Why is the Iranian Revolution considered a revolution?

[RadioRaheem84]

Can it technically be considered a revolution? Can revolutions be right wing?

The Iranians overthrew the secular progressive but brutal shah and instituted a parliamentary Islamic theocracy. That is a pretty big social change but is it considered a revolution if the actual change is still authoritarian and maintains the capitalist structure?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well in a certain sense it was progressive insofar that it was anti-imperialist. Still I don't think that this is a good indicator on the merit of the Iranian regime because these labels focus more on the form of a regime rather than it's political content: and the content of the Iranian regime is hysterically reactionary.

[RedAnarchist]

A revolution can be from any ideology, although most revolutions are either socialist or nationalist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that it's kind of a model for how revolutions transpire in the modern era in developed nations: mass civil unrest combined with violence and bloodshed, but not brutal, protracted civil war-style violence. There wasn't much of a social revolution in Iran, though, or if there was it was snuffed out by the clerics. It is true that very reactionary forces took over in the aftermath of the unrest, but I don't know enough about the event to know if this was a foregone conclusion or not...I do know that Iran's left made some very big mistakes in some of their dealings with the right, and many paid for those mistakes with their lives.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's called a revolution because most people aren't Marxists so their definition of revolution is non-Marxist, obviously. And even Marxists could call it a revolution as the common definition of revolution applies:

rev·o·lu·tion
/ˌrevəˈlo͞oSHən/Noun
1. A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.

2. (in Marxism) The class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.


Synonymsrotation - turn - rev - gyration

[Sentinel]

The islamists weren't the only force behind the revolution, even though they claim it as an 'Islamic revolution' now. Progressive forces also participated to overthrow the Shah; only afterwards did the Islamists turn the country into an 'Islamic republic'.

Comrades have described for me the feelings immediately after the revolution, the immense sense of freedom. But soon those pushing for theocracy got their way, and the victory of reaction was a fact.

This carries many lessons for socialists; that the bourgeois state can and will be overthrown under the right circumstances, but we better be up to the task of leading the working class to build something better in it's place - and that participating in popular fronts with reactionaries can have quite dire consequences.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If you ever get a chance, read Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel "Persepolis".

Marjane lived through the revolution as a child, and she describes the numerous ideological strains throughout the revolution as she experienced it. Her uncle Anoosh was a defector the Soviet Union years before and then returned (and suffered a nine year prison sentence for defecting).

But yes, there were quite a bit of left-wing and socialist threads in the movement to overthrow the Shah. But one Khomeini and his ilk took control.....well, we know how that turned out.

[RadioRaheem84]

A revolution can be from any ideology, although most revolutions are either socialist or nationalist.

Some historians claim fascism was a revolutionary movement. That it undid liberal democracy and ushered in the fascist model.

Of course it pretty munch bunk. I figured the same analysis was being applied to the Iranian revolution

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some historians claim fascism was a revolutionary movement. That it undid liberal democracy and ushered in the fascist model.

Of course it pretty munch bunk. I figured the same analysis was being applied to the Iranian revolution

There were elements of fascism that proclaimed their allegiance to Europe's revolutionary heritage, but these were definitely in the minority within the fascist milieu. Most fascists were outspokenly proud of their intentions to turn back the revolutionary tides through the ideology of fascism ("in it the French Revolution is superseded" -Goebbels)

[Red Nightmare]

The people who use the term "Iranian Revolution" quite simply do not mean "revolution" in the Marxist sense of the word. The Marxist meaning of the word revolution describes the overthrowing of one social class by another. The colloquial meaning of the word "revolution" simply means any great or sudden change and doesn't even necessarily have a political connotation.

[Devrim]

Why it is called a revolution is one question.

What happened in Iran though was one of the high points of working class struggle of the period. Workers' councils were formed and the government was overthrown through use of the mass strike.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Marxists call the Iranian and fascist coups political revolutions due to a restructure of govt but not much economic changes. Iranians as a whole aren't really into Islamism like I've heard Saudi Arabians are.

[blake 3:17]

I think it dishonest to say it wasn't a real revolution, while in no way giving support to the theocrats who rose to power. The society did change substantively and there was a redistribution of wealth following a popular insurrection.

The OP describes the Shah as "progressive", and perhaps that was exactly the appeal of Khomeini. I'd be wary of describing Iran as fascist, just as I wouldn't call Israel or Colombia fascist. The governments and para-state movements/institutions may operate in fascistic and undemocratic ways, but there is formal democracy and a relatively large space for "civil society" and space for disagreement.

[Nicolas_Cage]

It's called a revolution because most people aren't Marxists so their definition of revolution is non-Marxist, obviously. And even Marxists could call it a revolution as the common definition of revolution applies:

rev·o·lu·tion
/ˌrevəˈlo͞oSHən/Noun
1. A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.

2. (in Marxism) The class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.


Synonymsrotation - turn - rev - gyration

How does the agricultural revolution fit the criteria of either of those definitions? My definition of a revolution would any drastic change in society rather than explicitly implying an uprising in any manner.


And yes, the Iranian revolution was of course a revolution as it completely changed how society functioned. Whether for better or for worse (I don't need to give my opinion) it was indeed a revolution.




-NC

[hashem]

The Iranians overthrew the secular progressive but brutal shah and instituted a parliamentary Islamic theocracy.

this statement isnt true. shah was neither secular nor progressive. under his rule some religious laws were put into action: men could have up to 4 permanent wives and unlimited number of "temporary wives". only men had a right for divorce and they were the legal owner of children.
shah was a complete reactionary. he tried to replace modern culture with ancient Persian culture. he created a cult of personality around himself. i cant think of any kind of progressivism which macthes with monarchy.

on the other hand there is no sign of parliamentarism in Iran. current "parliament" is just a cover for dictatorship of supreme leader.

[hashem]

Well in a certain sense it was progressive insofar that it was anti-imperialist.

you cant claim that a political trend is anti-imperialist just because it opposes USA. didnt Hitlerites or Japanese fascists opposed USA? that didnt made them anti-imperialist.

any political trend can be anti-imperialist only if it opposes imperialism as a system, and proletariat is the only class which is capable of doing so.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

A close companion of mine who lived through the fiasco said that 'it was like having to battle the people you helped fight into power."

And YABM, just no. Iran is a despotic anti-working class regime that stands at odds with America's geopolitical interests for the sole purpose of expanding its' own geopolitical interests.

[RadioRaheem84]

this statement isnt true. shah was neither secular nor progressive. under his rule some religious laws were put into action: men could have up to 4 permanent wives and unlimited number of "temporary wives". only men had a right for divorce and they were the legal owner of children.
shah was a complete reactionary. he tried to replace modern culture with ancient Persian culture. he created a cult of personality around himself. i cant think of any kind of progressivism which macthes with monarchy.

on the other hand there is no sign of parliamentarism in Iran. current "parliament" is just a cover for dictatorship of supreme leader.

He was a modernist that wanted to Westernize Iran. He wasn't a real progressive in any sense of the word. Instead of being left wing he was a reactionary monarchist that only wanted to develop Iran into a modern society by his standards.