Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo

Shari'ati and Marx: A Critique of an "Islamic" Critique of Marxism/ : "" Author(s): Assef Bayat/ Source: Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 10, Marxism and the Critical Discourse/ ,)0991( pp. 19-41 Published by: Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo and American University in Cairo Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/521715 . Accessed: 10/05/2011 20:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cairo. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo and American University in Cairo Press and Department of English and Comparative Literature, American University in Cairo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics.

http://www.jstor.org

Shariati A Critique Critique of of

and an

Marx "lglamic" Marxigm

A^^efbayat
[1]

Manyhave describedAli Shariatias the "ideologue" or the "architect" the IranianRevolution of 1979 1. He has been of representedas both an intellectual, who from a radical Islamic viewpoint, offered a vigorous critique of Marxism and other "Westernfallac-tes" and as a reformationist 2, Islamic writerwho was simultaneously"influenced Marxistsocial ideas"3. by There is little disagreement on Shariati's role in transforming refining the ideological perspectiveof millions and of the literateIranianyouth. Shariatiprovidedhis audiencewith a firm and rigorous ideological means, by re-interpretingIslam through "scientific" concepts employed by the modern social sciences, an interpretationwhich the traditionalIslamic clergy were incapableof formulating. Back in the late 1970s, when the University students in Tehranwere involved in Islamic versus left debates, I observed how the rival "Islamicstudents"would rely almost totally on the teachings of the muCallim+ (or the teacher) to supporttheir fierce discussions.At thattime each ideological camp had its own organization, meetings, study groups, library, mountaineering trips, dress code and most importantly,a distinctive discourse. Both groups would compete avidly in their activities. However, at times they had to make an ad hoc tacticalalliance,for instance during strike-planning, leafleteering and similar sensitive activities. Both groups had heroes too. We had our own heroes, and they had theirs. The men we praised were internationally known: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro,Fanon, Che Guevara,Mao, and similar people. Their heroes were as diverse as ours, if not
Alif 10 (1990) 19

God-Worshipping Socialist,

;J L f w 1S :,5 L Js xl the

ImamMusa IqbalLahouri, from Al-Afghani, more.Theyranged Khomeiniand Masoud Sadrto Janghali, the Rezaii brothers, of was For Rajavi. them,however,Shariati, the greatest heroes. Shariati's seeming intellectual sophistication was politicalstandwhichwouldcapture with intertwined his radical conditions in the spiritof his audience thosetenseandrepressive itselfperhaps reflected sophistication in Iran.Suchan intellectual of in the fact thatnot one seriouscriticalassessment his works by has thus far appeared Iranianintellectuals4. On the other political standwas manifestedin his massive hand,Shariati's popularity in the anti-monarchyrevolution of 1979 when and thousandsof his lecture-tapes pamphletswere circulated among the basically Islamic youth. His reputationtravelled into beyond Iran, and the bulk of his works were translated Malayand otherlanguages.He was English,Arabic,German, Islamic contemporary as regarded one of the most prominent thinkers. [2] Ali Shariatiwas bornin 1933 in a village locatedin the northern Khorasan where he completed his primary and secondary schools education 5. His mother was from a local Islamic family,andhis father,a well-known land-owning to thinkers his critical modern who and thinker teacher introduced of Movement had father formeda short-lived Shariati's students. Socialists, in which Ali was a memberand God-Worshiping his throughwhich he acquired first criticalIslamiceducation. College, he Duringhis college years in the MashadTeachers' in studiedArabic,and translated 1956 AbuZarrGhafari.The who was critical of storyof the famouscompanion the Prophet, continuedhis studiesin Mashad of the early Caliphs.Shariati In languages. the meantime, in University the ArabicandFrench group,in revivingthe withhis father's he was involved,together outlawedNationalFront,originallyfoundedby the nationalist PrimeMinisterMossadeq,in the late 1940s. For this activity, in spenteightmonths prison. and Shariati his comrades He travelledin 1956 to Paris,thenthe capitalof a major
20 Alif 10
(1990)

colonial power, where he spent some several years. This move proved to be a watershed in Shariati's political activities and intellectualdevelopment.This period coincided with the intense anti-colonial struggles throughoutthe world. He began to study philology at the Sorbonne,becameengagedin anti-imperialist and student politics, edited two anti-regime Persian journals and translated a few books by radical and Marxist as well as Orientalistwriters including: Ouzagan, Che Guevara,Jean-Paul Sartre,FrantzFanon, and Louis Massignon (a famous expert on Islamic mysticism), and developed a keen interest in Western Orientalismand radicalCatholicism.He was also exposed to the ideas of French sociologists such as Raymond Aron, Roger Garaudy, Georges Politzer, and specially the eminent French dialectician,Georges Gurvitch. In 1965, he returnedto Iranwhere he was immediatelyput in jail for eight months for his political activities abroad.In the following years he spent five years in Mashad, teaching at the College of Literature,and most of the remainderof his life in Tehranwherehe began the most productiveperiodof his political and intallectual life. From 1969 until 1972, he lectured at the Husseinieh Irshad,a modern Islamic center in northernTehran. His lectures were either taped or published in several dozens of volumes, the most importantof which being multi-volumeIslam Shinasi l;z X1 (lslamology ). They were circulatedwidely among Muslim youth. The Husseinieh center was shut down in 1972 by the governmenton the groundsthat it had become a breedingground for the Mujahedin Khalq, a radical Muslim group which had launched armed struggle against the Shah's regime. Ervand Abrahamian, Iranianhistorian, believes that the conservative an clergy also played a partin stoppingShariati's lectures,since they feared that Shariati was not promoting Islam, but Western philosophies, especially Marxist sociology. After the closure of the Husseinieh center, Shariati was arrested,and charged with having connections with the Mujahedin.He was released from prison aftereighteen months. Upon his release, a series of essays was publishedin the widely-circulated daily paper,Kayhan,%S.
Alif 10 (1990) 21

S , (Man,lslam Marxism), and wereattributed to Shariati.

The essays, entitled, Insan, Islam va Marxism

X1.w,>;1

In 1977,he managed leavethecountry. month to A afterarriving in England,he suspiciouslydied in London.At the time in Tehran,we, both the leftists and the Islamic groups, never the doubted involvement SAVAKin his death,although the of Britishauthorities relatedhis deathto a massive heart-attack. Whateverthe cause, SAVAK was to be blamed. His death, contrary the hopes of those who dislikedhim increasedhis to popularity,and made Shariati a virtual legend among his supporters. [3] Whilethereis littledisagreement Shariati's on ideological and andpolitical andpopularity, nature his ideological role the of political stand, his intellectual and perspective beena matter have olD debate.More preciselya confusionsurrounds "Islamic his Marxism", attempt utilizecertain his to modern Marxist concepts suchas: "class exploitation", "classstruggle", "classless society", "imperialism," -- linking etc. themwiththeteachings the shiite of leaderssuchas ImamAli, ImamHusseinandAbuZarrGhafari (whomShariati calledthethefirst"God-worshipping socialist")6. and In those tense days of the pre-revolutionary conjuncture, against the backgroundof the grand left-Islamic division ., Shariati's ideas provided,on the one hand,the groundsfor a possiblediscursive betweenthe two tendencies, on the link and other,a deep confusionamongus -- a confusionaround what Shariatiindeed stood for. Adding to this confusionwas the appearance 1977 of the pamphlet in entitled: Insan, Islam va Marxism in which Shariatisystematically dealt with Marxist principles. Aboutten yearslaterI hada chanceto read,in a less confusedstateof mind,an Englishversionof the very sametext undera new title Marxismand OtherWesternFallacies, in a by book-likecollectionby the samename,whichwas published MizanPressin Berkeley, California. Sincethistextis believedto representShariati'smost intense discussion of Marxisman attempt be madeto dealwithit in somedetail. will

22

Alif 10

(1990)

[4]

In general, the text, which is a critique of the existing humanistphilosophies including Marxism,draws upon a radical Islamic conception of man. On the whole the book consists of four majorthemes which will be discussed in turn. First: The Western philosophies -- Western liberalism, Existentialism, and Marxism -- do possess an humanistic perspective.But theirconceptionof humanismis materialistic. Accordingto the text, Westernhumanismrests firmlyupon the mythological perspective of ancient Greece. In this perspectivethereexists a constantstrugglebetweenhumanityand the gods who want to maintainman in darknessand ignorance. Here, man is praised and is given a high value in contrastto the gods. This humanism,therefore,establishes a distance between man and god. The text argues that all these great humanists --fromDiderotand Voltaireto Feuerbach Marx-- have indeed and equatedthe Greekgods which are tyrannicaland anti-human with the spiritualconceptions of God such as Ahurmazda,Rama, the Tao, the Messiah and Allah. Since these philosophers have wrongly generalizedthe Greekcontradistinction humanversus of God and spirituality,their humanismis earthly,un-heavenlyand in a word materialistic. No wonder the communist societies are not much differentfrom the bourgeoisones in theirconceptionof man. In both, everythingculminates in man; both disregard"the spiritualdimension of the humanessence" 7. Westernhumanism is considered atheist in another sense, for it considers man to possess, as his human nature, a moral conscience which determines his moral values and which acts as a substitute for God. The text contends that Western humanist philosophies which postulatea distance between man and God are ignorantof the Easternreligions such as Hinduism,Islam and sufism. These religions are based upon the unity (not distance) between God and man, thus theirhumanismis heavenly. Second: Even though, the text goes on, we may concede thatthe Westernhumanistand intellectualcurrents may possess in theirtheoriesa liberatingprinciple,in practice,they have lost this aspect of their reality. Take, for instance, Marxism which promised to liberate man from the inhumanityof capitalism. In
AliflO(l990) 23

reality, it shared quite the same attitudes towards man as capitalism, i.e., adherenceto mundane prosperity,materialism, consumerism, etc. On the other hand, religions such as Christianity,Islam and Taoism too declined from the liberating ideologies into the bureaucratic, power-hungry and materialistic church or clericalism, to mass formalities, taboos and superstitions. Similarly, the spirit of the Renaissance (which meant liberationof spirit, of science, and of the intellect) turned into capitalism,scientismand liberalismcharacterized egoism, by opportunismand consumption, and in which faith, ideas, love, the meaningof existence andman did not get attention. Third: Since Marxism,unlike other Westernideologies, is a comprehensive ideology, dealing with economics, politics, ethics, history, philosophy, etc., it is the strongestrival to Islam andmust be dealt with thoroughly.The text, then, takes the major philosophicalissues of Marxismto distinguishit from Islam. To begin with, like other Westernhumanistschools, the text claims that Marx'scritiqueof religion is based upon the Greekhumanist philosophy which sees opposition, rather than unity, between God and man. Islamic understanding, the contrary,is derived on from the conception of tawhid s, unity. Religion, in Marx, goes beyond rationality and signifies the helplessness of man. Whereaswe in Islam, the authorasserts,believe that conceptions of heaven and hell are rationaland scientific. On the other hand, Marx basing his argumenton the conceptions of infra-structure and super-structure, views man as a part of the latter reducing him to the tools, considering religion, ethics, morality, man's virtues as determinedby economic forces. Hence, man has no independentand noble reality -- an idea that Islam totally rejects. In quite the same fashion, the author charges Marx with not giving man any signiElcant place in history.In Marxisttheory,the text goes on, man is logically incapablesince he is the creationof his environment.Historicalchanges are not the outcome of man's role, but of the contradiction between the forces and the relations of production.If that is the case, the text wonders, what aboutall these martyrsin history,upheavalsand revolutions. Finally, this Marxism which boasts to be the ruthless critiqueof capitalismhas ended up sharingthe same values with it. Both systems, capitalism and communism, are in practice
24 Alif 10(1990)

based upon "productivism", "mechanism","techno-bureaucracy", "acquisitiveness","economic competition" and "materialism". Whatis now being criticizedas Stalinismis in fact a continuation of LeninismandeventuallyManism itself. What distinguishes socialism from capitalismis that in the latter a (bourgeois) ruling class owns or controls the means of production,whereasin the former,the state takes control. Fourth: Only Islam, the text contends, possesses true humanism. In Islam, humanism is a collection of the divine values in man that constitute his morals and religious cultural heritage. Drawing on the Islamic concept of tawhid, man is viewed as a contradictorybeing possessing the dual essence of clay and divine spirit, of dust and God, and the will to choose one over the other. It follows that, first, in Islam man has a nobility not on its own but only in relationto God; secondly, man has a destiny; thirdly, man has a choice. Possession of choice confers upon man a responsibilityto elevate himself from being dust towardsunion with God (this is very similarto the Hegelian concept of absolute idea which evolves from nothingness to becoming everything). This responsibility or mastuliata for Shariatiis a highly critical concept as he tends to extend its implicationsfromthe realmof philosophyandtheology to thatof politics. Thus, he implicitlycalls upon the ThirdWorldmasses in generaland the Muslims in particular, elevate themselves from to captivityto become the "regents God on earth", deliverance. of to (This approachis also similarto Marx'sHegelian metaphorof the developmentof class from being "initself' to that "foritself'). Responsibility to liberate ourselves, meanwhile, implies self-reliance; more precisely it means cultural, political, and strategicself-reliancewhich in plain political languagemanifests the strategy of "neitherEast nor West", neither capitalism nor communism,but "return self'. to
[S]

Without doubt the text appears to exhibit a powerful critique,from an Islamic vantagepoint, of the Westernhumanist philosophies, in particular of Marxism. The text gives the impression that it has been written by an author who, while
Alif 10 (1990) 25

deeply involved in his own indigenous intellectual traditions, seems to be well awareof the rivalEuropeanintellectualcurrents. Back in the late 1970s in Tehran, the Husseinieh Center, an part in modern"mosque" an affluentnorthern uncharacteristically of Tehran(Gholhak)where Shariatideliveredhis lectures,would be overflowingwith people, not just the radicalMuslims,but also the leftists. At thattime, we could not conceal our admirationfor Shariati's knowledge of Marxism. Perhaps his seemingly profoundcritique,combinedwith his radicalpolitical stand,made thinker Ali Shariatiappearto be the most influentialrevolutionary history 8. in recentIranian Marxismand Other WesternFallacies, however, contains some importantmethodological shortcomingscombined with a serlousmisreadingof Marx--the focal point of the text. To begin with, if the idea of ideological self-reliancemeans "don'tborrowideologies from others"-- a stand sharedby some contemporary "indigenizers of social sciences" who grant prominenceto the regional nobility of ideas -- then we must say that Ali Shariati himself borrowed considerably from Western intellectual currents,from Hegel to Heidegger and Marx. As a matterof fact, there is nothing wrong with borrowingideas and theorlesas long as, of course, they are relevant. One majorargumentof the text against Marxismis related to the latter'sconception of religion and man. We summarized contentionabove. His critiquein this regardappearsto Shariati's me to be methodologically problematic. First, as Shariati acknowledges, Marx'sconception of religion was materialistic. Accordingto Marx,certainsocio-economic circumstanceswould shape the religious ideas, structuresand their evolution ( Marx indeed was quite critical of Feuerbach whose analysis of was Christianity theologicalandnot social ). But the text does not try to offer an argumentto refute the validity of Marx's above mentionedtheory. Secondly, in his critiqueof religion, Marx generally refers to social implications or social principles of Christianityat the time when, as Ali Shariatiwould agree, the church'sconservative classes was far from complex. role in relationto the subordinated It is true, Marx's knowledge of religion was limited to Christianity and Judaism. He was not very familiar with the
26 AliflO(l990)

Easternreligions: Islam, Hinduism,Taoism, etc. A tenable criticism Marxshouldbe baseduponhis limitedknowledge of of worldreligions.Indeedmanyof the critiquesof Marxtend to generalize conception religion thencriticize on this his of and him score. This kind of criticism is obviously an invalid one. In additionsuch a generalization plainly functionalist not is and Marxist,as Marx'smethodologyis foundedupon the idea of contradiction. Plekhanov Lenin,however,wereagainstreligion.But and whatmadethemso, as theBritish historian V.G.Kiernan argues, was the existence "of a vast peasantpopulation, steepedmost deeplyin Russiain religiosityof a peculiarly superstitious sort whichhadalwaysbeenverymuchat theserviceof thetsars" 9. Indeed, Marxists adhere historical who to materialism, such as E.P. Thompson,George Thomson,Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran lo do not hesitateto acknowledgethat every religious movementhas both a progressiveand reactionary trust.Thus, GeorgeThomsonas early as 1949 declaresthat "there two are Christs,one of the rulers,andone of the toilers"11. Certainly, Ali Shariati's categorization Safavidshiite(theestablishment of shiite)andAlavid shiite(combatant mass'sshiite)is not so and dissimilar Thomson's to view of Christianity. Concretely,this is indeed reflectedmost vividly in the divisionof churchin LatinAmericainto a conservative Church and a radical one. It is because of understanding such a of contradiction, of the dualcharacter religiousmovements and of thatsuchMarxists Klugmann Britain, as in PaulBaran Paul and Sweezy in the U.S.A. have now started a dialogue with progressive Christianity. In dealing with Marx'snotion of man and religion, the book concentrates critiqueheavilyon Marx'sconceptionof its infra-structure super-structure. thetext'sinterpretation and I find of theseconceptshighlysimplistic.The text almostexclusively drawson one of Marx's oftenquotedandshort(sometwo pages) texts,namely,the Prefaceto the Introduction the Critique to of PoliticalEconomy,in whichMarxformulated, by no means but elaborated, theoryof historical his materialism. Shariati appears to have failed to understand that all the elements of "super-structure" including religion, ethics, politics, culture,
AliflO(l990) 27

by as morality,etc. are not so much determined conditioned the economic base of the mode of production, by the means of production. Thus, Shariati contends, religion, culture and humanity are supposedly reduced to tools. However, this does not seem to be what Marxstates.A readingof Marxin his totality suggests that this "super-structure" is conditioned (not determined) by the economic base. Besides, this relationship and between "super-structure" "base"is by no means one way, but dialectical, that is, the ideas, religion, culture, etc. have diverse effects on the "economicbase" too 12. Interestingly,the author does acknowledge in some parts of the text that Marx recognizes the role of ideology, awareness, and human ethics. However, failing to locate these in the general Marxist scheme, Shariati claims that Marx is inconsistent. The same argument holds true in relationto the role of man versus history,and I shall not elaborateon that. Another methodological problem of the text is that throughout,Marx'sideas are considered to be identical with the "otherMarxists",i.e., with the leaders of the "existing socialist societies". By viewing the existing socialist societies as the materializationof Marx's ideas, he totally ignores the rigorous critiquethatthe Marxiststhemselveshave levelled againstthe past andthe present-dayatrocitiescommittedin the name of socialism and Marxism. Lumping together Marx, Stalin, and Khrushchev as the embodiment of Marxism is the equivalent of lumping Shariatiwith AyatollahFazlollahNouri, AyatollahKashani( two prominent conservative clergy of the twentieth century) and Ayatollah Khomeini as the embodimentof Islam. If there is one Islam, so is thereone "Marxism". Indeed what the text describes as the human evils in the present "socialistcountries"may, perhaps,be true.Technocracy, bureaucracy,productivism,"theseevils of the human essence", characterizein fact both the capitalistand the "actuallyexisting socialism".Nonetheless, it has to be stressedthat, equatingthese two systems seems to be a gross simplification,if not ignorance. It must be statedthatthe kinds of criticismbriefly discussed above of Marxism -- namely, the one relating to concepts of the and "super-" "infra-structure", occurrenceof revolutions,the role of man in history, the conception of man, the practice of
28 Alif 10
(1990)

socialism, etc.-- are not new. The big names of Western academia, non-Marxist and Marxist alike such as Karl Popper, RalphDahrendorf, Daniel Bell, HerbertMarcuse,to mentiononly a few, have alreadysettled accounts with Marx. What is original in Shariati'sapproachis his attempt to counterpose Islam as a comprehensivereligion, philosophy and an intellectualcurrentto Marxism.He attemptsto offer an alternativeIslamic conception of man defined and operationalin an alternativeIslamic society; that is, Islamic humanism conceives the nobility of man not in relation to himself, but in relation to God. This original contention,however, continuesthroughout book to remainan the assertion;it is not discussed, nor elaborated,nor substantiated. [6] At the outset, we pointedout thatShariatiwas describedby some authors as a writer who had been influenced by Marxist social ideas and as one upholdingthe sociological ideas of "Marx, the social scientist". On the other hand, Marxism and Other Western Fallacies which appears to be the most systematic discussion of Marxism by Shariati, illustrates a clear distance between Ali Shariatiand Marx.Where does Shariatistand,then? Does Marxismand Other WesternFallacies representShariati's view of Marxism?The fact is that much of this text is of dubious authenticity. As Hamid Algar, the editor of the series, points out in the Preface to the book, back in 1977 when Shariati was released from his second imprisonment, one of his essays despite the author's disapproval appeared in an Iranian daily newspaper, Kayhan. The Shah's regime attemptedto present Shariati as a collaboratorwith the authorities.That text later was reprintedin the form of a pamphletby Muslim studentsabroadunderthe title Man, Islam and WesternSchools of Thought.The present book is in fact a translation from this text which was then publishedby Mizan Press under the coordination of Hamid Algar, a British-born Muslim scholar who has devoted his press to publishingthe works of prominentIslamic writers,especially the Iranian religious authorities including Ayatollah Khomeini, AyatollahMutahhari Ali Shariati. and
Alif 10 ( 1990) 29

In the late 1970sin Iran,two mainradicalpoliticaltrends regime.First,the the to appeared raisetheirvoice against Shah's in were manifestations exemplified Islamictrendwhosemilitant Marxist Khalq;second,the of the organization the Mujahedin of activism theFedaeen withtheorganized identified countetpart and cooperation alliance to The Khalq. regimeattempted prevent of any sort between the two tendencies. The conservative to wouldnot hesitate dismisssucha meanwhile religiousleaders publicly.I can the possibilityof alliance,denouncing Marxists the still remember systematicattacksof AyatollahMutahhari, Ayatollah Mofatteh( both of the Husseinieh Center ), and of Minister theIslamic the MehdiBazargan, firstPrime especially in Republic, against the "materialists" the Oqba mosque in Tehran,Gholhak,in the autumnof 1977. But unlike northern those of the conservativeclergy, the overall writings of the influentialAli Shariatiwould not advocate sectarianismby denouncingthe Marxistsas atheists or immoral.Indeed, he left" the wouldpraise "revolutionary ( chap-iinqilab-i,Ss;I ) people"13.So, for who would"work the benefitof the deprived of newspaper in it is highlylikelythatwhatappeared theKayhan version was a fabricated bookis a translation, whichthe present text. of theoriginal of As a matter fact, I was able to readthe originaltext in Persian in Tehran in 1977, and I find some considerable differencesof tone and emphasisas well as some omissions the text.Forinstance, Persian betweenthisbookandthe original fromMarx textthatI havereadendswiththis famousquotation to referring that "I am Marx,I am not a Marxist" by Shariati who "Marxists" would with frustration his contemporary Marx's in does not appear thepresent his distort ideas.Sucha statement book. [7] Was link Whatthenwas Shariati's to Marxism? he, in fact, a Marxistwho disguised himself under the Islamic mantle? he not was Shariati certainly a Marxist( although did consider by himselfas a socialist), buthe was surelyinfluenced Marxist as fromMarxsuchkey concepts "class socialideas.He borrowed "classlesssociety'l( or nizam-i "classexploitation", struggle",
30 Alif 10
(1990)

tawhidi, + ;), "historical determinism", "imperialism", "infra-structure","super-structure","surplus value", and "permanent revolution"applying them systematicallyin his critical works. As Ervand Abrahamiancorrectly observes Shariati's paradoxical attitude towards Marxoriginated fromhis identification not one, but threeMarxes:first, the younger of, Marx, predominantlya philosopher, who was seen as an economicreductionist, atheistandstrongly anti-religion; second, the mature Marx,mainlya social scientist,who discovered the laws of motionof societies,developedthe theoryof historical (noteconomic) determinism, promoted notionof "praxis" and the andrevolutionary practice; third,the olderMarx,chiefly a and politician, whom Shariati identified with other Marxist "politicians" as KarlKautsky, such Engelsandeven Stalin,who, in his opinion,compromised idealsof the oppressed the masses in theirdailypoliticalacts.Shariati rejected firstandthethird the Marxes, was influenced the secondone 14. but by Abrahamian's explanationwould seem more plausible when one considered Shariati's two most recent works: Jahatgiri-yi tabaqat-i Islam t1 es b , ( lnhe ClassBias of Islam) andOmmat imamatu1a 1 ( Community va and Leadership In theseworksin whichhe dealswiththe politics ). and economics of Islam, Shariatisystematicallyemploys the above Marxistterms.Yet, at the same time, he seems to give different meanings to some of them. For instance, Shariati borrowed his theory of knowledge from Marxism but he ultimately moved toward phenomenology15. His historical determinism nothingbut the will of God;his conceptionof is class, influencedby Georges Gurvitch,a prominentFrench sociologist in the 1960s, was not economicclasses formedby economic interests,but politicalclasses forgedby immaterial factorssuch as religiousbeliefs, symbols,traditions, customs, andcultural norms.Withsucha politicalconception class, he of contends in theThird that World, especiallyin Muslimcountries, the only class capableof bringing abouta profound changeand providing leadership nottheproletariat theintellectual is but class ( Rowshanfikran ,DlAi=a;).In addition, while he acknowledges that religions are part of the "super-structure" societies, of Shariatibelieves that shiism was uniquelydifferentfrom the
Alif 10 (1990) 31

against the clergy andfiqh, the Islamic jurisprudence. "Our

othersand that it alone could shape the economic basis of a society16 concepts,he certainMarxist re-interpreted Justas Shariati of concepts Islam.Forhim,the fundamental some also redefined of Biblicalstoryof CainandAbel is only a symbolization class ( Cain the between oppressors/exploiters ) and in history struggle of ( exploited Abel). IntizarJlLl ( or anticipation theoppressed/ of the re-emergence the twelfth Imam) means not passively waiting for justice, ratheran active involvementin struggle is the in -injustices a struggle whichachieving objective against betweenthe Shiismtoo is a subjectof class struggle a certainty. turnsit to a meansof The and oppressors the oppressed. former ), Shiite" andthe latterto an ideology ( domination the "Safavid ). or ( of liberation "Alavid redShiite" The Ulamaa 1X, or the clergy, should bear the heaviest responsibilityvis a vis the development of oppressive Shiism. The clergy, by their fatalism, monopolistic control over the simple-mindedness, of interpretation Islam, kept true Islam from the masses, and Shiism finallyby theiralliancewith the powerful,transformed ideology. creed froma revolutionary intoa conservative Also, accordingto Shariati,blasphemy( kufrX ) is appliedto "thosewho deny the existenceof God and "never" and soul",but to those who are unwillingto take "concrete" of actionforthecause17.Becauseof sucha conception objective as did kufr,Shariati not dismissthe Marxists, did the clergy,on atheists, materialists, that the grounds theywerephilosophically critique a he and amoral kuffar,iS. Instead, developed sustained
c

left, mosques,the revolutionary andour [lowerlevel] preachers (woutaz aJ )", he declared,"workfor the benefit of the the peopleandareagainst lavishandlush(donyadaran deprived and jurisprudence give Butourfuqaha; Wiiwhoteach )1D1L). In and capitalists conservative. short, are verdicts, right-wingers, 18. ourfiqh worksforcapitalism" [8] towardMarxism(for and approach paradoxical Shariati's As World. a matter it) against is by no meansuniquein theThird
32 Alif 10
(1990)

of fact, it represents typicaltendencyamongthe post-colonial a radicalintellectualsand anti-colonialpolitical activists in the under-developed countries.His approach was sharedby those with whom Shariati was either associated directly or intellectually. Theyranged fromFrantz Fanon,AimeCesaire, to Kwame Nkrumah,Julius Nyerere, Kenyatta,Ben Bella and others.In the post-warperiod,these elementsembarked upon "alternative" politico-economic projects whichwerebasedupona declared refutation capitalism emphasison nationaland of and indigenousresources,values, and traditions.In practice,the "third-way" development strategyemergedas the development orientation this new trend.This strategywas embodiedin of various kinds of "indigenoussocialisms" including Arab, Baathist, African"socialisms" well as the "non-capitalist as path of development" . JuliusNyerere Tanzania of argued 1962: in The foundation, and the objective, of African socialismis the extendedfamily...."ujamaa", then, or "familyhood"describes our socialism. It is opposedto capitalism, whichseeks to builda happy society on the basis of the exploitationof man by man;andit is equally opposed doctrinaire to socialism whichseeksto builda happysocietyon a philosophy of inevitable conflictbetweenmanandman.We, in Africa,have no more need of being "converted" to socialism thanwe haveof being"taught" democracy. Both are rootedin our own past --in the traditional societywhichproduced Modern us. African socialism candrawfromits traditional heritage recognition the of "society"as an extension of the basic family
unitl9.

A similar of argument adopted President line was by Nasser of Egyptin his SocialistCharter (Al-Mithaq ,J,L11) published in 1962, and the militaryofficers in Peruwho took over power followinga coupin 1968. This new ideological trend manifested itself, in the intellectual domain, thetendency "Third-Worldist in of populism" among the radical Third World intellectualswho sought to distancethemselves from"orthodox Marxism" rely on their and own deep-rooted ideological heritage. Conceptually, "populism" hashaddifferent connotations. instance, For populist regimesare those which tend to adhere to a nationalisticideology and
Alif 10 (1990) 33

classes of on policy,resting the support thepopular development peasants,and "thepoor")as theirsocial basis, while (workers, the policywithin framework economic a promoting statecapitalist used state. of an authoritarian Ontheotherhand,GavinKitching the term to denote a developmentpolicy which offers an i.e. alternativeto the "old orthodoxy", large-scale industrial to by development giving precedence small scale versuslarge versusindustry, andruralversus agriculture scale production, 20. development urban here,I meanan analytical populism", Worldist By "Third and ideological framework which represents a blend of anti-industrialism, anti-"dependencia", radicalism, nationalism, the blames general This anti-capitalism. perspective andsomehow nationswholly on the of "underdevelopment"the ThirdWorld fact of their (economic, political and especially cultural) of intellectuals The countries. radical on dependence theWestern periodseemedto cling to this the ThirdWorldin the post-war fromeach differed they although perhaps perspective, ideological to otherin termsof the degreeof theiradherence the defining etc. anti-capitalism, i.e. elements, anti-industrialism, But what was the origin of this ideological tendency? which was paradigm Perhapsone sourceis the "dependency" suchas Raul economists chieflyby theLatinAmerican originated by Prebischin the 1940s and laterdevelopedand popularized such economists as Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, Dos and Cardoso Theotonio Santosin the 1960sand Ferdinando a theoryprovided majorcritiqueof the 1970s.The dependency dominant "modernization"theory which explained the stagein their of underdevelopment the ThirdWorldas a natural It eventualevolutionto a high stage of "massconsumption". that an organicrelationwith the advancedcapitalist stressed The dependency countrieswould acceleratethis "take-off". of the attributed underdevelopment theThird theory,in contrast, into the world World ( the periphery) to its incorporation capitalist system (the centre), through unequal exchange, in However, its analysisof imperialism. and colonialism modern the between centreandtheperiphery, of therelations domination the unit of analysis becomes "regions", "nations" and thansocial classes.Thus,in the dependency rather "countries",
34 Alif 10
(1990)

paradigm, ThirdWorldcountriesor nationsare exploited/ the dominated theadvanced by capitalist countries. implication The of thisparadigm thestruggle for against domination thecenter a of is strategy nationalunity,i.e the unityof all classes in a given of ThirdWorldcountryincludingthe workers,the peasants,the poor, the students,the old and new middle classes and the "national bourgeoisie". This strategy impliesthatthe "national" classes,withdifferent oftencontradictory and interests, should be unitedto forma national allianceagainstimperialism. However, withinsuchan alliance, political economic the and interests the of subordinated classesareoftencompromised sacrificed the and to benefitof thedominant ones (e.g. workers not to go on strike are against theircapitalist "allies", intellectuals not to criticize or are theirnationalrulingparties,etc.). The influentialdependency paradigmis partlyresponsiblefor the nationalismand Third Worldistpopulismof the radicalintellectuals the political and leaders thedeveloping of countries. However, Third Worldist populism (i.e. a mixture of nationalism, anti-capitalism, anti-industrialism an ambivalent and attitude towards Marxism) theradical of Third World intellectuals was largely the product of the objective socio-economic conditionsof theirown societies.To begin with, most of these countrieswere ex-colonies. Capitalistcolonialismhad left a devastating impact theirsocialandeconomic on fabric, distorting their indigenous culture, traditionsand value systems. The onslaught of capitalist colonialism generated at least two tendencies: first, a backlash against capitalism as a socio-economicsystem as well as industrialism Western and technology 21, and second, strong national unity against colonialism. Indeedthe existenceamongtheradical intellectuals of thismixture of nationalism anti-capitalism ( and ) characterizes theircontradictory ideology.In thiscontext,theconcepts class of and class struggle were either overshadowedby those of "people", "nation", "masses", wereredefinedin orderto and or fit in theproject thearticulation nationalism/anti-capitalism. of of Thus,Shariati cameto defineclassnotas aneconomic entity,but in the firstplace as a politicalone, with the intellectuals the as drivingforce of the society.AndJuliusNyererewas convinced thatthe conceptof "classstruggle" does not applyto a society
Alif 10 (1990) 35

of whichis baseduponthe principle ujamaa (suchas Tanzania) (or familyhood). In the latter, he argued, there exists a convergenceratherthen a conflict of interestsbetween the members. to Therewas still a thirdfactorwhichcontributed such a the absenceof a class redefinitionof social classes and thus politics among these intellectuals.These countrieswere still only a workingclass constituted The non-industrial. industrial or whereasthe transitory the small fractionof the population, "the poor", and the state masses ( the peasantry", declasse employees ) formedthe large majority.On this background, were in socialism particular and in politics" general Marxist "class politics. and by likelyto be overwhelmed populism nationalist socialconditions and imperialism particular Whilemodern of the Third World turnedthe radical intellectualsin these with and anti-capitalism, a sympathy countriesto nationalism, Stalinist policiesof the economicideals,the pragmatic Marxist USSR in the post-warperiodmade those familiarwith these policies weary of Marxism.These intellectualsresentedthe withthe rulingclassesof Parties of compromise the Communist by they werehorrified the In addition countries. the developing invasion by the USSR of Hungary in 1956 and then in Czechoslovakia 1968, as well as by the Stalinistrepression who insidethe Soviet Union. A segmentof those intellectuals They of unaware these eventsbecamefirmMarxists. remained tended either to dismiss the Stalinist atrocitiesas bourgeois ways. or nonsense, to justifythemin various in that It is well-known the politicalimplication, the Third versus Imperialism of World,of the globalpolarization Western formal emergenceof the EasternStalinistsocialism was the position in Movement 1961.Whilethenon-aligned Non-Aligned came underdoubt of certainpoliticalleadersin the Movement forcedthemto enterinto later( as the exigenciesof realpolitik alliancesof varioussorts with this or that camp ), the radical intellectualscontinuedto seek genuinelyindigenouspolitics, economics, and ideology. Specially against the cultural to imperialismof the West, they called for a "return self", stressingnationalidentity,indigenousvalue systems and the culturalheritage.In both Latin Americaand the deep-rooted
36 Alif 10
(1990)

MiddleEast,religion, a deep-rooted as cultural form,wasutilized as a means of political struggle,and in Africa, so were the pre-colonial cultural organizational and norms.However,while in LatinAmerican countries, to theirrelatively due moreadvanced class structure, radicalCatholicismand LiberationTheology operated by side withclass politics(e.g. Marxist side socialism, Syndicalism,and Anarcho-Syndicalism), the Middle East, in because its slow paceof modern of classformation, weightof the the Islamicideologyhas by far been heavierthansecularclass politics.In thesecountries, withtherelative exception Turkey of andMorocco, subordinated the classeshavenotbecome"mature" enoughto articulate expresstheirinterestsand aspirations and through theirowndistinct language, concepts institutions. and To do so, they have had to "borrow" elementsfromthe dominant culturalformsand institutions. Islamhas becomethatcultural form.Thuslike manyof his ThirdWorldcounterparts quite but uniquein his own country, Shariati Ali (who was deeplyweary of modernimperialism awareof its cultural and traits,who was socialized in the conditions of a global rivalrybetween the capitalistWest and the "Marxist" East, and had evolved in an un-industrialized semi-colonial and nativeenvironment) resorted to religion(Islam)as an ideologyand cultural value which,he thought, was deeply rooted among the Iranianmasses. He blended Islam with the Western (mainly Marxist) sociological/political conceptslaunching Islamicreformation his as a pathto thesalvation his nation. of
[9]

The readermightwonderaboutthe pointof dealingwith issuesraisedin thebook,Marxism OtherWestern and Fallacies, if theauthenticity thetextis in question. reasonis thatthe of The ideas,thediscourse theproblematics and utilizedin thisbookand attributed Shariatihave now assumedvalue and relevance to independent theirauthor. of Theyhave become,perhaps thanks to the reputeof Ali Shariati, cornerstone a rigorousand the of modernIslamiccritiqueof Marxismamongthe Iranian radical Muslimyouth.Afterall, in thosetensedaysof pre-revolutionary Iran, it was such texts ( indeed the very same text under
Alif 10 (1990) 37

Mastale-ye Ijtimaii eil 1; ^

,5-)2

An Evaluation of

discussion ) thatwould nourishour rival Muslim group.The fact is that illusion, imagination, distortion, all these "un-real"and entities possess a real existence and follow real, "un-authentic" and at times, very serious implications.A critiqueof the "un-real" is, and "un-authentic" thus, in order.

I would like to thank Ali Ashtiani, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Ervand Abrahamian,Nicholas Hopkins and Linda Herrerafor theirsubstantiveand editorialcommentson the earlierversionsof this article. None of them, however, is responsible for any error of fact orjudgementthe articlemay contain.

NOTES: 1 See for example ErvandAbrahamian"Ali Shariati:Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution",MeripReports,no. 102 (1982); and Mangol Bayat, "Iran'sReal Revolutionary Leader", Christian May 24,1977. ScienceMonitor, and OtherWestern 2 See HamidAlgar, in A. Shariati,Marxism MizanPress, 1982), preface. Fallacies, (Berkeley: 3 M. Bayat, ibid. 4 The existing writings on Shariati tend to focus more on expoundinghis ideas thanon systematiccriticalevaluation.In the late 1970s a pamphletappearedin Tehranundera pseudonymAli AkbarAkbari(possibly, he was IhsanTabari,the chief ideologue of the Iranian Communist Party) entitled Bartrasi-ye Chand Some Social Issues). This work examines Shariati'scritiqueof a mechanical type of Marxism, ignoring the more critical and types of Marxism. sophisticated The works, in English, which discuss Shariati and his ideas include: Mangol Bayat, "Iran'sReal Revolutionary Leader", Christian Science Monitor, May 24,1977; M. Abedi, "Ali Shariati:The Architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran", IranianStudies, vol. xix, nos. 3-4, (1986); A. Sachedina, "Ali Shariati:Ideologue of the IranianRevolution",in J. L. Esposito
38 AliflO(l990)

of Shariati's Ideas ( Daftar-i Nashr-iAghayed-i Shariati 99:

(ed.), Voices of Resurgent Islam, (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press,1983);E. Abrahamian, Sharzati: "Ali Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution", MeripReports, no. 102, (1982); in H. Enayat, Modern Islamic PoliticalThought, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982), pp. 53-59; S. Akhavi, "Islam,Politics and Society in the Thoughtof AyatollahKhomeini,Ayatollah Taliqani Ali Shariati", and Middle Eastern Studies, 24, no. 4 vol. ( Oct. 1988). By farthe best discussion Shariati offeredby of is Ervand Abrahamian, RadicalIslam:Mujahedin Iran,(New in of Haven: YaleUniversity Press,1989),chapter 4. 5 These biographical notes have heavily drawn upon E. Abrahamian, Radical Islam,chapter 4. 6 See MehdiAbedi,op. cit., p. 230. 7 A. Shariati, Marxism OtherWestern and Fallacies, p. 21. 8 The present rulingclergyin Iran,too, attempts presentAli to Shariati the friendof the Islamicstate.Thisis clearin view of as the annualcommemorations, exhibitionsof his works,etc. At least one reasonfor this seems to be the fact thatAli Shariati is notatpresent alive,andthuscannot posea threat thelegitimacy to of the kind of Islam that the present ruling clergy in Iran subscribes HamidAlgar,in the Prefaceof the bookattempts to. to bridgethe gap of politicalstandand ideologicalorientation between Shariati and the ruling clergy. There seem to be numerous concretefacts thatworkagainstthis effort.To begin with,all theleaders Mujahedin of Khalq whohavewageda fierce battle against Ayatollah'sregime have been the studentsof Shariati. addition In quiterecently, Bureau the Diffusion the for ,^ >X), coordinated Shariati's by father,was shutdownby the authorities. Finally Shariati's widow, according to Abrahamianin RadicalIslam), statedthatif he werealive, he ( wouldcertainly in prison. be The earliest organizationalexpression of the rift between Shariati's orientation thatof thepresent and ruling clergyreflected itself in the organization the Forqan ,Jl9 group.This group of whichadhered "Shariati's to Islam"( one aspectof whichbeing anti-clericalism) embarkedupon the assassination of the prominent conservative clergy including:AyatollahMutahhari
Alif lO(1990) 39

under Shah), Ayatollah the (themainintellectual of Shariati rival on Rafsanjani Mofatteh, a failedattempt the life of Hashemi and (the presentPresidentof the Islamic Republic). Thereis no Algar'sclaimthatForqan group evidenceto support Professor owingtheirallegiance the to was "under command persons the of Marxism Other and former regime" to the U.S. ( in Shariati, and WesternFallacies, preface,p. 9 ). Almostall membersof the residing groupwerefromtraditional lower middleclassfamilies, in Gholhak, a neighborhoodin northernTehranwhere the the Husseinieh Center located; leaderof the groupwho was was killed by the Islamic regime, was the son of a groceryshop owner in the areawhereI used to go to school. Gholhakwas of beforethe famousfor its concentration Shariati-study-groups Revolution. 9 See Tom Bottomoreet al., eds., Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Oxford: ( Basil Blackwell,1984 ), p. 415.10 See E.P. Class,(London: Thompson, Making theEnglishWorking The of PelicanBooks, 1963 [1968] ); GeorgeThomson,An Essay on & 1949);andPaulBaran Religion,(London: Lawrence Wishart, and Paul Sweezy in various issues of Monthly Review, an independent socialist magazine. 11 GeorgeThomson, cit., p. 4. op. in 12 Some Marxistssuch as E.P. Thompson The Povertyof Williams Theory (London: MerlinPress, 1979),andRaymond and VersoPress, in Problems Materialism Culture(London: in and are 1980)argue for Marxthe "super-structure" "base" in that is and realityone andthe same phenomenon, theirseparation onlymetaphorical. Tabaqati-e Islam *sl (5 1-;Z? 13 A. Shariati, Jahatgiri-ye (ClassBias of Islam ) (Tehran:1359/1980),CollectedWorks, vol. 10, p. 16. 14 E.Abrahamian,RadicalIslam,chapter4. 15 S. Akhavi,op. cit., p. 407. 4. 16 E. Abrahamian, RadicalIslam,chapter 17 From Shariati's Lessons on Islamology, as cited in E. Abrahamian, RadicalIslam,p. 117.
40 Alif 10
(1990)

18 A. Shariati,Jahatgiri-yeTabaqati-eIslam, vol. 10, pp. 37-38. 19 J. Nyerere,Freedom and Unity: Uhuruna Umofa, ( London: Oxford University Press, 1962), cited in G. Kitching, Development and Underdevelopmentin Historical Perspective, (London:Methuen, 1982), pp. 64-65. 20 Gavin Kitching, op. cit. 21 In Iran, anti-dependenciaand anti-industrialismgenerated a very strong and somehow reactionary backlash. Jalaal-i Aal-i Ahmad, a well-known radical intellectual, termed this overall (technological, economic, and specially cultural)dependency of the Third World nations on the West as "Westoxication" (Gharbzadegi >X;.,; ). In a popularbook, underthe same title, he states:"Once [modern] machine established itself in the towns and the villages, no matterwhetherit is an engine-millor a textile factory, it would lay off the labourersof the local industry,make the water-mills obsolete, the hand-looms redundant,destroying the production of carpets, rugs and felt..." (in Gharbzadegi, Tehran, p. 49). Aal-i Ahmad, once a Tudeh (CommunistParty) member, advocated the revival of Shiism as the only ideology which would preventthe spreadof "Westoxication". It must be noted that populism spread also among the Iranian traditional Marxists. They too were nationalist, weary of large-scale and Western industrialism,being against not simply opulentand opulence but also against wealthper se. Some major Marxist leaders (such as Khosrow Gol-i Sorkhi, who was executed by the Shah for an alleged plot against the royal family in the mid-1970s) found in Islam certain revolutionaryaspects that could be utilized for the benefit of socialism. For a useful introductionto these discussions see Nazm-i Novin ;Xd+, no. 7, special issue on "Islamand Marxism"(New York, 1985) (in Persian); and Kankash ,,-&5 ( A Persian Journal of History and Politics), nos. 3-4, special issue on "TheIntellectuals" New ( York, 1988) (in Persian).

Alif 10 ( 1990)

41