Iran, an interesting article without proletarian perspectives

Iranian woman protests at the Iranian embassy in Istanbul. Behind her is the “imperial” flag from the time of the Shah regime, as we often see at protests worldwide. Most Iranian youths do not know that the Shah also ran a reign of terror.

Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch.

We draw our readers’ attention to an article that discusses some little-exposed backgrounds of the current regime crisis in Iran: Friends of council communism, Revolt in Iran (in Portuguese and English).

Curiously for a text by “friends of council communism,” it is only at the end that the workers’ struggle comes up, without clear perspectives. For that reason, we refer to the following comment.

Comment by Aníbal and Fredo Corvo

The above text often cites interesting analyses from the bourgeois side (political scientists and sociologists). It is based on studies by Middle East specialists and Iran watchers. Of the latter, he mentions only Anwar Najmadin. A mention of sources is, unfortunately, entirely lacking. But as a publication that wants to give a voice to the working class, we cannot be content with the scenarios that intelligence institutes prepare in the service of the states and capital groups. We – like the author, for that matter – are not interested in predictions. The article’s introduction promises “opportunities for the expansion of the insurgency and for its deepening.” 

But “the uprising,” at present, is nothing more than a revolt from which several bourgeois groups hope to benefit. 

What is the promised deepening when the article speaks of a “bourgeois-democratic revolution.” Is the author thinking of a repetition of the “Russian” revolution of October 1917 that many still – and wrongly (*) – consider a bourgeois revolution, with the “inevitable” outcome being “state capitalism”?

Elsewhere, he speaks of “social-revolutionary Shiite movements”? And while the article is distributed in an environment where ‘social-revolutionary’ equals anarchism, anarcho-communism, and a council communism in the style of Otto Rühle? 

The article points out that among today’s protesters, we find supporters of a secular republic, and others of “a constitutional monarchy led by the descendant of the former shah, deposed in the 1979 revolution.” And then:

“in Iranian Azerbaijan, and partly in Kurdistan, demands for national independence have been expressed.” 

Where is the stand on these bourgeois republican and nationalist ideologies?

The ‘friends of council communism’ fails to speak out about the real opportunities that the various crises in Iran present to the proletariat. Which of the developments mentioned are opportunities, and which are threats to the working class?

In “The Crisis of the Islamic Republic,” the article concludes:

“The power struggle” between the two possible successors to Khamenei “may divide the elites and prevent them from suppressing protests. This division between leaders and factions may lead to some uncertainty in the system.” 

For the working class, it remains to be seen whether this internal power struggle in the IRGC will cause it to question its need for ruthless repression against the protests. There is no indication of “some uncertainty in the system” that would lead to restraint in repressing the protests. The IRGC-controlled “system” has based its power on Khomeiny’s ideology. Too much to give a fraction of IRGC the idea that it can distance itself from it without losing all power. Such “division” in the IRGC can only occur when its power is weakened much further than by the current headscarf protests, regional tensions and labor unrest.

But what if labor unrest increased significantly – for example, crippling the entire oil sector as it did in 1979, leading to the fall of the Shah? In that case, could the IRGC become as divided as the army and secret service were at the time? But as mentioned, the IRGC and today’s secret services are stuck on ideology. Not a national strike, but a workers’ revolution will sway their power. In that case history has proven countless times that the bourgeoisie, as the ruling and exploiting class, immediately ends its mutual struggles between different interests and even wars when the workers move, organized in councils for their class interests. In that case, the bourgeoisie’s priority is the repression of the proletariat. In this situation, the working class will inevitably face all bourgeois forces – from Islamists of all kinds, including the so-called “social-revolutionary Shiite movements,” through those trade unions and left bourgeois parties seeking compromise and “democracy” to the supporters of the Shah’s son. The workers should not allow themselves again, as in 1979, to be deprived of the power of their councils. Therefor, it is of the utmost importance that the workers develop their independence as a class in thought, in words, in deeds, especially in their organization independent of all bourgeois and nationalist influences.

In doing so, it is vital to be clear about the “Shura” tradition in Iran of self-organization of workers in companies, often translated as workers’ councils or soviets. The article links this tradition with the already mentioned “social-revolutionary Shiite movements,” which, however, are a dangerous ally of the Iranian workers, who will sooner or later turn against them. The article claims the following:

“that there are almost no trade unions in Iran. The trade union movement, characterized by reformist forms of struggle (appeals to the courts, references to certain official documents), is almost eliminated by the regime (perhaps except the teachers’ union).”

However, the official regime-friendly “Shura’s” – similar to the compulsory works councils in several European countries – play the role of state unions. Other Shura’s, such as that of Haft Tapeh, defend workers’ interests against the regime and are sometimes linked to illegal unions. If the class struggle intensifies, these illegal unions will develop in many directions, toward consultation and class peace or proletarian revolution. This would entail their internal tearing apart, given that in them the presence and action of ideologies and forces of the bourgeois left, today opposed to the regime of the ayatollahs but supporters of mixed or state capitalism in general, is evident.

Finally, the question of “the growth of Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Balochist and Arab nationalisms” and the “threat” of Iran’s disintegration. What is the position of these “friends of council communism”? 

The workers of Iran do not fear the “threat” of the disintegration of the Iranian state. They should be worried about their unity as a class against capital in all its forms. The position of council communism from the KAPD to the GIC is clear (**). Every nationalism is an ideology of the bourgeoisie. This is true of Iranian nationalism in all its forms: the Shah, the mullahs, the liberals, and left bourgeois parties who call themselves “socialists” and “communists.” It also applies to the bourgeoisie, which now sees an opportunity to win a constituency, foot soldiers, a clientele, a willing labor force, and, above all, cannon fodder for their capitalist interests based on Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Balochistan and Arabic languages. Against this, we contrast the international proletariat as a community of class interests. A community that – as Pannekoek argued – defends being allowed to speak your own language, just as it protects the interests of the poorest and most disenfranchised sections of the proletariat – such as refugees and landless peasants.

Notes

(*) See The fatal myth of the bourgeois revolution in Russia.

(**) See Anton Pannekoek, Klassenkampf und Nation (1912). Also available in Dutch, French, English, and Spanish.