with the Marxist camp, at least for now. He does not emphasize his country's enmity with allies like Russia, North Korea and Communist China. These have provided him with the means to develop Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities. And why have they done this? The Russians have done so in order to place an upward pressure on oil prices -- to the benefit of the Russian leaders (whose current arms buildup depends on the profitability of Russian oil exports). As for China and North Korea, Iran serves as a strategic lightning rod. The military attention of the United States has been diverted to the Persian Gulf, and to concern for Israel.
There is also a strategic provocation underway. This, above all, must be understood. A strategic provocation is an action that goads your adversary into over-reaction. Recent examples abound, including major historical events. The 9/11 attack, for example, was a strategic provocation. The basic idea was for Muslim terrorists to attack the United States. This would lead to an American over-reaction that would place the United States in a position of ongoing enmity with the entire Muslim world. It may be said, that the 9/11 provocation was partially successful. In the aftermath of the attack, American troops entered two Muslim countries. Several years later, American troops are still in those countries. This has damaged America's image, as it has fueled anti-American propaganda around the world. Marxists in every country can now refer to "American imperialism," and few will laugh at them.
To ignite yet another war in the Middle East is an objective of the Russian strategists. That is why Russia has helped Iran to develop its nuclear power. And once again, that is why Iran's Ahmadinejad says that the Islamic Revolution of 1979 struck a telling blow against America. Russia does not appear to be an "arrogant hegemonic system." That is because the Russian system is hidden, and doesn't openly boast of its leading role. In fact, the very Marxism inherent in the thinking of the Kremlin's top leaders, is hidden from view. If there is to be a "provocation," let the provocative power be Islamic rather than Marxist. The Kremlin bosses can even take pleasure in the fact that there is more overt Marxism in the attitudes and policies of the U.S. president than in the policies of the Russian president. And therefore, when Ahmadinejad speaks of two forces outside of Islam, there really are two forces; and it is the demise of liberal capitalism that the Iranian leader intends to celebrate.
