[Militant, No 450, 6 April 1979, p 10-11]
The two months after the overthrow of the Shah have made it plain that the Iranian masses saw the Pahlavi monarchy’s downfall as only a stage on the road to national and social liberation.
As ‚Militant‘ reported last week there has been an enormous ferment in the workplaces in the cities and towns of Iran, with workers drawing up their demands. They are determined to use the democratic rights which they are winning in the struggle for better conditions.
To obtain these demands, workers have undertaken militant action. In Shahr-e-Ray, for example, the workers occupied the local Ministry of labour office and took forty Ministry employees hostage. They were demanding their pay for the last four months, a demand they won the next day.
Workers have not only been fighting for purely economic demands. Many workers, in particular the oil workers in Abadan and tractor workers in Tabriz. have been calling for the sacking of the old bosses and the right to elect new manager themselves. Workers at the General Heating and Ventilation factory in Tehran have been given permission by the government to run their factory themselves after the old bosses had fled. At the same time a struggle has been developing for full trade union rights and the dismissal of the old SAVAK-appointed ‚workers representatives‘.
Already some of these developments have run into opposition from Khomeini’s Revolutionary Islamic Committees and their militia. In Tabriz a workers‘ demonstration was harassed by militiamen who called the workers „communists“ or „SAVAK agents“ and fired shots in the air. A workers‘ meeting called after this in Tabriz reported that the bosses now tried to suppress workers by labelling them „communists“ and that workers who tried to form unions, committees, or other organisations had been hampered.
Khomeini has continually attacked communist and socialist ideas as „un-Islamic“ and said Marxists „are at war with Islam“. His supporters are continually attempting to whip up a nationalist frenzy against the left under the slogan of ‚Opposition to Imperialism, Zionism and Communism‘. Nevertheless, such is the pressure of the workers and the masses generally that even Khomeini has been forced to make demagogic attacks on the rich and grant concessions such as the cancellation of the water and electricity bills of poor people for the last six months of the old regime.
Some of Khomeini ’s supporters are trying to form ‚Islamic Trade Unions‘ – or ‚Islamic Associations in workplaces in an attempt to hold up the radicalisation which is taking place. But this will not work. If these organisations are going to survive as mass movements then they will be forced to fight for the workers‘ demands and would be transformed in the same way in which the former right-wing Catholic CFDT Trade Union Federation in France was radicalised. A failure to fight for the workers‘ demands would soon doom these Islamic groupings into becoming reactionary tools of the bosses and mullahs. Already workers are beginning to draw conclusions from their own experiences in the revolution. A workers‘ representative speaking to a big rally in Tehran at the end of February explained that “’the very foundation of our society was based on the activities of the working class. Look around you. everything in this country has been created by us and should we withdraw our labour power then everything would cease to exist. After all it was us, the workers, who took arms and invaded the army barracks. Do you know of any employer or lawyer who attacked the barracks?“
Tudeh Party
One of the main reasons for the absence, so far, of the development of an independent working class movement has been the lack of any clear leadership.
The Tudeh (masses) party, which in practice is the pro-Moscow ‚Communist‘ Party. had a mass basis in the 1940s but its links with Stalinist Russia and its failure to lead a vigorous struggle against the Shah have limited its appeal. Now in an attempt to build support by hanging onto Khomeini’s coat-tails, the Tudeh has issued an appeal for a ‚United Popular Front‘ which would “combine the strength of the supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. of the Tudeh and other revolutionary parties.”
No criticism is made against Khomeini. Noureddin Kianouri, a Tudeh leader, said just before the insurrection that – „The Ayatollah deserves the esteem of the whole Iranian revolution and has earned himself the title of leader of the political and religious opposition. The Tudeh Party fully backs his initiatives.“ He added that the Tudeh supported Khomeini’s plans for a referendum to establish an Islamic Republic.
Similarly the fairly sizeable ‚Marxist‘ guerrilla group, the Fedayeen-e-Khalq, have stressed time and again their support for the „progressive“ religious leaders like Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Taleghani“ and their opposition to attempts to „create disunity among the progressive forces of the country.“
The larger Islamic guerrilla group, the Mojaheddin, go even further. In a television interview, a leader of the group explained how the Mojaheddin ’s ideology conforms closely to Islamic principles and that they still take orders direct from Khomeini, „the spearhead of Iran’s revolution.“
These groups do not openly take up an independent working class position, and fail to explain the necessity for the working class to take power if the gains of the revolution are to be consolidated and extended. Only the socialist transformation of society can provide both a guarantee against reaction and lead to the solution of the crisis gripping Iran in the working people’s interests.
They must rely only on their own power and solidarity. They should build, extend and link up their own organisations, particularly democratic workers‘ and soldiers‘ revolutionary committees against the unelected, self-appointed Revolutionary Islamic Committees
A policy of seeking to mobilise support for a socialist revolution would mean explaining to the working class that it is necessary to have no confidence in either the Bazargan government or Khomeini. They must rely only on their own power and solidarity which already has toppled the Shah. They should build, extend, and link up their own organisations, particularly democratic workers‘ and soldiers‘ revolutionary committees against the unelected, self-appointed Revolutionary Islamic Committees.
The Tudeh leaders, apart from continual calls for an alliance with Khomeini, have up to now restricted their demands to vague calls for „a government which would recover the plundered wealth of the country.“ There have been no socialist policies advanced or any criticism of Khomeini. A call was made for a “ national democratic regime“ but this has now been played down and the Tudeh is supporting an Islamic republic.
The only occasion when the Tudeh has been prepared to take an independent stand was a call in the middle of February for all the guerrilla groups to keep their weapons „until all vestiges of imperialism, colonialism, despotism and counter-revolution have been destroyed. “ But the socialist programme necessary to destroy these dangers was not put forward.
The Fedayeen, while still praising Khomeini and offering to co-operate with the Central Revolutionary Islamic Committee on arms control, have put forward a more independent programme than the Tudeh. Their main call has been for the election of democratic committees in factories, businesses, government offices and military bases. Alongside this has been the demand for the disbandment of the old army and the creation of a ‚people’s army‘ with elected officers. While calling for a ‚!true and democratic‘ land reform“, cancellation of all farmers‘ debts and handing over of big farming enterprises to their workers, they do not put forward socialist demands for the rest of the economy.
The Fedayeen have stressed the „unity of all forces fighting for democracy and progress … and expected all popular and patriotic forces to co-operate in the struggle for democratic liberties and against the exploitation of man by man.” This striving for unity irrespective of clashing class interests was best illustrated in the Fedayeen’s 11 March appeal to the Bazargan government to „swiftly control the present situation“ to prevent Iran being „plunged into an unwanted civil war.”
In a letter to Bazargan’s government the Fedayeen asked it to make use of „all political organisations in the country so as to be better able to fulfil its obligations.“ This was a repeat of the Fedayeen’s earlier demand for a place in the government!
The Islamic Mojaheddin have followed policies very similar to the Fedayeen by appealing for “unity“, for the election of democratic committees. and creation of a ‚people’s army‘. But at the same time Massoud Rajavi, the Mojaheddin leader, explained that while they stood uncompromisingly for the improvement of workers‘ living conditions the „ownership by industrialists faithful to the nation was in no danger.“
Mosadeq’s heirs
At the million-strong rally to commemorate the 12th anniversary of Mosadeq’s death Rajavi declared that the Mojaheddin did not want the „disintegration of the Bazargan government. We shall support you in the direction of the historical and patriotic role you should play. We are only the bane of the imperialists. We hope you shall gain all the powers of a strong and responsible government and move into the mainstream.
This massive Mosadeq rally, which was the first mass demonstration of the Iranian revolution not organised by the mullahs. saw the launching of the National Democratic Front (NDF). This was started by a group within the old National Front led by Mosadeq’s grandson, Matine-Daftary. who opposed the old leadership ’s opportunism and inability to organise any mass support. The NDF announced an eleven-point programme which demanded that the referendum be confined to the abolition of the monarchy. the calling of a Constituent Assembly, the establishment of people’s courts, the right of home rule for all nationalities in Iran and the establishment of a Revolutionary Co-ordinating Council.
The NDF proposed that the Revolutionary Co-ordinating Council be elected from “workers, government employees, guilds and other progressive strata“ to supervise the Provisional Government’s work. It called for the establishment of a „people’s army (in the place of Khomeini ’s militia). While supporting the right of workers to participate in the administration of offices and factories through workers‘ councils and demanding the abolition of the „economic oppression of all peasants and workers of the land“ the NDF statement failed to clearly point out how „the abolition- of dependent capitalism through the destruction of the rule of imperialism“ could be achieved.
To break Iran from the fetters of imperialism means to smash the power of capitalism itself in Iran. Only through the nationalisation of the major sectors of the economy (the foreign investments and the expropriation of the 22 families who own the biggest part of the economy), and the establishment of a state monopoly of foreign trade can the impact of imperialism, the world capitalist market, be reduced. But even then an isolated socialist Iran would still be subject to enormous capitalist pressures until the overthrow of capitalism in the advanced Western countries or the overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracies in the Soviet Union and the other deformed workers‘ states.
The failure to understand the nature and role of imperialism as something intimately tied up with the existence of capitalism in Iran leads to the position where the Tudeh, Fedayeen, Mojaheddin and the NDF support, to varying degrees, Bazargan, the representative of the Iranian capitalist class. This politically totally disarms the working class. Bazargan is attempting to defend the continued existence of capitalism in Iran by holding back the further development of the revolution. This has to be made clear to the masses.
The oil-boom of the past few years in Iran conclusively showed that capitalism, even when in an upswing, cannot solve the problems facing the working class and peasants. The key question facing the Iranian working class is the struggle for a socialist Iran, both to solve the social crisis and to strip the ruling class of their power and ability to later impose a new dictatorship. But this will not be achieved in co-operation with the Bazargan government; it can only occur through the overthrow of the capitalist government. Socialists in Iran must explain this, first to advanced sections of the working class and then, through them, to the mass of the class.
Similarly Khomeini’s position must be undermined by exposing his reactionary attempts to limit the gains of the revolution and explaining the utopianism of his populist demands, a process which will be enormously aided by the march of events themselves.
All the major problems in Iran remain to be solved. The widespread support for the creation of an ‚Islamic Republic‘ (which would still be capitalist) will not answer any of these problems. It does not show the mass of Iranians how living standards can be raised and how the masses‘ democratic rights can be secured. The ‚Islamic Republic‘ means all things to all men.
For Prime Minister Bazargan it means the continuation of the capitalist system with a number of cosmetic changes like calling interest charges ’service fees ‚ and widespread use of the word ‚Islamic‘. But Bazargan himself has said this clashes with what he called the people’s „ludicrously high expectations of material gain as a result of the revolution.“ Furthermore, he added, after a year of crisis the state had no income „yet workers at the big factories expected everything to be given to them at once. There was no co-operation with the government.“
National movements
Alongside this growing pressure of the working class and urban poor, there has been the rapid development of national movements in Iran in the past few weeks. Only just over 50% of the Iranian population speak Farsi (Persian) as their first language. Most of the rest of the population are of separate nationalities, of whom the most important are the Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis and Turks. These minorities have suffered under the Shah with the wholesale repression of their national rights. They saw the overthrow of the old regime as an opportunity to gain concessions for their national aspirations.
This has been the reason behind the outbreak of heavy fighting in Kurdistan and Turkoman as the Kurds and the Turkomenis have been determined to secure for themselves autonomy and access to weapons to make sure that they are not suppressed again.
In this quickly changing situation it is only a matter of time before there will be a mighty development of the labour movement. Already the advanced layers of the working class have drawn political conclusions from their experiences. They will increasingly be joined by the mass of the class as events shatter the illusions of an ‚Islamic Republic‘ which, would create a new „equal society“ and do away with the gulf between rich and poor.
But it is highly unlikely that this development of the labour movement would be reflected in any mass growth of the Fedayeen or Mojaheddin given their programmatic confusion, their mainly student base and their illusions of power flowing from the large amount of military hardware they seized during the uprising. In fact the possession of arms without a clear political perspective leaves these groups open to provocation later by the government of Khomeini in order to crush them.
The Tudeh may emerge as a major force inside the working class, particularly in older, longer established industries like oil. But the Tudeh’s past history, its links with the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union and its lack of an independent policy inside Iran will tend to limit its appeal.
In this situation it is entirely possible that a mass workers‘ movement could develop through another door, such as the NDF or a split off from the National Front or NDF. Neither of these movements even claims to be ’socialist‘ at present, but in the absence of another channel the working class could transform them. There could then develop either a Peronist-type movement, a capitalist party with a mass working class base, or a PASOK-type socialist party.
The experiences of both the Peronists in Argentina and of PASOK in Greece have shown the tremendous struggles which would develop in such organisations as the class struggle unfolded. Any mass force that emerges in Iran would be under great pressure from the working class to carry out radical measures, and it would be in this situation that masses of workers would be won to the ideas of Marxism as their experiences showed them the need for the socialist transformation of society.
Independent workers‘ committees
The task of Marxists now is to explain the processes which are taking place, to show the inadequacies of the programmes which are being advanced and argue for independent working class policies, based on the need for the organisation of the working class movement; the election of democratic committees in every workplace and military unit and the linking together of these committees on a district, regional and national level.
These committees would have to launch a determined struggle for the people’s immediate needs – such as democratic rights, a 40-hour week, a higher minimum wage, a crash housing plan, the control of prices, the right of self-determination and autonomy for the national minorities. All this would be linked to the necessity of an independent workers‘ government which would nationalise the major industries, take over the property of the 22 families which control Iran, and draw up a socialist plan of production.
Such a campaign would mobilise the vast mass of Iranian people in a huge movement which would be able to bring the Iranian revolution to victory by the coming to power of the working class and the creation of a socialist Iran. The imperialists and Iranian capitalists have at present no means with which they could stop such a movement.
All that is preventing the rapid overthrow of capitalism in Iran is the absence of an independent workers‘ party campaigning on such a Marxist programme. But in the course of the unfolding of the revolution the ideas of Marxism can get a wider and wider response. This can lead to the development of such a party capable of guiding the Iranian workers and peasants to a democratic socialist Iran, which would be an inspiration to working people throughout the world.,
| ‚Militant‘ pamphlet ‚Iranian revolution‚ Price 10p plus 5p post and packing. Bulk orders [5 or more] post free. Available from World Books, 1 Mentmore Terrace, London E8 3PN |
Schreibe einen Kommentar